Home | Community | Message Board

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4006857 -

Ha Ha Ha Skorp!

To the Daba :japsmile:

I personally buy into the big bang stuff myself as it makes the most sense as of yet to me. I want to know where the stuff that caused it came from. Plank, Black radiation Oh Yea! Fun stuff! It's all interesting. Where did the stuff on the plank scale come from? Where did the black radiation come from.

I am not arguing a thing here as this post to me was about asking questions. I want to know how people can be so sure of things. I want to know if they have asked the questions to themselves I have posed here and what answers they came up with. This post for me was purely an information seeking, looking to understand others more endeavor.

I have nothing to debate here as I have no beliefs here. This is a "I don't know , have questions, want to know more  to understand more thread. "

Speaking of evolution......the width of this post keeps evolving out far and wide. Whats up with that too?


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4006897 -

gettin jiggy, why does something have to create it ? it is just there, it always has been, it always will be ; )

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4015220 -

gettinjiggywithit said:
I personally buy into the big bang stuff myself as it makes the most sense as of yet to me. I want to know where the stuff that caused it came from. Plank, Black radiation Oh Yea! Fun stuff! It's all interesting. Where did the stuff on the plank scale come from? Where did the black radiation come from.




This all originated from the existence of blackbodies. We define a blackbody as one that absorbs energy and then radiates some of it out. It's called a blackbody because it absorbs wavelengths rather than, persay, a shiny object which reflects most of the light and absorbs some of it. A blackbody absorbs most of it, and a perfect blackbody absorbs ALL light and energy.

So the question was, at which wavelengths was the energy density for the blackbody the highest? That is where the Energy Density u(lambda) vs. lambda (see the graph near the bottom of this post) came from, and that is the curve you might be most familiar with. It was a mystery at first, and Rayleigh-Jeans did predict the curve at large wavelengths, but ended up with a term we call the ultraviolet catastrophe since his equation blew up to infinity as lambda (wavelength) approached zero. What Planck did, in his infamous equation, was make an equation that best fit the curve...

Oh, I should add that the curve was plotted FIRST, at high temperature blackbodies absorb lots of energy and light (say T = 1000?C) and as you may be familiar with, such blackbodies glow (like heating and iron up until its "red hot"). In particular, experiements were conducted by shooting light of different wavelengths at a blackbody and measuring the respective energy that was radiated. Planck made a plot that best fit this curve, and so it has become known as Planck's Law.

Now what does this all mean? Well, we can use Planck's Law in everyday life. You may have asked yourself, why does the sun appear yellow? Well, if you look at the curve of the plot of energy density vs. wavelength, as shown below



you see that at the peak, the highest energy is emitted. Conviniently, this plot also shows the visible spectrum (lambda = 400-700nm) and yellow is right dab at the tip of the curve for the temperature of the sun, which is approximately 5800K (5800 degrees Kelvin). As a result, at this wavelength (yellow) the most energy is emitted and that is why the sun is yellow. Similarly (say at T = 5000K, as shown in the graph), that "blackbody" would appear reddish since it's peak resides right at the red wavelength.

This relation to the Big Bang was explained in my previous post. I'm a bit fatigued right now so I'll explain it in depth later if you are interested.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: daba]
    #4015436 -

That was sweet daba!

What is your take on the white hole theory if I can ask?

Where or what have you been studying from?

Got any cool links?


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4020340 -

I'm studying engineering at UC Berkeley.

I'm not familiar with the white hole theory.

It's midterm time, so I can't elaborate now -- maybe later.


--------------------
Fold for The Shroomery!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: daba]
    #4057325 -

Whew I'm done with midterms!

What else do you want to know, gettinjiggywithit?


--------------------
Fold for The Shroomery!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: daba]
    #4058844 -

I don't have links, but the theory goes that white holes are the other side of a black hole and how new universes are created as energy transfer.

This could be akin to the Big Bang Theory, relating the process to the spewwing out of a white hole.

I asked you only because I saw you used the word radiation related to how far science has come to understand the nature of the big bang.

You already said you were not familiar with white hole theory, but maybe, you may have some considerations to impart.


