• beyondtheveil said on Apr 12, 2009....

  voltaire- So many theories, so little time. I will never like the big bang theory. It is absurd for me to think all matter (which doesn't exist anyway) was compacted so tightly it disappeared and waited for the right time to 'explode'. I think we first have to break away from matter completely to find the universe's origin.
  
  There is the theory that matter is created through the thought of life throughout the universe similar to the strong anthropic principle.
  
  One of my favorites is the 'one electron theory'. This was initially proposed by John Wheeler during a phone call to one of his former students Richard Feynman, both world class physicists. Feynman took the idea and suggested there is one electron (and possibly one photon and neutron) in the entire universe. If an electron comes into contact with a gamma ray it becomes a positron and travels back in time. This means there can be an infinite number of appearances of electrons simultaneously.
  
  Since all electrons are perfectly identical this could be the reason. It would require an even number of electrons and positrons in the universe and some physicists believe there is a much larger number of one over the other, but they could easily be wrong.
  
  Imagine the possibilities if this were true. Imagine the tiny size of the universe under this theory. There are already many theories that the universe is illusory anyway. There is also the theory that the universe 'blinks' on and off (in and out of existence) something like 10 to the fortieth times a second. It might fit right in, wouldn't it? The actual universe under this theory could be no larger than a single thought, and how large is that?
  
  I actually like this theory better than the big bang. To begin with, the big bang begins where no physics exists, then expands into all matter of the cosmos out of nothing. Which one is the more absurd?
  

• Voltaire said on Apr 12, 2009....

  Beyond,
  With some "additions" it can do some sense, the big bang theory.
  
  It doesn't just sit there and wait until it's so dense that it explodes.
  It keeps getting denser and denser with time thanks to the implosion.
  When its dense enough it gets unstable and explodes, you can see this with certain explosives under pressure. It will always be where it is.
  
  Physics would exist, however they would be either many times greater then now or almost none existent. Such a dense ball of energy would probably lead to either extreme.
  
  I think matter is not the solution, but it can lead us in the right direction, as you may know it seems most matter is moving away from the centre of the universe.
  So in practice there would have to be a larger amount of electrons in the universe.
  Or it is the result of a explosion causing the "bubble" to expand and as it does the matter follows to fill out the emptiness?
  
  If this electron theory (without reading up more on it) is true, then shouldn't it be impossible to predict anything? To me it seems it would be a much more random nature to it.

• beyondtheveil said on Apr 12, 2009....

  voltaire- To be honest I don't really understand any of the theories. I don't believe in the one electron theory, I like it to think about.
  
  The most fascinating part of the big bang to me is first, it didn't explode at any point in the universe, but seemingly everywhere. And second, from any place in the universe everything is expanding outward which defeats logic. This was a huge problem with me until I understood that bodies aren't moving through space, but the space between bodies is expanding and carrying the bodies.
  
  Also, I've been led to understand no known physics existed in that density. I can't remember where, but in my reading it says all known physics breaks down at a point along the way, which means nothing can be said beyond that point.
  
  So, if that's true, how can words like denser, implosion, stable or unstable, and an example of explosives under pressure mean anything?
  
  How do you believe in the big bang and also believe the universe is pure energy  and pure energy is consciousness? (which I do)
  

• wolframpp7 said on Apr 12, 2009....

  William Ockham

• wolframpp7 said on Apr 12, 2009....

  William Ockham lol

• travelr712 said on Apr 12, 2009....

  btv, the current prevailing theory is that during that infinitessamily small point at the beginning of the universe, the 4 basic forces, gravity, magnatism, strong and weak nuclear forces, were joined as a single, or unified force. the expansion began when gravity split off from the other forces. since the current laws of physics wouldn't work under those circumstances, then there is no way for us to really understand what it was like, and space/time as we know it now didn't exist either, so there is no way to say how long this form of the universe lasted. it is also currently believed that the space between objects is not void, but that it is a form of energy that we can't understand yet, dark energy. this energy is increasing, causing the objects in the universe not only to be moving away from each other, but also accelerating while doing that. those last two elements have been concisely proven, the universe is expanding and speeding up. also, all motion is relative to the observer, so the galaxies closest to us seem to be moving away from us more slowly than galaxies farther away from us. but to an observer in a small galaxy, the galaxies closest to them would appear to be moving away from them more slowly than our galaxy is. i do like your single electron theory tho, because it takes time into account along with space, and einstein and many other physicists since have proven that space and time coexist, similar to the way hydrogen and oxygen coexist to create water. separate entities, but observed at any point, seemingly a single entity with different characteristics than each individual element.

