| Users Online Now: 1,928 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 716,608 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,152,105 | Threads Today: 458 | Posts Today: 6,814 |
| 12:20 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,928 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 716,608 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,152,105 | Threads Today: 458 | Posts Today: 6,814 |
| 12:20 PM | ||
. | |
| Krazy Effin Ivan User ID: 28065956  United States11/27/2012 05:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Education & Academic History: Quoting: Person445 1977 - Undergraduate degrees in mathematics and physics at Ottawa's Carleton University, having earned first class honours. 1982 - Physics Ph.D. from Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1982 to 1985 - Member of the Harvard Society of Fellows 1985 to 1993 - Assistant and then associate professorship at Yale 1993 to 2005 - He went on to serve as the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, Professor of Astronomy, and Chairman of the department of Physics at Case Western Reserve University 2008 to present (2011, at least) - Foundation Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics Department, and Inaugural Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University Scientific Background: Lawrence Krauss is a cosmologist, meaning that he studies the origins of the universe. In fact, he now runs the Origins Project at Arizona State University, which is a "transdisciplinary initiative that nurtures research, energizes teaching, and builds partnerships, offering new possibilities for exploring the most fundamental of questions who we are and where we came from." In this capacity, together with his scientific writing, he seeks to spread knowledge about the origins, evolution, and history of the universe to a general public. Krauss and Scientific Controversies: Lawrence Krauss is not one to shy away from a controversy, and working to find the origins of the universe can certainly cause some controversies. Religion and Science: Though he is an atheist, he often takes a devil's advocate-style position which at times places him in amiable conflict with some more prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins (who once said Krauss asked him an "I'm an atheist, but..." question, which are far harder to tackle than the outright pro-religion questions). It seems that Krauss's goal is to teach everyone - the faithful and the atheist - what science tells us about the universe and its history, not particularly caring about changing their underlying belief structure. String Theory Critic: Krauss is one of the most prominent and respected critics of string theory. His 2005 book, Hiding in the Mirror details the history and allure of invoking extra dimensions as a physical explanation, and calls into question whether this is really justified. Well darn if this is true, when Obama is finished with the US it will be another universe!! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28600674  Germany11/27/2012 05:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Education & Academic History: Quoting: Person445 1977 - Undergraduate degrees in mathematics and physics at Ottawa's Carleton University, having earned first class honours. 1982 - Physics Ph.D. from Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1982 to 1985 - Member of the Harvard Society of Fellows 1985 to 1993 - Assistant and then associate professorship at Yale 1993 to 2005 - He went on to serve as the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, Professor of Astronomy, and Chairman of the department of Physics at Case Western Reserve University 2008 to present (2011, at least) - Foundation Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics Department, and Inaugural Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University Scientific Background: Lawrence Krauss is a cosmologist, meaning that he studies the origins of the universe. In fact, he now runs the Origins Project at Arizona State University, which is a "transdisciplinary initiative that nurtures research, energizes teaching, and builds partnerships, offering new possibilities for exploring the most fundamental of questions who we are and where we came from." In this capacity, together with his scientific writing, he seeks to spread knowledge about the origins, evolution, and history of the universe to a general public. Krauss and Scientific Controversies: Lawrence Krauss is not one to shy away from a controversy, and working to find the origins of the universe can certainly cause some controversies. Religion and Science: Though he is an atheist, he often takes a devil's advocate-style position which at times places him in amiable conflict with some more prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins (who once said Krauss asked him an "I'm an atheist, but..." question, which are far harder to tackle than the outright pro-religion questions). It seems that Krauss's goal is to teach everyone - the faithful and the atheist - what science tells us about the universe and its history, not particularly caring about changing their underlying belief structure. String Theory Critic: Krauss is one of the most prominent and respected critics of string theory. His 2005 book, Hiding in the Mirror details the history and allure of invoking extra dimensions as a physical explanation, and calls into question whether this is really justified. Lawrence Krauss is a joke...just ask anyone at ASU ASU is a joke just ask Lawrence Krauss |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28008747 United States11/27/2012 05:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Those String-Theory freaks are only geometrization maniacs. They think anything is geometry because they are math-nerds. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27204451 While I don't agree with the deductions made from string theory per se, and it is true that anyone looking for coincidence will find it... Everything is math. Everything fundamentally comes down to a binary system of 0\1, yes\no, left\right, nothing\something. Yin and yang. Everything is about patterns and sequence. Every decent physical theory is expressed in math. That's why Krauss is sometimes search for words. He knows the concept mathematically, physically, but he has to make his brain translate that into a rough English representation. In my opinion, math is the language of God. Well maybe music too. But not English or French or Chinese. Music is very numerical as well. I mean rhythm is just a frequency of occurrence and melody only has tone when intervals are created between notes. It's very visual to some people the same way geometry is to others. While I'm a bit apprehensive about using the word "God" (so as not to confuse the belief with a specific anthropomorphized interpretation of a higher power), I think math is the language used to explain an infinitely consistent form of perfect order. Same thing, I suppose. Yes music is mathematical as well. And both are spiritual. When I wrote that I was hearing the 3rd movement of Mendelssohn's violin concerto in my head. There's inspiration there, for sure. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28566470 Germany11/27/2012 05:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Education & Academic History: Quoting: Person445 1977 - Undergraduate degrees in mathematics and physics at Ottawa's Carleton University, having earned first class honours. 1982 - Physics Ph.D. from Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1982 to 1985 - Member of the Harvard Society of Fellows 1985 to 1993 - Assistant and then associate professorship at Yale 1993 to 2005 - He went on to serve as the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, Professor of Astronomy, and Chairman of the department of Physics at Case Western Reserve University 2008 to present (2011, at least) - Foundation Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics Department, and Inaugural Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University Scientific Background: Lawrence Krauss is a cosmologist, meaning that he studies the origins of the universe. In fact, he now runs the Origins Project at Arizona State University, which is a "transdisciplinary initiative that nurtures research, energizes teaching, and builds partnerships, offering new possibilities for exploring the most fundamental of questions who we are and where we came from." In this capacity, together with his scientific writing, he seeks to spread knowledge about the origins, evolution, and history of the universe to a general public. Krauss and Scientific Controversies: Lawrence Krauss is not one to shy away from a controversy, and working to find the origins of the universe can certainly cause some controversies. Religion and Science: Though he is an atheist, he often takes a devil's advocate-style position which at times places him in amiable conflict with some more prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins (who once said Krauss asked him an "I'm an atheist, but..." question, which are far harder to tackle than the outright pro-religion questions). It seems that Krauss's goal is to teach everyone - the faithful and the atheist - what science tells us about the universe and its history, not particularly caring about changing their underlying belief structure. String Theory Critic: Krauss is one of the most prominent and respected critics of string theory. His 2005 book, Hiding in the Mirror details the history and allure of invoking extra dimensions as a physical explanation, and calls into question whether this is really justified. Lawrence Krauss is a joke...just ask anyone at ASU ASU is a joke just ask Lawrence Krauss  |
Frater  User ID: 1193197 United States11/27/2012 05:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Universe did come from nothing :) Quoting: Frater Ain Ain Soph Ain Soph Aur From Nothing Limitless Limitless Light and all matter is just condensed slow energy Where does that energy continue to come from? Now that is a divine question. LVX, Frater Hint, see this diagram: [link to media-cache-ec6.pinterest.com] The energy flows down the tree progressively getting more dense. Best Wishes Daath should not be pictured. Yes and No depending on opinion. Drawing it with a bunch of curved dashes seems ok to me. It's an opinion though and I respect both sides. Frater LVX! |
| God Loves ALL User ID: 27800314 United States11/27/2012 05:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | One can make nice patterns and ideas and until they relate to measurable quantities, they don't do much. That's where string theory still is, although a lot of really smart people feel it contains truth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28008747 Krauss is talking about actual measurable things. When he says "nothing" he means a describable space that contains no "stuff" but does contain energy. If one took that energy and converted it to matter (E = m c^2) could you then evacuate it somewhere else and end up with space that contains no energy and no matter? Probably there's some limit on when you can or can't do the energy to mass conversion -- the conditions for it to occur wouldn't be present in "nothing". NESTED UNIVERSES He says that if a new universe were created in the palm of your hand, you couldn't watch it develop because it would immediately become a black hole, hence unobservable from the outside. Let's imagine that happening and call it the "inner universe", the one we're standing in is the "outer universe". So we have nested universes. I guess the reason the i.u. would form a black hole is because it would be negligibly small but with positive energy or mass (enough for a big bang). So consider this new inner universe after its own big bang. It is expanding within its own space, although all this is unobservable from the o.u., me standing there looking at my palm to see what's going on. But now since it's a black hole, some of the mass from o.u. might get sucked into it. I might even get sucked in. The mass that is sucked in would reappear as mass or energy in i.u. So now, if WE are in an i.u. which looks like a black hole to some even more-outer universe, isn't it possible that new matter or energy is appearing as if "by magic"? Wonder how it appears. As mass is added, it causes contraction. But if it's energy, it would cause expansion. And yet, by general relativity, mass and energy can convert from one to the other. Does this happen in a way to balance or control the expansion rate of the universe? If our universe were a