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4059280 -

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/050328-8.html

Figured I'd bring it up, not necessarily true, just yet another stance.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4059404 -

I have no idea what Daba will have to say about that article but something in it was of relative interest to me. Thanks for posting it!


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4060714 -

Hi jiggy & all....

I'm new here, but I have some info regarding evolution.....on this planet

Darwin was wrong...in 145 years, nobody's found evidence of a transitional species...and the supposed 'missing links' have turned out to be hoaxes...

It seems the 'creationists' were wrong, too...everything wasn't created all at once 'back then'...where did the bunnies and chihauhas hide during the dinosaur era ?

The best explanation seems to be periodic 'genetic & dna tweaks' by ET genetic scientists. If you read Lloyd Pye's articles in Nexus, he explains it rather well, particularly the 'sudden' appearance of domesticated plants & animals...

Here's some links to the 2 articles...well worth reading..

Darwinism - Lloyd Pye
Intervention - Lloyd Pye

Peace to all


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4060766 -

Thank you for opening my eyes. I'm sure aliens can theoretically displace reproduction of the best DNA mutations extremely well.

Though of course, if there's genetic and DNA tweaks, which is redundant, and those also happen naturally even from your parents to you, why are aliens necessary? Simple answer, they're not.

I don't see how people cannot believe in evolution after looking at the way viruses are responding to humanity. Even theoretically, evolution is an elementary foundation of life. If a virus develops mutations due to time and their environment, and a drug is put in the body to kill the virus, but a few viruses with certain mutations are immune to the drug while the others are not and all die, then the viruses with the immunity reproduce... well, that's natural selection right there. No God needed.

All life is just that on a grander scale.

Quote:
Does anyone question how stable the idea of evolution without creation is when it sits on a "theory"?



Do you realize your entire perception is a theory? You've never been outside your body, so how do you know what's beyond your vision? You don't, you theorize using what your vision has shown you. Science has shown us pieces that fit together like a puzzle, that explain most of the evidence and that allow us to develop technology and research information that proves our theories correct time and time again. Everything is a theory really, even laws need only one wrong trial in a circumstance to disprove them, but that doesn't mean we can't use the information we have.


After reading your posts, it's odd the way you think of evolution. Natural selection does not "do" anything. Natural selection did not give us the ability to daydream, fantasize and sleep. The death of your ancestors did. Natural selection is a completely neutral name given to time and reproduction. So think of it this way:

Why would your ancestors have been more likely to reproduce when they could fantasize, dream and sleep than if they couldn't? We don't fully understand sleep and such yet because we don't fully understand the human mind, but those who couldn't do these functions died out, hence evolution. It's possible that they lived as long as your ancestors, but they didn't reproduce because they couldn't fantasize about sexual experiences to engage in them and produce offspring. Perhaps those who couldn't dream died off because certain neurons atrophied. Nobody claims to know all the information.

But what does seem to be obvious is the fact that evolution has evidence compared to the alternative. There are blanks we need to fill in, because to be honest we're talking about the creation of consciousness in the universe here which is a huge topic large enough for millenia of research and information, but what does creation have? Creationism is like a leech that tries to crawl into the areas we are theorizing about and suck out the science and information from the theory of natural selection, yet it never gets anywhere. We ask where the matter from the Big Bang came from, which we'll possibly find out from quantum physics and string theory, but if there was a creator, why don't we ask where he came from? Where did he get the matter to create the Big Bang? Why is he there?

Creationism has just as many questions as the theory of natural selection, yet it has no evidence to support it, no scientific theories to balance it. All it does is try to fill the warm wombs of ignorance, in the hopes that we won't find the information within its lifetime and have to kick it out of its comfy spot.

Quote:
If evolution built in our emotional body and ability to feel for others with a purpose for insuring survival of our species, if you think emotions are useless and override them with intellect, why? Might it be a lethal move for our species?



No, because if we weren't meant to override emotion with intellect, we would die off. The beauty of evolution is that "we" only follow our natural mutations and personality, and those who live and reproduce are those who determine the future genetics of the species. If we need an emotional body to survive, then that's what we'll get, because those who don't follow that mutation won't contribute their DNA as much over thousands of years.