• gingersoul said on Apr 12, 2009....

  After the first manifestation of energy Parmenide uber alles, Voltaire....:-)
  
  Before that, only theories...a primordial blah blah broth where one theory is not better than another one..
  
  Even poor Albert scratched his head for years about it....quantum physics now is the closets to have a wider spectrum of options and scenarios, even though not clear explanations..
  
  I like what BeyBey said..."bodies aren't moving through space, but the space between bodies is expanding and carrying the bodies"......ah, the infinitesimal mystery of all this....:-)
  
  But its always a mind blowing journey even only thinking about it, isn'it?

• tonibell said on Apr 12, 2009....

  beyound; parallel universes

• gingersoul said on Apr 12, 2009....

  
  Voltaire.....i thought this music was perfect to accompany this post...;-)
  

• Voltaire said on Apr 13, 2009....

  Beyond,
  If I read a theory I try with common sense to see if it fits.
  The ground basis for that is that I understand the theory somewhat well.
  
  Ah yes I came to think about something..
  Know what defines both time and space? (it can "bend" both)
  
  Gravity.
   If it is so dense it could indeed break off physics as we know it. I
  t would be a million  times stronger then a black holes gravitational pull.
  So it could indeed mean the rule of physics we know today didn't exist.
  
  You need to keep in mind though that they never really are constant at any place.
  They are for example constant towards mass and yadda yadda...
  But different planets have different mass etc. There fore they are not constant throughout the universe.
  
  Travelr712,
  Yes dark energy is a interesting thing indeed!
  Last time I read they thought before big bang it was a wet plasma spot.
  
  Ginger,
  No mind blowing it isn't. Interesting, yes.
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 13, 2009....

  Cosmologists seem to update their wild and crazy ideas every so often when they discover yet another mind-boggling truth about the universe.  It was not that long ago that they first realised that we were part of a galaxy.  That stunned the scientific world.  Then they saw billions of galaxies out there and the universe instantly became billions of times bigger than they thought.  That was a real freak out.  I am still amazed at the vastness of it all.  It is literally impossible to describe it in words.
  
  At some point it was noticed that all these galaxies were moving apart and some guy said they must all originate from one point.  It all seems logical.  But so many discoveries seemed logical until they were overturned.  It has hapened so often.  Now we are dealing with dark matter and dark energy to make the latest theory work.  We don't know what it is or even exactly where it is.  They say they have an idea but as usual, I question this.  I am not completely convinced there is dark anything and that there was a Big Bang at all.  It will take more than the invention of mysterious stuff that nobody can see or touch or measure.  It is all based on the unexpected movement of our galaxies in relation to each other.  They won't behave properly according to our laws of physics. 
  
  I hate to say it, but perhaps our laws of physics simply don't apply the same way way out in the emptiness of space - in the voids of intergalactic space.  I don't know this for sure of course but I do know the rules break down when we deal with the atom.  Then we have quantum physics and that is so strange it defies reality.  It makes no sense at all, yet it is there and it works.  We use quantum theory for our modern technology and it works perfectly.  Can we be missing something out there?  I think it is possible. 
  
  Now to tie all of this stuff and ideas in together and ponder if there might be a consciousness out there.....  Who knows?  I think just about anything is possible at this point.  The question for me is "what is consciousness?"  Exactly how aware are we?  What are our limits?  Is it real or is it an illusion?
  

• RollingC said on Apr 13, 2009....

  :^)

• PieterOpie said on Apr 13, 2009....

     ••
  \___/
  

• Voltaire said on Apr 13, 2009....

  Opie,
  Yes with ever new discovery's new ideas spawn.
  However, it's not odd is it?
  With new knowledge new ideas would spawn, it's always been like that no?
  
  We can't really be sure anything we know is a 'fact'.
  Our knowledge is far to limited to take anything for granted.
  