black hole and sucking in matter/etc. perhaps that could be an alternative theory to explain the expansion of our universe. The expansion is actually more matter being added. Think of it like a ballon expanding and from our perspective (which is always the "center") space is expanding, which it is. You ones will keep up at this as long as you do not read and understand Walter russell. The actual Lord's Prayer Given by Jesus 2000 years ago. "MY SPIRIT, YOU ARE OMNIPOTENT. YOUR NAME IS HOLY. MAY YOUR REALM BE INCARNATE IN ME. MAY YOUR POWER REVEAL ITSELF WITHIN ME, ON EARTH AND IN THE HEAVEN. GIVE ME TODAY MY DAILY BREAD, AND THUS, LET ME RECOGNIZE MY TRANSGRESSIONS AND ERRORS, AND I SHALL RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH. AND DO NOT LEAD ME INTO TEMPTATION AND CONFUSION, BUT DELIVER ME FROM ERROR. FOR YOURS IS THE REALM WITHIN ME AND THE POWER AND THE KNOWLEDGE FOREVER, AMEN. Nice video: [link to www.youtube.com] Make this World a Better One Thread: Walter Russell Quotes Walter Russell thread |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28008747 United States11/27/2012 05:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | One can make nice patterns and ideas and until they relate to measurable quantities, they don't do much. That's where string theory still is, although a lot of really smart people feel it contains truth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28008747 Krauss is talking about actual measurable things. When he says "nothing" he means a describable space that contains no "stuff" but does contain energy. If one took that energy and converted it to matter (E = m c^2) could you then evacuate it somewhere else and end up with space that contains no energy and no matter? Probably there's some limit on when you can or can't do the energy to mass conversion -- the conditions for it to occur wouldn't be present in "nothing". NESTED UNIVERSES He says that if a new universe were created in the palm of your hand, you couldn't watch it develop because it would immediately become a black hole, hence unobservable from the outside. Let's imagine that happening and call it the "inner universe", the one we're standing in is the "outer universe". So we have nested universes. I guess the reason the i.u. would form a black hole is because it would be negligibly small but with positive energy or mass (enough for a big bang). So consider this new inner universe after its own big bang. It is expanding within its own space, although all this is unobservable from the o.u., me standing there looking at my palm to see what's going on. But now since it's a black hole, some of the mass from o.u. might get sucked into it. I might even get sucked in. The mass that is sucked in would reappear as mass or energy in i.u. So now, if WE are in an i.u. which looks like a black hole to some even more-outer universe, isn't it possible that new matter or energy is appearing as if "by magic"? Wonder how it appears. As mass is added, it causes contraction. But if it's energy, it would cause expansion. And yet, by general relativity, mass and energy can convert from one to the other. Does this happen in a way to balance or control the expansion rate of the universe? If our universe were a black hole and sucking in matter/etc. perhaps that could be an alternative theory to explain the expansion of our universe. The expansion is actually more matter being added. Think of it like a ballon expanding and from our perspective (which is always the "center") space is expanding, which it is. You ones will keep up at this as long as you do not read and understand Walter russell. So does W. R. agree or disagree? Could you briefly describe his take on this set of issues? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28348701  United Kingdom11/27/2012 05:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28008747 United States11/27/2012 06:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | but i bet if i asked Lawrence Krauss for all his possessions he'd say NO! even though they are made of nothing Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28348701 No they are not made of nothing. In fact they are made of something, and something else has to have a negative balance for them to exist! That's why they're so ezpensive. ;) |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28008747 United States11/27/2012 06:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 28008747 United States11/27/2012 06:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | One can make nice patterns and ideas and until they relate to measurable quantities, they don't do much. That's where string theory still is, although a lot of really smart people feel it contains truth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28008747 Krauss is talking about actual measurable things. When he says "nothing" he means a describable space that contains no "stuff" but does contain energy. If one took that energy and converted it to matter (E = m c^2) could you then evacuate it somewhere else and end up with space that contains no energy and no matter? Probably there's some limit on when you can or can't do the energy to mass conversion -- the conditions for it to occur wouldn't be present in "nothing". NESTED UNIVERSES He says that if a new universe were created in the palm of your hand, you couldn't watch it develop because it would immediately become a black hole, hence unobservable from the outside. Let's imagine that happening and call it the "inner universe", the one we're standing in is the "outer universe". So we have nested universes. I guess the reason the i.u. would form a black hole is because it would be negligibly small but with positive energy or mass (enough for a big bang). So consider this new inner universe after its own big bang. It is expanding within its own space, although all this is unobservable from the o.u., me standing there looking at my palm to see what's going on. But now since it's a black hole, some of the mass from o.u. might get sucked into it. I might even get sucked in. The mass that is sucked in would reappear as mass or energy in i.u. So now, if WE are in an i.u. which looks like a black hole to some even more-outer universe, isn't it possible that new matter or energy is appearing as if "by magic"? Wonder how it appears. As