You talk about how scientists and those supporting evolution seem to try to deny and belittle emotions, but since when has the bias of a few of the thinkers ever changed the nature of evidence and truth? They might seem this way not because emotion isn't necessary for human evolution, which it probably is, but because emotion is part of our intellectual theory of evolution and human psychology. Intellect helps explain emotion, but emotion is only a feeling, a lower form of instinct that may eventually die out to the higher processing of perceptual evidence we call intellect.

Who knows? The only one who would claim all the answers is a fool, but that's why we go with the perceptual evidence we have.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4060788 -

Well, here's my take on evolution. It seems to me to be the most logical explanation as to why life exists in the many forms that it does, yet at the same time, it's hard to believe that something as marvelous as, say, the human brain came about by accident. Simply put, I just don't know and can't say one way or the other and I often question things.....

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: Ravus]
    #4060873 -

This post had a very different intention from my usual posts which is why it sounded different from me.

This was my I DON"'T KNOW these things for sure post, how does anyone else? I HAVE QUESTIONS and here they are. WHO HAS ANSWERS?

This is I don't know any of this for sure (though I have my own theories and opinions) thread for me. I don't ask questions often, ussually because the questions I have , no one can answer. I thought I would throw them out there and see who has what since some people sound so sue about where all this shit came from and how and why it's here when no one does.

Right now, I am at a mix that involves both creation and evolution as in some creations were created to evolove naturally on their own.

Regardless of my own theories, no one knows for sure where all of this matter in the physical universe came from, why or how exactly.

I was feeling humbled in that not knowing and definetly meant to inspire some humility in others as at the time I posted this, some people were getting waaaaaaaaaay over sure of stuff we as humans have no clue about.

Saying the need for sleep and the fact that we enter dream states while asleep and have the ability to imagine things came from our ancestors doesn't really answer my questions. I appreciate your attempt at it though, fuck, I don't know myself which is why I asked.

I didn't post on the ET intervention theory. That came from some newbie. Welcome newbie. (I can't catch your name on this page.)

It makes sense to me that there was ET intervention. You asked why they would bother? How much time do you have? I don't care to take the time to write it because I can't prove it nor care to debate it.

If darwins theory as it is works for you then roll with it. I see way to many holes in it. He himself said that there was not enough time for us to make the leaps we did during the missing links periods and like newbie (sorry) mentioned, recent "fossil evidence" discovered to fill some missing link periods was fraudulent. The Discovery channel just did a show on it too. 

I realise often I talk confident and as if I know a lot from experience, yet beleive me when I say there is a shit load I realise I don't know and have a bajillion questions I don't bother asking because they go unanswered or just frustrate people.

Like I added one today about the white hole theory. Who here can I chat with about it? The only responce I got was an article that said black holes don't exist.  :crazy2: :lol: ( I got some cool stuff reading between the lines though from it :wink:)


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: For Evolutionists? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4061609 -

hi jiggy & ravus

The ET intervention theory doesn't preclude the macro-evolutionary growth of life, which is energised by the creative,zero-point energy, of the ever-expanding godstuff that makes up this universe....

But sometimes even creation can use a helping hand.....

Peace



blue orb video


--------------------

Edited by Ganesh2005 (04/16/05 02:53 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* wavelengths.. hypothetical Cracka_X 1,120 10 06/04/08 04:11 PM
by Cracka_X
* Challenge for Evolutionists
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,898 32 12/01/02 12:27 AM
by johnnyfive
* Different wavelengths circastes 367 8 04/26/13 04:19 PM
by Hobozen
* evolutionists
( 1 2 3 all )
SneezingPenis 1,786 45 03/06/11 12:09 AM
by Poid
* No voting right for evolutionists! OrgoneConclusion 227 1 08/29/11 06:04 AM
by LunarEclipse
* Does A Photon Have Awareness?
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 3,203 28 05/04/05 04:27 PM
by cubed
* The History of Evolution
( 1 2 all )
rizingfire 4,569 26 12/19/09 09:30 PM
by Icelander
* Natural Selection? rizingfire 757 2 12/05/09 07:11 AM
by rizingfire

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,411 topic views. 1 members, 195 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.