  As for what consciousness is, "google":
  Define:consciousness
  
  You will end up with a few definitions of what we think it is today.
  

• beyondtheveil said on Apr 13, 2009....

  trav- I agree with everything you said about the current prevailing theory, but it should also be realized that the 'current prevailing theory' is just that, the current one. The big bang is one more step to our later understanding, nothing more. My theory is that the big bang fifty years (or less) from now will be like the Newtonian universe is now to people who keep up with physics. And it will be like Ptolemy's universe much later, brilliant at the time, but laughable.  

• travelr712 said on Apr 13, 2009....

  oh, i agree btv. one of the things that i like about science is that it can be, and always is, challenged. new information, new models, new understanding continues to come, but the models, information and understanding in the present is vastly useful.
   
  i have my own theory that universes are created at the center of black holes, where the physics of a particular universe change to create a different set, a new universe. but there's no way to prove that idea because one would have to go through a black hole to find out. it's an interesting theory to me nonetheless.

• beyondtheveil said on Apr 13, 2009....

  trav- It is true we will never know what happens inside a black hole, but a very interesting object, nevertheless. A singularity with infinite density could lead to just about anything.
  
  Physicists say they come in sizes from microscopic to the giants at the center of galaxies. There are the rotating and non-rotating. And they evaporate under the right conditions. I've never understood how there could be a microscopic black hole. It does take a certain density to create one, like a collapsed star and a large one at that. Have you read anything that explains how one could be created? Could they evaporate to that size and remain a black hole?
  

• travelr712 said on Apr 13, 2009....

  well, from what i know, the size is only determined by the event horizon. there are theories that suggest black holes can merge, thus increasing the diameter of their event horizon, which would in turn increase their intensity and influence or, it could be said, their power. but in the end, they are all, as you said, a singularity of infinite density, which is exactly how the singularity that started the big bang is described. it's just that we're on the receiving end of that one, not the production end. in my theory, the black hole that created the big bang singularity is still consuming matter and energy from the parent universe, which could explain why our universe is expanding and increasing in speed.
   
  until about 20 years ago, black hole theory was not taken seriously. as a result, most serious work concerning them have been on the ones that can be detected, as you said, at the center of galaxies and whatnot. the only thing that science, until recently, knew that had the gravitational influence to create such conditions was a massive star. however, more recent data from super accelerators has shown that under the right conditions, fusing electrons can create these conditions on a microscopic scale. this is one of the concerns about starting  up the hadron collider, that it will produce one of these which will begin to consume the earth and grow as it does, eventually sinking to the core and distroying the earth. but since black holes operate outside our universe, they operate outside our understanding of the laws of physics, so how they are really created and sustained is still a mystery.

• beyondtheveil said on Apr 13, 2009....

  trav- I must say, that hadron collider story reminds me of the scientist who said that if you go above 35 mph, the effects would suffocate a person so a train's speed must be closely monitored. I would bet a hundred nights with Angelina Jolie it would take a lot more than the hadron collider can produce.
  
  But fusing electrons and creating a microscopic black hole is intrigueing, look at all that energy.
  

• travelr712 said on Apr 13, 2009....

  that's what most of the physicists have said. of course, oppenheimer had a concern that when he detonated his first bomb, the chain reaction would vaporize the atmosphere on earth. it was always my opinion that if it were possible for atomic energy to propogate like that, then the sun would never stop expanding, and this universe would be nothing more than an enormous ball of hot gas. like me :-D

• beyondtheveil said on Apr 13, 2009....

  I've had my hot air days, maybe this is one. 

• PieterOpie said on Apr 13, 2009....

  May I jump in?   BOING!!!!   Thanks.....
  
  Just a minor point (picky picky...)  the amtosphere is already a gas (like vapor).  Some thought it would ignite the atmosphere and burn it off leaving us without any air to breathe.   I'm not sure what would have fuelled such a burn off but there you go. The sun cannot expand the way you mention because it is too massive.  Gravity stops it from ballooning out.  That will eventually happen when our sun gets old and tired.... sigh...  and has used up much of the hydrogen that it came with when we bought it at Walmart.  Then it will grow and grow and engulf us and that really will be the end.  Then the christians will say "See, we told you so!!"
  
