the universe

>>Posted by SeanEmer
>>Conservation of matter: matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

Anhar Miah said:
Heh, finally someone thinking the same thing as me, sadly to answer it, would move outside the scopes of DVX.
Click to expand...

Matter can be destroyed. When a positron and electron collide they are annihilated and gamma energy is released.

-- Former matter destroyer
 
I did'nt say it can't be done :)

Just the logic of it, means that if matter can be destroyed then it can be created AND just that line alone is the basis of what starts debates that ends up going outside the DVX scope.

Hence me trying not to mention it by answering it :) you see my dilema! lol
 
I always had read that black holes either destroyed or transported matter rather than condensing it... but if thats the new scientific theory on their nature, then so be it haha.
 
J Michael said:
>>Posted by SeanEmer
>>Conservation of matter: matter can be neither created nor destroyed.



Matter can be destroyed. When a positron and electron collide they are annihilated and gamma energy is released.
Click to expand...


How do you know that the gamma energy in photons isn't equal to the potential energy in the positron... and that while we can't see where it catalyzes other antimatter back into a positron... maybe it does this over a long time, or in another place almost instantly... but outside of the test chamber?

I'm thinking that since gamma energy passes through everything... who knows?

Are we really destroying matter or are we creating dangling particles... on the end of a super-string?

*burp*
 
wait so... when a moderator moves a thread to another forum... is that like, a wormhole?
 
Anhar can you give a brief summary of how you disproved the concept of solipsism?

It seems literally impossible to disprove.
 
SeanEmer said:
I always had read that black holes either destroyed or transported matter rather than condensing it... but if thats the new scientific theory on their nature, then so be it haha.
Click to expand...

No. mikko has got it right. the theory, at least for the last several decades has always been that black holes are collapsing stars with ultra gravity that encapsulate everything around it.

What blows me away though is the Neutron Star. Which is pretty much a sun at the end of its life. It's PRE-black hole. A Neutron Star is SO dense that if you had about a sugar cube's worth, it would weigh more than the entire human race. Thats a lot of happy meals.
 
Drew Ott said:
Anhar can you give a brief summary of how you disproved the concept of solipsism?

It seems literally impossible to disprove.
Click to expand...

I wish I could tell you, but since I *may* be one of the first to demonstrate it (at least my method), I'm leaving it until I publish it. You will just have to wait for the book, sorry Drew :)

But I assure you its very logically thought out, it took me a long time to arrive at he correct solution, I've valided it logically, it checks, now if after its published its refuted then thats another whole story, but I'm very, very confident its not going to be refuted.
 
Are we talking about the same thing?

Solipsism: belief that the only thing one can truly know exists is that they exist and have thoughts

Since one cannot possibly have any thought outside of the brain, the only things somebody can comprehend are in the brain.
 
I can't possibly fathom how you can disprove that then.

Everything I perceive is through my own mind. If someone were to tell me that they exist also, I couldn't prove that because my mind is filtering the information. All that I can possibly be sure of is that my mind exists.

Obviously I don't believe or follow that philosophy, but technically it makes sense.
 
ugafan said:
ask yourself why. :)
Click to expand...

I realize this.

What I mean is, it's quite unlikely that everything is fake, and the entire universe is only in my mind, and my mind is the only thing that is real; however, I don't see how you could possibly disprove this argument, because the mind is all we know.
 
Well technically yes, all we can be sure of is the presence of our own mind. But then the question comes... why everything else? Our mind is incapable of fathoming some of the things in this universe, and so it is unlikely that all of reality is a creation of our own mind. Logically something else must exist to give the mind some reality to reference.
 
I agree with that. I just don't see how anybody could prove it one way or the other.

I guess I'll need to get Anhar's book. :)
 
Quickly (I'll find some links when I can):

There is a hypothesis that universes actually create offspring. These offspring are created on the other end of black holes. These baby universes grow into their own with their own physical laws and constants. This universe "evolution" favors universes with large numbers of black holes, etc. etc. Big bangs are the "birth" of these new offspring universes blowing out the other side of black holes.

Anyway, just a quick thought. I think about this stuff a lot and I really like the idea behind the above suggestion.
 
Last edited:
Drew Ott said:
What I mean is, it's quite unlikely that everything is fake, and the entire universe is only in my mind, and my mind is the only thing that is real; however, I don't see how you could possibly disprove this argument, because the mind is all we know.
Click to expand...

To be sure of your own mind's substance while considering that all of existence be an illusion... well... I'd say it's far more likely that the illusion could be everything inside your head rather then everything else.

Based on every living thing we observe it's not a stretch that our self-awareness isn't far less reaching then we think it is.

For all we know the ability to ponder... and wonder... may be a physical manifestation of an evolving mind... like a tree that bears fruit... but there'd be no way to prove that your dynamic abilities aren't more or less programmed through a combination of genetics and environment... meaning to say that how could you prove that your mind isn't a biological computer... a "real" version of the boy from AI... and as you sit there thinking that your mind is the only thing real you don't realize you've been standing there in front of that statue of mother? (the universe)

I think trying to disprove that whole thing is a fallacy... I disagree with the logic that it's a valid approach to reasoning, because for all the uncertainty about what is outside of the mind it assumes that what's inside of the mind is not subject to the same chance consequences... disguised by what appears to be freedom of thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top