mass is added, it causes contraction. But if it's energy, it would cause expansion. And yet, by general relativity, mass and energy can convert from one to the other. Does this happen in a way to balance or control the expansion rate of the universe? If our universe were a black hole and sucking in matter/etc. perhaps that could be an alternative theory to explain the expansion of our universe. The expansion is actually more matter being added. Think of it like a ballon expanding and from our perspective (which is always the "center") space is expanding, which it is. Yeah at least matter getting sucked in and appearing in i.u. as matter can fill up that new space created by expansion. If it appears as energy it would cause an increase in the total energy, and since I guess the rate of expansion is proportional to energy or energy density, this would cause an acceleration (increase in rate) in expansion. The responsible thing for me to do now would be to try to learn this a bit more properly, without all the conversion into English, then I might see things more properly. |
| Person445 (OP) User ID: 11438968  Canada11/27/2012 06:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | One can make nice patterns and ideas and until they relate to measurable quantities, they don't do much. That's where string theory still is, although a lot of really smart people feel it contains truth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28008747 Krauss is talking about actual measurable things. When he says "nothing" he means a describable space that contains no "stuff" but does contain energy. If one took that energy and converted it to matter (E = m c^2) could you then evacuate it somewhere else and end up with space that contains no energy and no matter? Probably there's some limit on when you can or can't do the energy to mass conversion -- the conditions for it to occur wouldn't be present in "nothing". NESTED UNIVERSES He says that if a new universe were created in the palm of your hand, you couldn't watch it develop because it would immediately become a black hole, hence unobservable from the outside. Let's imagine that happening and call it the "inner universe", the one we're standing in is the "outer universe". So we have nested universes. I guess the reason the i.u. would form a black hole is because it would be negligibly small but with positive energy or mass (enough for a big bang). So consider this new inner universe after its own big bang. It is expanding within its own space, although all this is unobservable from the o.u., me standing there looking at my palm to see what's going on. But now since it's a black hole, some of the mass from o.u. might get sucked into it. I might even get sucked in. The mass that is sucked in would reappear as mass or energy in i.u. So now, if WE are in an i.u. which looks like a black hole to some even more-outer universe, isn't it possible that new matter or energy is appearing as if "by magic"? Wonder how it appears. As mass is added, it causes contraction. But if it's energy, it would cause expansion. And yet, by general relativity, mass and energy can convert from one to the other. Does this happen in a way to balance or control the expansion rate of the universe? If our universe were a black hole and sucking in matter/etc. perhaps that could be an alternative theory to explain the expansion of our universe. The expansion is actually more matter being added. Think of it like a ballon expanding and from our perspective (which is always the "center") space is expanding, which it is. Yeah at least matter getting sucked in and appearing in i.u. as matter can fill up that new space created by expansion. If it appears as energy it would cause an increase in the total energy, and since I guess the rate of expansion is proportional to energy or energy density, this would cause an acceleration (increase in rate) in expansion. The responsible thing for me to do now would be to try to learn this a bit more properly, without all the conversion into English, then I might see things more properly. Maybe all universes are black holes and when we see a black hole we are seeing the outside of a universe. A Russian Doll universe if you fill. Follow me on Twitter: @RussellScott202 |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29080824 United States10/17/2013 07:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 42407740 United States10/17/2013 07:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | man these people get on my nerves. why must they insist on having to have an answer. we just dont know anything yet, how could we? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1015009 Dark matter and dark energy are a load of crap, invented to make equations remain in balance in the face of directly observed data that disagree with what we THINK the numbers should be. Instead of reworking the science or coming up with a better explanation and an accompanying equation, we just made up a fairy tale to make the numbers remain in balance... Not unlike the way the Government runs a budget! A generation of lazy Scientists riding Einstein's coat-tails to a comfy retirement does not a conspiracy make... |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 42407740 United States10/17/2013 07:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Watch Nassim Haramein and you will find your answers. We are inside a black hole. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29080824 I'm willing to consider the idea, and have read about it before... my question always remains: If we are indeed existing inside the boundary of an even horizon... WHY do we see that same phenomena in action at other places in the observable universe? Are there black holes within OUR black hole? See my conundrum? |
| Shelgeyr User ID: 40017924 United States10/17/2013 07:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | a very pathetic statement by those who want to divorce you from divine reality of living universe! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22866208 The definition of "nothing" is very important to the title. This is explained in the video. Haven't had a chance to watch the video yet. Can you summarize how he must seemingly redefine "nothing"? And why? All things are made of charge. Even those things we call quarks. Even those things we consider to be overall chargeless display dipole behavior, which belies underlying more-or-less balanced charges. And charges aren't "nothing" - in fact as far as we can measure, they make up everything. Last Edited by Shelgeyr on 10/17/2013 10:37 PM |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 815535 United States10/17/2013 07:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 41777064 Canada10/17/2013 07:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | We live inside Nagilum? Oh great, he was kind of an ass. Data: Sir, our sensors are showing this to be the absence of everything. It is a void without matter or energy of any kind. Riker: Yet this hole has a form, Data; it has height, width... Data: Perhaps. Perhaps not, sir. Picard: That's hardly a scientific observation, Commander. Data: Captain, the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is, "I do not know". I do not know what that is, sir. |
| PerspectiveX User ID: 13025452 United States10/17/2013 07:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | what is the web page you are viewing made out of? is it a real place? you talk to other people there...or atleast you think you do. is it warm or cold on this thread? what does the text and links feel like to the touch or other senses. i bet it smells like an old modem in here. welcome to planet earth. let the simulation commence. PerspectiveX |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 41239039 United States10/17/2013 08:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 47279195 United States10/17/2013 08:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 2799801 United States10/17/2013 08:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 37183283 Canada10/17/2013 08:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 46260961 Canada10/17/2013 08:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 48521558 United States10/17/2013 09:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Brian8888 User ID: 46254643 United States10/17/2013 09:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| shadasonic User ID: 48323270 United States10/17/2013 09:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Do people not conceptualize that energy is some greater form, for a word, god! This childlike perception that travels with people to their grave is so misconstrued. We have a god , we have life and energy to evolve. We are kids , children trying to understand a concept that we haven't been given the ability yet to ponder. Theres a god my friend, we have layers of lives, energies and universes yet to find it. Physically we're all carbon and metal mixed with huge gaping atomic holes. spiritually we're all encompassing, just find your higher self, although it may take a long, long time! One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If weve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. Were no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. Its simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that weve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. Carl Sagan |
| scimitar User ID: 46275531 United States10/17/2013 09:13 PM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Sorry but the theoretical physicists have not honestly considered the possibility that photons lose energy as they travel and that energy loss is manifested as a frequency change. The lower a photons frequency the lower its energy content. Therefore the farther a galaxy is from the observer the more energy loss for all the photons reaching them makes the red shift, not the acceleration and doppler effect. Our universe is infinite. If what they say is true we would see little or no shift in some directions unless we are the exact center of an expanding universe. They have it wrong. Ominous regressions One Truth... many realities |
| Brian8888 User ID: 46254643 United States10/17/2013 09:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Whiskey Boy User ID: 13559462 United States10/17/2013 09:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, statistically speaking, nothing is the majority of the universe. Now, we know that statistics are just numbers, but if we were to describe the universe, accurately, in one word, we would be hard pressed to use any other word than nothing. That said, this says nothing about the majesty of it all. For all intents and purposes, we are floating on something smaller than a speck of dust. We are so small in the grand scheme of things that it is almost foolish to make any concrete determination one way or another as to the certainty of anything here. We know more about space than our own oceans, but how much do we actually know about space? I mean, past, "It's big, it's cold, and it's full of stuff" we know nothing. When we begin to discuss things at this scale, we must keep in mind our limitations, whether they be size limitations, duration, or the spectra of electromagnetic radiation we can detect. For nearly ALL of human history, X-rays were unknown to us. Gamma rays are even younger than x-rays. We have no idea what lies beyond the detectable spectra of em radiation, when scientists begin discussing dark matter, they may as well be describing pixies or wobbajacks. Many people look to the heavens and see God, some see emptiness, others see balls of gas that may not even still exist, but we all see something. We see the same stars (give or take) that watched Moses part the red sea (if you believe in that sort of thing), the same moon that lit the night sky as early hunter gatherers dined on mammoths, regardless of your interpretation of the world around you, we are connected by much more than just our DNA as humans, we are connected to the universe itself on the grandest scale. The atoms that make us up, while mostly empty space, were formed in the core of a star light-years away. These atoms traveled for MILLIONS of years to coalesce into the world around you. Whether you believe God created the world in 6 days, or a big bang happened 13 billion years ago, or a giant cat puked up what is the known universe and we're nothing more than a cosmic hairball, we are all one, and the sooner we realize this and begin acting like it, the sooner we can use our limited senses to gather more information as to what is really out there. |