  In fact the Sun is so heavy and dense inside that light generated by the reactions deep within it take a million years to reach the surface and escape into space.  The speed of light is not constant everywhere.  When stars explode (nova) all that light trying to get out escapes all at once so you can imagine how bright that bang is.... (very very very.... bright) in fact it is brighter than the output of the entire galaxy together.    woooohoooo!!!!!  
  
  

• travelr712 said on Apr 13, 2009....

  stars can grow to incredibly much larger than our sun. here is a set of comparitive pictures. anteries is larger than the orbit of mars. oppenheimer and others were afraid that once they started the chain reaction, it would not stop and consume, or vaporize, the atmosphere of the planet. but you're right opie, the sun is the size it is because of the interaction between it's size and gravity, just as the dampening effect of the earth's atmosphere eventually absorbed all the energy of the bomb and did not ignite.

• PieterOpie said on Apr 14, 2009....

  I have imagined a universe as part of a larger "megaverse" or "omniverse" in which our universe is just one of many.  These universes might be parallel or even overlapping.  I'll let some bored gullible mathematician worry about that.  After all, Einstein married one to do just that.  He still used his fingers and toes.  That's why he often wore no socks you know....   (hehe)
  
  But enough rubbish....  In such a megaverse universes would be created (and possibly destroyed) all the time.  They would simply come into being sponteously.  I believe quantum theory allows for this sort of magic.  Black holes might simply be the crew that cleans up by collecting all the stuff in the universe and squashes it back out of existence to whence it came (from).  Then who knows, it might then instantly be at the point where once again it pops back into existence by way of a big bang.... note.... A big bang - not THE big bang.
  
  The megaverse has probably always existed and has no beginning and no end.  We seem to want thngs to have a beginning.  I don't.  I am happy to know something has always been there - wherever "there" is. In this case, everywhere.  EEEEK....  I am freaking myself out.  Need a break.  (waaaahhh)
  
  But before I go....... if it has always existed, then there was no initial creation.  Therefore there is no need for a god.  Sorry Jesus....   HA!!!  (now unemployed)
  

• Voltaire said on Apr 14, 2009....

  Opie,
  I see what you are saying, the black holes are bending "room" and thus linking our universe to another universe. Interesting indeed!
  
  As the gravity is capable to bend "time" and "room" it could very well be possible that the black wholes sort of transport matter from universe A to B.
  
  This could be used to sort of keep a balance in matter among all universes.
  
  I can imagine there could be new created by black holes, when a new black hole is made it bends "room" and opens up for a new universe, then it begins to transport matter to the place.
  
  But that would make a universe as large as the amount matter the black hole could transport to it.
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 14, 2009....

  No.  That is not exactly what I meant.  But it is sort of like that. 
  When you say "room" I think you mean space (empty space).  Black holes do distort time and space.  Even stars do that and planets also do it to a small degree.  Any large mass does it.
  
  In black holes gravity has become so strong that the atomic structure of matter collapses and even light cannot escape the pull inwards.  They can only ever grow more massive consuming more and more matter.  At least that is the simple version of what happens.  
  
  I am speculating that black holes will continue to do this until they eat up the whole of the universe.  Then it might reach such a massively huge mass that not only does it crush everything but it actually collapses into a further stage of density.... infinite density - and at that moment the black hole explodes and creates a new universe. 
  
  It is just an idea..... 
  

• travelr712 said on Apr 14, 2009....

  you're right piet, we want things to have a beginning and an end, because we have a beginning and an end, so that's how we see things, it colors our perception. quantum physics is proving that there are multiple dimensions and multiple universes. size is relative too. if a sentient entity were the size of a galaxy, the universe would look much smaller to it than to us. if we sentient humans were the relative size of an electron, we may never know that there is a universe out there, it would be just too vast for us to detect.
   
  so, as i was saying before, my theory is that universes are continually created and distroyed at the center of black holes, at the moment a black hole goes active. but the physics are different in each black hole. perhaps the overall frequency that quarks vibrate at is different from ours. that means, in essence, they could take up the same space as our universe at a different time, so they would coexist but not interact in any major way. or the physics is different enough that they exist in their own space and time that is not relative to ours in any way. overall though, i think it's like a cosmic glass of beer, universes are formed by black holes the way bubbles are formed, pop, and more are formed in the beer. it's a continuous cycle, because each new universe eventually produces its own black holes that create new universes. since time and space, to us, began at the big bang, we naturally try and put this function of universes into that framework. to try and conceive of a process that had no beginning takes what i call 'fourth dimensional thinking'.
   
  ok, think of it this way. and this illustration is imperfect, but it's as close as i can come to explaining it in a way that can be grasped. if time bends, then it will eventually bend back on itself. once that happens, there is an infinite loop. no beginning, no end. that seems to suggest that there was a beginning, but like relativity shows us, that's all in the viewpoint of the observer. once the loop was closed, then it always existed and will always exist. no beginning, no end.

• Voltaire said on Apr 14, 2009....

  Opie,
  Often the most common "dimensions" one talks about it room and time.
  I didn't check the translation to much really, they are almost the thing.
  Space that is.
  
  Travlr712,
  I see.
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 14, 2009....

  Voltaire,  In English the word space is the word we use in cases relating to all of this.   
  
  For example:   outer space....  space travel....  spaceship....  space exploration....  the space-time continuem.... 
  
  You would never use the word "room" in these cases.
  
  Uses for room:   lots of room....  I need more room...  is there any room left?   Leave some room for something else....  no room left....
  
  
  This has been Pieter's One Minute English Class...... hahaha!!!!
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 14, 2009....

  Travelr:  You have left me behind and now I am frightened.  I did not really follow that very well.  I understand the relativity of the different scales....  and then I die....??????????

• travelr712 said on Apr 14, 2009....

  these concepts can be difficult to grasp piet, because they are not commonly explained. the only way to go much deeper is to express them mathematically, and you have to learn that language before you can understand it. but it is nonetheless true, because it is repeatable, you can make usefull calculations that result in consistant, correct answers every time.
   
  look at it this way. go just outside the atmosphere, throw a truck, and try to hit the moon. but the thing is, it's gonna take 3 days for the truck to make it to the moon, so you can't throw it at where the moon is now, you have to throw it at where the moon is going to be in 3 days. how the hell do you do that? well, you use formulas like the ones we're talking about. the fact that the apollo program actually did make it to the moon 6 times, and could have done it as many times as they wanted had the funding not been pulled, shows the repeatability, and thus the truth, of those forumlas. pretty cool, huh? :-)

• beyondtheveil said on Apr 14, 2009....

  trav- In space programs, they use classical Newtonian mathematics to send rockets into orbits, or the moon, or elsewhere. If they were stretching the limits, relativity would have to come into play because Newtonian math breaks down at upper limits. So those formulas are only right under more simple circumstances like rockets. They are limited, they won't work approaching the speed of light, for example, or under very high densities.
  
  The relativity theories are also considered 'classical', but only because they do not utilize Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle.
  

• travelr712 said on Apr 14, 2009....

  you're right of course, btv. i was taking a general view of mathematics and physics, i didn't mean to suggest that quantum physics math was used for moon shots, although some theorums and formulas are common to both, and many quantum formulas have their roots in newtonian physics. i know my examples are oversimplified, but when i'm talking to people who have never really heard or studied much about these things, i find it's better to start with simple illustrations before moving to more difficult concepts.

• beyondtheveil said on Apr 14, 2009....

  trav- And you're right about some quantum theorems coming from Newtonian math. Also relativity. If my memory serves me, Georg Reimann (sp), long before Einstein  came up with curved geometry, and four dimensional spacetime was developed by Minkowski.
  
  Its always this way, on anything. Charles Darwin didn't coin and orginate 'survival of the fittest', someone else did. Its quite amazing how credit is given in a blanket way to so much, when in truth, the big names took the last step.
  
  Isaac Newton is usually credited with this (presently fitting) saying, "If I have seen farther than any other man it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Even that credit is wrong. I found that saying put much more eloquently by St Bernard of Chartres five hundred years earlier.
  

• travelr712 said on Apr 14, 2009....

  and the storiesof adam and eve, and of noah, came from sumaritan texts written a thousand years earlier than genesis. i like that quote by newton / st bernard btw :-)

• PieterOpie said on Apr 14, 2009....

  Beyondtheveil said:   "In space programs, they use classical Newtonian mathematics to send rockets into orbits, or the moon, or elsewhere."
  
  Actually that is not entirely true.  Objects that travel very fast but nowhere near the speed of light are also affected by effects of gravity, speed, etc..  An astronaut in orbit will experience a little bit of time difference.  When they return to earth they are then a few seconds younger than the rest of us. When they are in orbit time slows down for them.  The same goes for people on jets flying long distances from one continent to another, although it is only a small fraction of a second.  Einstein's theory is used to calculate the position of and the signal coming from the satellites used for GPS.  To maintain accuracy the small difference in time has to be calculated and corrected.  Their are other such applications as well. 
  
  The men that went to the moon are all younger than they would have been if they had not gone. They tested the theory by taking on of two super accurate atomic clocks into space and it came back showing a few seconds difference.  TRUE!!!
  
  If they had orbitted the planet Jupiter then they would be younger still because of its huge mass.  
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 14, 2009....

  more:---
  
  If a spaceship could fly fast enough "out there" then it could actually arrive back on earth BEFORE it left.....
  
  EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK !!!!!!!!!
  

• travelr712 said on Apr 14, 2009....

  well, you're both right piet. they did use classical newtonian physics to reach the moon, and the astronauts were affected by quantum physics while they were going there.

• beyondtheveil said on Apr 14, 2009....

  opie- All of what you say is true. Time dilation is one of the more fascinating aspects of the special theory. Time dilation is very present in high gravitational density. For instance, if there was a spaceship at low speed right at the edge of an event horizon going into the horizon, and another spaceship far away looking at the first one, they could watch their lifetime and never see it move. But in the first ship, the entering might take only seconds to them. A large enough black hole affects time near it's horizon that radically.
  
  There is a chart on the net somewhere that shows calculated effects of time dilation due to different velocities.
  
  Never mind, I found one ; http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html
  
  There is really not much effect until about 7 tenths light speed.
  
  
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 14, 2009....

  is it quantum physics?????? or relativity?  <<<<<<<(yes)
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  
  B. >>>   "There is really not much effect until about 7 tenths light speed. "
  
  No worries.  I have a scooter that can really move.....  ZZZOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!
  
  Oh........ that was 12 mph..... (D'oh)
  
     I actually got OLDER!!!  DAMN!!!!
  

• Voltaire said on Apr 15, 2009....

  Time dilation is very fascinating indeed.
  
  
  Opie,
  Send your scooter to NASA I bet they could tune it for better speed.
  hehe
  
  
  
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 15, 2009....

  It is the kind you push with your foot so that won't help much....
  
  I need a bicycle......  
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 15, 2009....

  NO...... wait......
  
  I'll go a quantum leap further!!!!
  
  A  MOTORBIKE!!!!!    YES!!!!
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 15, 2009....

  But first I want to go back to the question Voltaire asked in the beginning.
  Could the universe give rise to a "god" kind of being - an intelligence made of pure energy?
  
  It just occurred to me why we humans (and other animals) have intelligence.  It is so that our bodies can interact with our environment and survive.  Life began as simple single celled animals which combined with other simple life forms and it resulted in more complex and more capable animals better able to seek out nutrition and reproduce.  Their purpose was to send their blue-print; their DNA into the future to an unknown destiny.  To do this successfully animals became more "intelligent" so they could avoid being eaten and keep on reproducing.  Many failed but some did not, and they eventually gave rise to life on earth as we now know it. 
  
  However billions of years later and the purpose is just the same.  To pass on the DNA to future generations.  For humans this has become a very complicated business.  It may even look like that purpose is only one of many things we do.  Why is that so?  We have been lucky to be the right animals that were able to use our hands and our voices to a more refined degree than any other animal that ever lived before.  We could make things and communicate in a very complex manner.  Those two factors have led to our incredible rise to the top of the intelligence pyramid.  Of course that is if we judge intelligence by how we are able to manipulate our environment in order to do what we were originally meant to do - send our DNA into the future. 
  
  So far we have done that quite well, despite all the fine-tuning with migration, wars, culture, religion and everything that we do.  Now we are facing our biggest challenge.  Can we survive the changing environment? 
  
  So what is my point?  Why would pure energy need to develop and evolve into a very intelligent entity?  There is no body to feed or protect.  There is no body to reproduce and no DNA to send on to future generations.  So why would it ever be necessary for a big bunch of energy to form intelligence and become an individual being with all kinds of abilities?
  
  I cannot imagine why.....
  
  So what else could result in such a being?  Could beings like us eventually shed our physical bodies and stop the whole DNA journey?  I would not say it was impossible.  However would we then be humans?  Or would will still think the same way?  Why would we need to?  Would we continue to evolve and become more intelligent?  Where would that intelligence reside?  In some kind of structure made of pure energy?  I would like to know who that would happen without a physical framework.  I cannot imagine such a thing.  That does not mean it is impossible but I'm just not smart enough to understand how that could work. 
  
  So for now I am going to say that it is unlikely but perhaps it is possible.   I don't see how it could happen.
  
  
  

• beyondtheveil said on Apr 15, 2009....

  opie- Perhaps to the pure energy consciousness, intelligence is something radically different than our view of intelligence. Same with emotion, a necessary commodity for anything we know of to create, or enjoy, admire, or receive richness beyond a certain base level.
  
  Perhaps in these two areas, we are to the entity as a molecule in a cell is to us. All those words you used; intelligence, body, future, physical being, structure, framework, and so many others could well be meaningless to that entity, an entity that simply in an illusory form to us reveals a tiny manifestation of it's realm we see as a universe.
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 15, 2009....

  There is one thing about my post I now understand very clearly... and that is that it was five times longer than it needed to be.   I should know better than to write anything so soon after taking my medication.....  hehehe     You can imagine what I'm like on speed....  oh boy..... 
  
  Anyway, I understand what you mean by a totally alien concept of consciousness.  One that has no resemblance to our biological forms.  That is fine.  I just cannot imagine why such an intelligence would evolve and for what possible reason.  My puny brain just doesn't like your nebulous genius.  Why?  WHY?????
  
  (aaaaaaaaaaarrrrg.......)
  

• Voltaire said on Apr 16, 2009....

  Why would pure energy need to develop and evolve into a very intelligent entity?
  
  I sure think you know the answer, coincidence.
   Some links came together in a favourable link and began to sort out a "network" of energy, sort of like our brain is a network of cells.
  Maybe it also has a "will" and wants to learn.
  Maybe our atoms can store information that this "network" of energy can "read".
  
  Heck it might even be so that we are sort of information gatherers to this entity.
  It created us to gather information, ideas, knowledge etc.
  
  Maybe it is like a super computer and can't think for its self yet has a will of sorts.
  Almost like a AI.
  Maybe this "super computer" takes part of our daily lives and takes care of us, sort of it makes out destiny, past and present.
  
  As far as I know we might just be part of a computer game, we have free will to a certain degree. The rest is what some call "destiny", "fate" and bla bla bla.
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 16, 2009....

  I can see it being the result of something more primitive which evolves and finds a way of transferring   its intelligence to an energy based system rather than a biological one, but I cannot see why or how - not even over billions of years that would just happen without any previous motive or need.  If atoms or stars or space dust had a will, then by now we would be swimming in energetic life.  it would literally be everywhere.  I suppose it may be everywhere.... but it does not appear to be doing anything.  Perhaps all it does is collect knowledge and wisdom.  But then what?  Why?  It has no physical body.  It cannot manipulate the matter around it.   So what would be the point?
  
  It is all just fantasy born out of science fiction movies.  I don't believe in ghosts.
  

• Voltaire said on Apr 16, 2009....

  It can, in theory, manipulate matter. Since matter is also energy.
  And we know energy can manipulate energy.
  
  As for the Why? question, maybe the physical body was to limited in storing all info.Energy however could build up patterns of info in enormous sizes, without us even noticing it.
  We do not know how to "notice" such possible energetic being none the less.
  We may lack both technology and/or knowledge of how to notice such beings.
  
  As far as I'm concerned the Hindu idea of Brahman might just be true.
  We just don't know it's there.
  
  Opie, I agree for some it might sound like science fiction, it is indeed a very abstract idea/thought.
  
  
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 16, 2009....

  Can you give me an example of how energy can manipulate energy?
  
  And I am not familiar with the Hindus or the Brahman or how they relate to this discussion. 
  
  I think that all kinds of things are possible and our technolgy already does what would have been considered pure magic only a century ago.   I am typing this on a laptop computer with a screen that is only a few millimetres thick.  That is like science-fiction come true.  We are in many ways living in the future right now.  That makes me think that with enough time we will eventually be able to do things that we cannot even imagine now.  
  
  So I do not want to dismiss the possibility of a consciousness housed in some sort of  energy matrix.  How it would work I have no idea.  That is not important.  What I am saying is that it would be the result of matter based life forms reaching a stage in its evolution so that it can make that leap into a new phase of existence.  However, creating such an entity is not necessarily the same as us becoming that entity.    We may be destined to confined to our material flesh bodies forever.   Anything else would no longer be us but rather something we built. 
  
  I might be able to build a robot with a "brain" that acts like me and "thinks" like me, and do all the things I do but it would not be me.  It might be a copy... but it would never be me.... just like me.
  
  As for an energy life form coming into being without being created by a material life form is for me a very hard to believe jump.   It makes no sense to me.   But then, It doesn't have to make sense to me..... 
  

• Voltaire said on Apr 16, 2009....

  Think of energy manipulating energy in a sort of "chain reaction" sort of ripples on the water. I will need some time to get my mind on a concrete example, it's late at night here right now...
  
  The Hindu Brahman is a god like being that is part of everything, and is the goal to reach when dying, without being reborn. You said energy would then be everywhere, part of everything. Just like the Hindu Brahman happens to be.
  
  Yes much today is magic a years back.
  
  Good Night,
  Voltaire
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 16, 2009....

  No... no..... It is 9AM in the morning here.   The sun is shining!!!
  
  (hehehe)   Relativity.......??
  

• Voltaire said on Apr 17, 2009....

  09:46 AM here now. Ha! Lovely weather here to. ,:-)
  Guess it is relativity indeed! Different location to? ;D
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 17, 2009....

  Wrong again.... it is now 7:38 PM on Friday evening - April 17. 
  
  You live in the past.....  I am the future!!!! 
  

• Voltaire said on Apr 17, 2009....

  Opie,
  There is something wrong with your clock. *grins*
  You must be in a stronger gravitational field then me. ;P
  
  

• beyondtheveil said on Apr 17, 2009....

  My time's way off from both of you.
  
  There's a well known vortex one state over from me - that must be it.
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 17, 2009....

  Yes, you're right.  That is why we ended up "down under".....
  
  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
  
  
  

• Voltaire said on Apr 17, 2009....

  Beyond,
  I guess so.
  
  Opie,
  lol
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 17, 2009....

  Beyond???  
  
  You see... Australia is referred to as Down Under
  
  You know... because it's down there.....  down below....  below the equator.  On the other side of the planet.  Underneath..... On the bottom.   DOWN UNDER!!!!
  
  It's a language thing......................................  Gravity = down = under 
  
  FORGET IT!!!!
  

• Voltaire said on Apr 18, 2009....

  I thought they got the "Down Under" thing from women?? ;P
  
  Especially since you said;
  You know... because it's down there.....  down below....  below the equator.  On the other side of the planet.  Underneath..... On the bottom.   DOWN UNDER!!!!
  
  hehehe
  
  Later,
  Voltaire
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 18, 2009....

  Hmmmm............   

• beyondtheveil said on Apr 18, 2009....

  voltaire- I don't think opie 'gravitates' that way. 

• Voltaire said on Apr 18, 2009....

  Beyond,
  No, really?
  As far as I know someone might be able to get a laugh out of such a joke.
  Whom ever might have as black and/or odd humour as me.
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 18, 2009....

  But French humour is from a different universe to ours.  We do not understand it and you do not understand ours.  
  
  French jokes come from the galaxy in that other universe called "Jerry Lewis".....
  

• RollingC said on Apr 19, 2009....

  Next you'll be seeing " Elvis " !

• Voltaire said on Apr 19, 2009....

  Opie,
  French humour is it? Fitting name with Voltaire then. *grin*
  
  RollingC,
  Elvis eh? Always wanted to meet that bloke. ;-P
  

Comment on "2 theorys"

Currently tagged	theory universe mystery thoughts god big bang Occams Razor (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously