Time, death and the universe

[Thorne]

The latest I heard is that it is more likely that as the sun's fuel is exhausted and it expands into its red giant phase it's warping of gravity around it will also change and that the earth and other planets may not fall into the sun but surf the expansions pressure wave into more distant orbits that may or may not involve collusion with the outer planets which being already more distant and massive may not react as quickly.

I haven't heard this one before, but I can see the possibility. I'm not sure such pressure waves wouldn't be just as likely to suck the Earth deeper into the Sun, though. Let's face it: the Earth is pretty massive, and moving at a pretty good clip. That's a lot of momentum to overcome. And I'm not aware that they have even shown that such "pressure waves" can be produced by gravity. Not saying they can't be, but I'd like to see the explanations.

Thanks for the info. It suggests that once Earth has been absorbed, the chances of Earth-life being recycled any further are minimal.

It may not be that bad, actually. I suggest you find a copy of Phil Plait's book, "Death From the Skies". He delves into all the different ways that the universe can kill us, including the Sun's expansion. But he also says that we may be able to move the Earth away into a more distant orbit, to buy us a little time. It's good reading, and not overly technical.

[Thorne]

Originally Posted by Thorne
I have to agree with you there.

Again!?

See? Miracle CAN happen!

I'm not sure I can accept that boiling a kettle, or even counteracting gravity, amounts to reversing time (especially if you have to wait for the "right time") ... but I did allude to reversing physics in my earlier post: same thing but more?

That wasn't what I meant. Just that it may someday be possible to apply a certain type of energy at a certain level to reverse the entropy of time, just as by adding energy to that kettle can reverse the entropy of the water.

I'm way out of my depth here, but it seems to me that the whole of the known universe is at pretty much the same level of chaos. So why not the rest of it?

The size of the universe is, literally, unimaginable. The amount of contaminants (matter) is incomprehensibly small by comparison. According to this page, "0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the universe contains any matter." Looking from the outside (Outside the universe? Try wrapping your head around that!) the universe is virtually empty!

So the hypothesis is that the laws of physics precede physicality itself?

The "laws" of physics are man made. They are simply statements of observations, which so far have held true under normal conditions. Calculations suggest that under the immense gravity of a black hole, or at the time of the Big Bang, these laws would not necessarily apply. So I would say no, they do not predate physicality, but are an integral part of it.

[denuseri]

The pressure is provided by the sun (the sun wont expand until its own pressure overcomes it's own gravity)...but they are finding that just like electrons will only find stable orbital shells at certian distances so it is with stars and their planets.

[Thorne]

The pressure is provided by the sun (the sun wont expand until its own pressure overcomes it's own gravity)...but they are finding that just like electrons will only find stable orbital shells at certian distances so it is with stars and their planets.

Then you're talking about the Solar Wind, then? Basically, material ejected from the Sun and streaming outwards into space. I would think this would make it even less likely to move a planet. Most of the particles of the Solar Wind are deflected by the Earth's magnetic field, and so wouldn't actually provide any drag, or push, to move the planet.

On the other hand, the Sun's gravity isn't going to change significantly, but as it expands it will spread out with the material of the Sun. It might possibly reach a point where the pull of the Sun's gravity will no longer act like a point source. I wouldn't want to even TRY to calculate the results of that!

As for orbits, a single planet can orbit it's star at almost any distance, depending only on the mass of the star and the speed of the planet. When you add additional planets things become more complicated, and there will indeed be optimal orbits formed. But remember, as the Sun expands it will easily engulf Mercury, and Venus. These changes will have an effect on the Earth's orbit as well.

And you still have the problem of the Earth's momentum. The Sun's expansion will be fairly rapid, on an astronomical scale. I don't know if there would be enough time to move the Earth aside before it became engulfed.

[denuseri]

Then you're talking about the Solar Wind, then? Basically, material ejected from the Sun and streaming outwards into space. I would think this would make it even less likely to move a planet. Most of the particles of the Solar Wind are deflected by the Earth's magnetic field, and so wouldn't actually provide any drag, or push, to move the planet.

On the other hand, the Sun's gravity isn't going to change significantly, but as it expands it will spread out with the material of the Sun. It might possibly reach a point where the pull of the Sun's gravity will no longer act like a point source. I wouldn't want to even TRY to calculate the results of that!

As for orbits, a single planet can orbit it's star at almost any distance, depending only on the mass of the star and the speed of the planet. When you add additional planets things become more complicated, and there will indeed be optimal orbits formed. But remember, as the Sun expands it will easily engulf Mercury, and Venus. These changes will have an effect on the Earth's orbit as well.

And you still have the problem of the Earth's momentum. The Sun's expansion will be fairly rapid, on an astronomical scale. I don't know if there would be enough time to move the Earth aside before it became engulfed.

Sighs a lot of the stuff your speaking off is only in effect if you use only the outdated Newtonian physics (which in a lot of cases is perfectly ok on the normal levels of the macro scale) ...a lot of what Im talking about is using Relativity and quantum physics. Where gravity and space-time act much differently than just a bunch of spinning planets with mass and velocity. Space -time has wrinkles and gravity pressure waves (the arms of the galaxey wouldnt exist without them btw). The natural outward pressure of the sun thats driving the solar wind currently doesnt generate all that much force...enough to push bad particles through the atmosphere or burn off any planet's atmosphere that doesnt have a stong enough magnetic field but over all not so powerful. Now when the sun transitions to red giant status, its gravitational aspect will change, the allready existing pressure waves that act like troughs in the fabric of spacetime that the planets orbit within...will also change. Theorehtically unless there is a mass ejection wave none of the planets should get swallowed so much as shoved out as their orbitale trough moves.

[Thorne]

Sighs a lot of the stuff your speaking off is only in effect if you use only the outdated Newtonian physics (which in a lot of cases is perfectly ok on the normal levels of the macro scale) ...a lot of what Im talking about is using Relativity and quantum physics.

I'm familiar with the differences between Relativistic physics versus Newtonian, and you're right, Newtonian physics works perfectly well except in high gravity fields, generally stellar masses and above. I'm not all that familiar with quantum physics, I admit, but I don't think there's all that much of an effect on a macro scale. More reading for my list, I suppose.

Now when the sun transitions to red giant status, its gravitational aspect will change, the allready existing pressure waves that act like troughs in the fabric of spacetime that the planets orbit within...will also change. Theorehtically unless there is a mass ejection wave none of the planets should get swallowed so much as shoved out as their orbitale trough moves.

More reading for me! I'm not up on the effects of gravity waves, and planets moving in the troughs. It seems to make some sense, if indeed gravity is wavelike in nature. I'll have to look into it more deeply, when I can get the time.

[IAN 2411]

Now when the sun transitions to red giant status, its gravitational aspect will change, the allready existing pressure waves that act like troughs in the fabric of spacetime that the planets orbit within...will also change. Theorehtically unless there is a mass ejection wave none of the planets should get swallowed so much as shoved out as their orbitale trough moves.

A lot of this is way above my head, but it doesn’t really matter whether the earth is sucked in or pushed aside and possibly smashed into another planet. It is the end of earth and end of man as we know it now. Unless of course by that time man has mastered space and can transport the human race to another world.

Then again you have to ask yourself, that if this could be done, would this be the correct thing to do morally? Contaminate a virgin world with corrupt minds, war like races, felons of all denominations and sickness. Would it be Mortal survival or New World corruption, contamination and finally distruction? It might be that the unwritten law of the universe is for all life to live and perishon on the same planet.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

It is the end of earth and end of man as we know it now. Unless of course by that time man has mastered space and can transport the human race to another world.

By the time this happens, the human race will be as far removed from where we are now as we are from those tiny mole-like creatures that outlasted the dinosaurs. Assuming we haven't gone completely extinct before that.

Then again you have to ask yourself, that if this could be done, would this be the correct thing to do morally? Contaminate a virgin world with corrupt minds, war like races, felons of all denominations and sickness. Would it be Mortal survival or New World corruption, contamination and finally distruction? It might be that the unwritten law of the universe is for all life to live and perishon on the same planet.

Depends on whose morality you're talking about. Settlers from Europe did the "moral" thing and virtually wiped out those pesky pagan natives in the New World. The British did the "moral" thing and sent their convicts to Australia, overwhelming that native population. I suspect that, if we ever achieve the capability of moving out into the galaxy, the "moral" thing to do will involve very similar attitudes.

[IAN 2411]

I have had a burning question on my mind now for over two weeks since this thread started. This clockwise theory has been coming up every time I hear someone say clockwise. Why do we say the planets go around the sun in a clockwise motion? Do they, and who says so? The universe is vast and for all we know in the giganticness of it all we might be standing up on end and looking at ourselves from the wrong angle. There is no left, right, front, rear north, south, or east, west to the universe. We could be looking at the solar system from the wrong angle completely, and we could be going up and over or anti clockwise.

We seem as a space age world to spend a lot of money sending drone ships with telescopes that can see a billion light years away. However, I have yet to see a photo from one of these drones that is pointing to our own solar system, or maybe I am wrong in thinking that we have a probe that far out. If not, why not? We as a world have spent enough money sending rockets here there and everywhere? But the earth is still a little blue blob and going clockwise.

I think I would be right in saying that about 80% of the world’s oceans have never been mapped. We make all these rockets and probes to chart the universe and the interesting stuff is right on our own doorsteps. We can send men into space and bring them back into our atmosphere without them getting burnt to a crisp, and that’s after travelling 800.000km + round journey to the moon. Yet I notice we cannot send a manned submarine down to the bottom of some oceans. We know very little of our own world yet we want to know that other life exists.

I can only hope that we never find a plannet inhabited, because if history is anything to go by there won't be much left if they find a third world, world. No doubt by then the space ship will be made up of people from the new world order and colonise it. Then after the initial battle with the spear and stone throwing aliens, real population can be pushed onto reservations or into ghettoes. I think that is what the British and Irish settlers did in America, Australia and most points east.

Then again they might just get their ass kicked. Nothing new about that either LoL.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

Why do we say the planets go around the sun in a clockwise motion?

Actually, they move counter-clockwise! But it's merely convention. Since most western astronomers were in the northern hemisphere, they simply defined North as "Up". Using that convention the Earth turns towards the East, or counter-clockwise. Therefore, by convention, all planets, and the sun, are defined with East in the direction of their rotation. The North pole of the sun is defined as being "Up" relative to the solar system, so we conventionally view the solar system by looking "down" on it. Therefore, counter-clockwise rotations and revolutions.

We seem as a space age world to spend a lot of money sending drone ships with telescopes that can see a billion light years away. However, I have yet to see a photo from one of these drones that is pointing to our own solar system, or maybe I am wrong in thinking that we have a probe that far out.

There are two probes which have left the solar system, the Voyagers. But they are not telescopic probes. And one of them, Voyager 1 I believe, DID turn back and snap a picture of the solar system. Look at Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot". The telescopes you're thinking of are either in orbit or on the surface.

If not, why not?

It wouldn't work, really. You need to have the telescopes close enough to communicate with Earth in almost real time. The further away you get, the longer the communications take. And the narrower the bandwidth available to send back images.

I think I would be right in saying that about 80% of the world’s oceans have never been mapped.

I think it's much lower than that. I have a map of the Earth on my wall, showing all of the trenches, ridges, scarps, faults and other features on the bottoms of the seas. They may not be mapped to the nearest meter, at least not everywhere, but actually, it's cheaper, and easier, to map the moon than to map the ocean.

Yet I notice we cannot send a manned submarine down to the bottom of some oceans.

The Trieste, a manned submersible, descended to the bottom of the Marianas trench in 1960, reaching about 11km deep. Two more expeditions also reached the bottom, the latest in 2009. So we CAN do it. It's not easy, nor cheap, but it can be done.

I can only hope that we never find a plannet inhabited, because if history is anything to go by there won't be much left if they find a third world, world. No doubt by then the space ship will be made up of people from the new world order and colonise it.

It's pretty obvious that there's no world habitable by humans in our solar system. Anything beyond that is far out of our reach, at least for the foreseeable future. Hopefully, if we ever do achieve interstellar travel, we'll have learned to be more humane towards indigenous cultures. I won't hold my breath, though.

[IAN 2411]

Thanks for the link Thorne, very entertaining, but it was nothing new really from what I thought about, and what others thought was true when I was 10 years old. To be told the same thing again now I am 64, just shows the progress we have made in our thinking in 54 years. Well there is one change, because it has reached the dizzy heights of “You Tube” so it’s now official. Well if when we die we end up as little atoms floating about out there in the great black yonder. We might be able to meet up and check the rest of the cosmos out between us. Lmao.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

Astrology? Hokum. It's been shown to be phony. Get three astrologers together and you'll get three different readings, because it's not based in reality.

Out of body experiences? More bunk. People may be able to relate things that happen in the room they are in, or that someone in that room discussed, because the mind is still working, even if you are unconscious. No one, to my knowledge, has ever been able to show real knowledge of events completely outside of the room. Science has shown that every tested out of body experience is nothing more than a dream state. Hallucinations, in other words.

not everything is based on evidence something's you have to feel and touch .

If they can be felt and touched, they are evidence based. If YOU are the only one who can feel them and touch them, however, chances are you are not in touch with reality.

For many years, the Amazing Randy has offered a one million dollar reward to anyone who can demonstrate, under controlled conditions, that psychic powers, or out of body experiences, or any kind of so-called spiritual activities, actually exist. Few, if any, well known psychics have been willing to attempt this, and those who have tried have all failed. They all have some excuse, but the reason is that these things do not exist.

[michaelwarlock]

If you don't think they exist then they don't for you .
Just because someone's reality is different that others doesn't say that they are not in touch with reality . They reality is different . Maybe they are not in touch with yours which makes it ok cause let's face it they are not you . Science has been proving and declining a lot of stuff someday someone discovers these things doesn't exist the next day he declines it cause he's seen it and now believes in it . Yet another person rises up and say he has gone crazy....
Ofcourse I'm not saying that is a bad thing . I'm just saying that sometimes you need to believe in what you feel is true . Science can not prove God but millions of people still believe in it and they bring 1001 reasons that he exist .
Out of the body experiences are real . Even if it's in the room it's still out of your body . Seeing things before they happen is real you and I both have been in a situation where we thought that we have been in it before .
Ofcourse I'm not trying to prove anything here .... This is my personal opinion . Maybe you are right and all this is just a dream or hallucination . Then again maybe not.

[Thorne]

Just because someone's reality is different that others doesn't say that they are not in touch with reality . They reality is different .

There are some seven billion people in this world. Are you claiming that there are some seven billion different realities? I find that a little hard to believe. Yes, there may be seven billion different PERCEPTIONS of reality, but there is only one reality. Something isn't true just because we want it to be true. It's only true when we can show evidence of it, measure it, observe it, either with our own senses or with the machines we create to enhance those senses.

Out of the body experiences are real .

No, they are not. You may think they are real, especially if you experience one, but there is no evidence, anywhere, that shows they are real. There's a lot of evidence to show that they are hallucinations caused by stresses in the brain. Researches have been able to induce OBE's in subjects by stimulating areas of the brain. The subject actually believes he or she was viewing their body from above, but have never been able to present evidence that it did, indeed, happen. Researches would place an item on or next to the subjects body, after they have been blindfolded, and to my knowledge no one has ever been able to identify those objects after their experience. Yet, the experience they describe is remarkably consistent with those experiences related by patients in hospitals who have had OBE's.

Seeing things before they happen is real you

Nope. Again, plenty of testing has been done, and there is no evidence for precognition. Much of what is believed to be precognition is actually our brains "tampering" with our memories to fill in the blanks.

you and I both have been in a situation where we thought that we have been in it before .

This is deja vu, and it is a real phenomenon, documented and studied for many years. But there is nothing psychic about it. Again, it's our brain responding to a stimulus, maybe recognizing something we've seen before, even if we cannot consciously remember it. One thing that science has consistently shown is that our brains are very good at tricking us. Just watch the series "Brain Games".

Ofcourse I'm not trying to prove anything here .... This is my personal opinion .

And you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But you should be aware that fuzzy thinking, like believing in things that cannot be proven, can be costly. Millions, if not billions, of dollars are spent each year by sad people paying charlatans to contact their deceased loved ones. Billions of people live in abject misery because some charlatans tell them it's what their god wants. Children in this country (USA) die from preventable/treatable diseases every year because their parents believe that prayer is just as effective as medicine. Fuzzy thinking that allows them to deny reality in favor of their feel-good opinions.

Science can not prove God but millions of people still believe in it and they bring 1001 reasons that he exist .

Which god? There are millions of them, you know. And yes, billions of people believe in them, despite the lack of any evidence to show that any of them exist. And you are right, science cannot prove that gods do not exist, anymore than it can prove that unicorns do not exist, or fairies, or any of a seemingly infinite number of other made up things. But it's not science that has something to prove, here. Science does not make the claim that any gods exist. All science does is show us reality, and how that reality works. And none of those 1001 reasons that people put forth can be called evidence. They are speculations, based on ancient books and fairy tales.

[thir]

I think death is just a beginning . I believe we all are one . in different bodies . but our souls are pieces of a big puzzle one united ball of energy called Universe.

Nice thoughts, and you're entitled to your beliefs, but do you have any evidence of this? For starters, I'd love to see evidence for the existence of the soul. Mankind has been searching for that since - well, since the beginning of time!

I happened to watch a program in which some physics argued that in theory it is possible to have a soul. To do with quantum, of course, that the same thing can be in more than one place at the same time, and that what happens to 'one' happens to the 'other', regardless of distance.

[Thorne]

I happened to watch a program in which some physics argued that in theory it is possible to have a soul. To do with quantum, of course, that the same thing can be in more than one place at the same time, and that what happens to 'one' happens to the 'other', regardless of distance.

Perhaps, at least theoretically. But you're talking sub-atomic particles, here, almost infinitesimally small. Not likely to be able to carry all of the hopes and dreams and memories of even a single human mind. And you would still need to demonstrate the existence of souls, which hasn't happened.

There are a lot of hucksters and con men out there who try to distort quantum theory to sell their snake oil. Quantum is not a quick fix for anything you can't honestly explain. Remember, as the physicists say, "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics.

But it is true that we are all part of a dance of material, the same material, in ever changing forms, and always will be. Grass, sky, human, stone, pig, rain, whatever. Same pool of stuff.

True enough, but that doesn't mean that you can recreate a mind from that pool. As far as we know, once the brain is dead, the mind is gone.

And then another big bang?

Who knows? There's a lot of speculation out there, and some of it seems to have at least some evidence in support. And it's all way over my head!

[thir]

Perhaps, at least theoretically. But you're talking sub-atomic particles, here, almost infinitesimally small. Not likely to be able to carry all of the hopes and dreams and memories of even a single human mind. And you would still need to demonstrate the existence of souls, which hasn't happened.

True, I was quite surprised myself at this theory, but found it interesting.

There are a lot of hucksters and con men out there who try to distort quantum theory to sell their snake oil. Quantum is not a quick fix for anything you can't honestly explain. Remember, as the physicists say, "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics.

These people were well known and respected physics playing around with theories. And they were not 'selling' anything - not even the theory.

True enough, but that doesn't mean that you can recreate a mind from that pool. As far as we know, once the brain is dead, the mind is gone.

Expressing myself clumsily. I wasn't thinking the mind here, rather all the 'soup' or 'source' of atoms that keep dancing around, changing expression, rock, grass, animal, human, cloud.

Who knows? There's a lot of speculation out there, and some of it seems to have at least some evidence in support. And it's all way over my head!

Over everybody's head I should think ;-)

[Thorne]

These people were well known and respected physics playing around with theories. And they were not 'selling' anything - not even the theory.

I wasn't talking about physicists. I was talking about people who sprinkle their inane sales pitches with words like "quantum" and "uncertainty principle", as if they really knew what it meant, in an attempt to convince people that their snake-oil is actually effective.

Expressing myself clumsily. I wasn't thinking the mind here, rather all the 'soup' or 'source' of atoms that keep dancing around, changing expression, rock, grass, animal, human, cloud.

I understand. Basically, every atom of our bodies, every atom we ingest or inhale, has been here on earth since the beginning, with a few additions from incoming meteors. Just think! One or two molecules of the water you drink each day could have been pissed away by some first century preacher named Jesus.

[thir]

we all are one as In the Universe and we are one we all are part of it . we are universe in a shape of a human when we die we dont actually die we go back to our basic form .

Well, in some sense you are almost right. We are all made from the same materials, and many those materials were once joined in the center of a star, so technically we are a part of that star. And when we die our bodies will revert to those component atoms and molecules again. But believe me, we'll be dead.

Depending on how you define 'dead', a thing that even for humans have become more complicated lately. But that is BTW.

But it is true that we are all part of a dance of material, the same material, in ever changing forms, and always will be. Grass, sky, human, stone, pig, rain, whatever. Same pool of stuff.

[thir]

Out of body experiences? More bunk. People may be able to relate things that happen in the room they are in, or that someone in that room discussed, because the mind is still working, even if you are unconscious. No one, to my knowledge, has ever been able to show real knowledge of events completely outside of the room. Science has shown that every tested out of body experience is nothing more than a dream state. Hallucinations, in other words.

The funny thing is that these experiences sometimes happen with people who are solidly brain dead, and that is a conundrum that science has yet to sort. How it can happen, and from where people come 'back', if we may put it that way.

[thir]

[I]There are some seven billion people in this world. Are you claiming that there are some seven billion different realities? I find that a little hard to believe. Yes, there may be seven billion different PERCEPTIONS of reality, but there is only one reality.[/quote]

Now that is a really interesting thought! :-)

[thir]

Which god?
They are speculations, based on ancient books and fairy tales.

And maybe on a need for something bigger or better than humans?

As our old discussions show, there is no proof of God/Gods but absence of proof is not proof of absence and, no one could proof that there isn't or aren't gods either.

Which, I think, makes it all rather interesting :-)

[thir]

Some of the planets in our Solar System will be absorbed into the Sun when it expands into a red giant. Others may wind up being either sucked in or pushed away, doomed to wander between the stars. But eventually, many trillions of years into the future, the universe as we know it will probably be a cold, dead, expanding cloud of dust and debris, expanding into infinity, with nothing to show that it was ever more than that.

And then another big bang? :-))

[Thorne]

The funny thing is that these experiences sometimes happen with people who are solidly brain dead, and that is a conundrum that science has yet to sort. How it can happen, and from where people come 'back', if we may put it that way.

I don't know of any cases where a person was declared brain dead and then came back to report on such events. Not saying it can't happen, but I haven't heard of any documented cases. Only stories. Still, even if it did happen, all that tells us is that we still have a ways to go to understand what brain death really is. There may be (and probably are) processes going on in there that we haven't yet learned to measure. Perfectly normal, electrochemical processes.

And maybe on a need for something bigger or better than humans?

There are a lot of motivations. A big one is the need for people to believe that they are special, and being created by a magical being who wants to give them some eternal reward or something fills that need. But I think the biggest motivation for belief is fear of death. Some people just need the comfort of believing they will carry on after death.

As our old discussions show, there is no proof of God/Gods but absence of proof is not proof of absence and, no one could proof that there isn't or aren't gods either.

As I've said before, you can provide all the evidence against the existence of something and still not prove that it doesn't exist. And while the "absence of proof is not proof of absence", you could show that the absence of evidence for the existence of gods IS evidence of absence. Most people don't believe that unicorns exist, but you cannot prove they don't exist. It's the absence of any evidence to show that they DO exist that lets us claim that they are not real. And that can only be a tentative claim, though very strong, because we cannot prove that one will not pop up on the White House lawn tomorrow morning. Just don't hold your breath.

The same holds true for gods. No matter how many people believe that gods exist, the lack of any evidence to show that they exist is a big mark against them. The fact that there are so many different interpretations of gods is a very strong indicator that, at least, just one God does not exist. And the fact that even those who DO believe in this one God all have different opinions about his expectations of them is another large piece of evidence against Him.

So yeah, I cannot prove that anyone's god does not exist, or that any gods do not exist. But I'm not making the claim here! If I was to claim that gods cannot exist, then I could be expected to prove it. It is those who DO make the claim that gods, or a God, exist that need to provide the evidence. But all we get are suppositions and gobbledygook. And the charlatans continue raking in the money.

[thir]

I don't know of any cases where a person was declared brain dead and then came back to report on such events. Not saying it can't happen, but I haven't heard of any documented cases. Only stories. Still, even if it did happen, all that tells us is that we still have a ways to go to understand what brain death really is. There may be (and probably are) processes going on in there that we haven't yet learned to measure. Perfectly normal, electrochemical processes.

I wish I had names, but my memory...But these were in fact documented cases, by at least one brain surgeon doing research, and others, doctors and some physicists. Totally scientific, no hocus pocus, which was what made it so interesting. The one brain surgeon got interested because he always claimed that people in a coma did not experience anything, then he landed in a coma himself and did experience things. Since that was contrary to everything he knew about the brain, he got interested.

I am not saying there is anything super natural about this, and I do not quite understand why that is always assumed. But, as I have mentioned earlier, death has become complicated! And people who have been D-E-A-D including no heart beat and no brain activity have actually come back. And finally the - IMO - rather dogmatic science have woken up to the fact that there really is something here they do not understand, and which aught to be researched.

There are a lot of motivations. A big one is the need for people to believe that they are special,

Well, we are. Scientifically proven unique ;-)

and being created by a magical being who wants to give them some eternal reward or something fills that need.

I think the longing for justice is also probably part of it.

But I think the biggest motivation for belief is fear of death. Some people just need the comfort of believing they will carry on after death.

No offense, but it is my impression that US people are unusually afraid of death, even to the worship-youth culture. Maybe not all take it quite so seriously. I have toyed with the idea that maybe Americans, being to individualistic, have less feeling of a continuity, or a feeling that things 'move on' after them??

I also have the feeling that the bad religions (as opposed to good ones harming no one) makes people afraid that there is in fact an afterlife, that is hell, and that they must be on the right side to avoid that.
No offense meant to religious people here, but that is to me the most abusive idea you can plant in anyone's mind!

As I've said before, you can provide all the evidence against the existence of something and still not prove that it doesn't exist. And while the "absence of proof is not proof of absence", you could show that the absence of evidence for the existence of gods IS evidence of absence.

I cannot see that logic. Do you think science knows = everything?

Most people don't believe that unicorns exist, but you cannot prove they don't exist. It's the absence of any evidence to show that they DO exist that lets us claim that they are not real. And that can only be a tentative claim, though very strong, because we cannot prove that one will not pop up on the White House lawn tomorrow morning. Just don't hold your breath.

They might have existed in much older times, hence the myths now ;-))

The same holds true for gods. No matter how many people believe that gods exist, the lack of any evidence to show that they exist is a big mark against them.

Scientifically speaking, but you know that faith is nothing to do with science.

The fact that there are so many different interpretations of gods is a very strong indicator that, at least, just one God does not exist. And the fact that even those who DO believe in this one God all have different opinions about his expectations of them is another large piece of evidence against Him.

I think it would be more weird if many different cultures had the exact same image and the same ideas..

So yeah, I cannot prove that anyone's god does not exist, or that any gods do not exist. But I'm not making the claim here! If I was to claim that gods cannot exist, then I could be expected to prove it. It is those who DO make the claim that gods, or a God, exist that need to provide the evidence. But all we get are suppositions and gobbledygook. And the charlatans continue raking in the money.

I am with you on the money thing, and I do think that bad religion is harmful - very much so.

Now, my God, or rather Goddess, does exist, and my Gods deliver. Because she is just another word for nature, and the sun does in fact deliver and gives us life :-) She is beautiful beyond belief and ingenious beyond belief and gives us access anything we need, but she does not cuddle her creations and does not pull her punches.

When I die, I do not know what will happen, except I will be a bundle of building blocks for her to play around with again. My individual being is gone, maybe, but my bits and pieces are eternal, and that is good enough for me.

[Thorne]

I wish I had names, but my memory...But these were in fact documented cases, by at least one brain surgeon doing research, and others, doctors and some physicists. Totally scientific, no hocus pocus, which was what made it so interesting. The one brain surgeon got interested because he always claimed that people in a coma did not experience anything, then he landed in a coma himself and did experience things. Since that was contrary to everything he knew about the brain, he got interested.

Not at all scientific. It's all anecdotal. We are expected to believe, first of all, that these people actually saw something. Then we are expected to believe that they are telling the truth about what they saw. All with no real evidence! The fact that these viewings tend to follow cultural lines is also suspect. You don't hear about Christians getting an Islamic view of heaven, or Muslims seeing the Shinto version. And none of these people actually come back with any information that is not available through more mundane methods here on Earth.

I am not saying there is anything super natural about this, and I do not quite understand why that is always assumed. But, as I have mentioned earlier, death has become complicated! And people who have been D-E-A-D including no heart beat and no brain activity have actually come back. And finally the - IMO - rather dogmatic science have woken up to the fact that there really is something here they do not understand, and which aught to be researched.

I agree, our understanding of the brain, of the mind, is still in its infancy. There is so much more to learn. A hundred years ago, if your heart stopped, you were clinically dead. There was no method of resuscitation. Now, we have ways to restart hearts. Yes, there have been a few people, with no detectable brain activity, who have been revived under very unique circumstances. It's more common with those who have fallen into icy water, kept cold to preserve the physical structure of the brain. There have also been people who, after suffering clinical brain death, have lost portions of their brains to decay, and when revived are much different than who they were before. Everything points to the mind being dependent upon the physical structure of the brain. No magic involved.

I think the longing for justice is also probably part of it.

Yes, I suppose. I'd rather see justice in this world, though. Having to rely on some of the evil beings that religions have cooked up doesn't seem like justice to me.

No offense, but it is my impression that US people are unusually afraid of death, even to the worship-youth culture.

The fact that some 80% of Americans identify as some brand of Christian has something to do with this. It's been my observation, based upon my own feelings and of those I've talked with, that everyone fears the process of dying, being in pain, but that those who profess a deep religious belief seem to fear BEING dead more than those who hold no such beliefs.

I also have the feeling that the bad religions (as opposed to good ones harming no one)

There are no "good" religions. There are only some that are less bad than others. They all seem to require a belief in something that cannot be shown to be real. They all seem to promote poor thought processes.

makes people afraid that there is in fact an afterlife, that is hell, and that they must be on the right side to avoid that.No offense meant to religious people here, but that is to me the most abusive idea you can plant in anyone's mind!

I don't know. I think it runs a close second to telling people that they are born bad and can only be redeemed by believing in an invisible man in the sky who has a fetish for human sacrifice.

I cannot see that logic. Do you think science knows = everything?

Not at all, but I do think that "religion knows" = nothing. And I do think that science CAN come to know everything, eventually. Throughout mankind's history, things we didn't understand were consistently attributed to the actions of the gods. And religious leaders have tried to keep people believing those things. But over time, century after century, thinking people have learned what makes lightning, what causes earthquakes and volcanoes, where comets and meteors come from. Every bit of knowledge we've gained has pushed the gods further and further back. The religions have fought back, torturing and executing those who "blaspheme" against their teachings, but the progress of knowledge is inexorable, and always leads to natural answers, not supernatural. Now we have reached the point where it's time to realize that there are no gods, or if there are they have no interest in this little plot of mud around a nondescript star in a yawningly average galaxy.

Scientifically speaking, but you know that faith is nothing to do with science.

It has nothing to do with reality, either, when you apply it to beings such as gods.

I think it would be more weird if many different cultures had the exact same image and the same ideas..

Even if that were so, where are the cultural differences between Lutherans and Catholics? Between Baptists and Episcopalians?
Between Sunni and Sufi? These aren't cultural differences, they are religious differences. Different interpretations of the magical words of ancient books.

Now, my God, or rather Goddess, does exist, and my Gods deliver. Because she is just another word for nature, and the sun does in fact deliver and gives us life :-) She is beautiful beyond belief and ingenious beyond belief and gives us access anything we need, but she does not cuddle her creations and does not pull her punches.

And does she answer your prayers? Does she protect you from harm? Nature is a capricious bitch with no concern for our welfare. If we had to rely only on her mankind would still be huddling in caves, wondering where our next meal was coming from. It's from the advances of science and technology that we are able to build structure to protect us from nature's ravages; that we can transport food and medicines across deserts and oceans; that we can live well into our 80's and 90's rather than dying in our 30's. Anthropomorphizing nature doesn't make her a goddess. It's just more fuzzy thinking.

[IAN 2411]

Most people don't believe that unicorns exist, but you cannot prove they don't exist. It's the absence of any evidence to show that they DO exist that lets us claim that they are not real. And that can only be a tentative claim, though very strong, because we cannot prove that one will not pop up on the White House lawn tomorrow morning. Just don't hold your breath.

So very true, I mean, who would have dared predict one hundred years ago that a black man with Irish roots would pop up on the white house lawn as President of the USA. I believe in unicorns, I do, I do, I do.

[Thorne]

So very true, I mean, who would have dared predict one hundred years ago that a black man with Irish roots would pop up on the white house lawn as President of the USA. I believe in unicorns, I do, I do, I do.

LOL! Hell, there are people even today who still won't believe it!

[thir]

I decided to cut this in two, as one part has to do with science, and the other with religion.



t:Not at all scientific. It's all anecdotal. We are expected to believe, first of all, that these people actually saw something. Then we are expected to believe that they are telling the truth about what they saw. All with no real evidence! The fact that these viewings tend to follow cultural lines is also suspect. You don't hear about Christians getting an Islamic view of heaven, or Muslims seeing the Shinto version. And none of these people actually come back with any information that is not available through more mundane methods here on Earth.

You are really stubbornly misinterpreting what I say in that this has nothing to do with religion! Ok?

You do not believe that anyone saw anything. You do not believe that they say the truth. You want it proved. So how are people going to prove that? It is not like you can record it on tape. The only thing you can do is gather such experiences, and there are researchers who do. Your belief has nothing to do with it, people either have or haven't had them. Now, why is it so impossible that people see things during these situations? We do not know enough about the brain to say that it is not possible.


T:I agree, our understanding of the brain, of the mind, is still in its infancy. There is so much more to learn. A hundred years ago, if your heart stopped, you were clinically dead. There was no method of resuscitation. Now, we have ways to restart hearts. Yes, there have been a few people, with no detectable brain activity, who have been revived under very unique circumstances. It's more common with those who have fallen into icy water, kept cold to preserve the physical structure of the brain. There have also been people who, after suffering clinical brain death, have lost portions of their brains to decay, and when revived are much different than who they were before. Everything points to the mind being dependent upon the physical structure of the brain. No magic involved.

No magic is implied. I find it unscientific to keep persisting in trying to make it religious or magical. Some people have had experiences that cannot at this point be explained. You (generic) cannot keep saying that people are lying or fantasizing without any proof of that either.

[Thorne]

You are really stubbornly misinterpreting what I say in that this has nothing to do with religion! Ok?

I'm not deliberately misinterpreting you, honest. But certainly you must be aware that the vast majority of Near Death Experiences (NDEs) are religious ones.

You do not believe that anyone saw anything. You do not believe that they say the truth.

What I believe, or disbelieve, has no bearing on the matter. All that matters is whether or not evidence can be provided.

You want it proved. So how are people going to prove that? It is not like you can record it on tape. The only thing you can do is gather such experiences,

Yes, you can gather the stories, and investigate them. Did the person relating the NDE know anything that they could not have known through any other means? If they claim to have met relatives or friends, did those they met give them any information which they could not have otherwise known? There are many ways such experiences could be tested and verified, or falsified. To date, none has been shown to be demonstrably true.

Now, why is it so impossible that people see things during these situations? We do not know enough about the brain to say that it is not possible.

I don't mean to claim that it is possible or not possible. Only that there is no evidence to indicate that such things are so, therefore no evidence to believe such stories are anything but artifacts of the brain. The lack of ultimate knowledge, whether about the brain or anything else, does not leave the door open to whatever fanciful nonsense we like.

No magic is implied. I find it unscientific to keep persisting in trying to make it religious or magical.

When someone postulates a supernatural cause, without first demonstrating the existence of the supernatural, then magic is certainly implied.

Some people have had experiences that cannot at this point be explained. You (generic) cannot keep saying that people are lying or fantasizing without any proof of that either.

Again, the fact that they cannot yet be explained does not give anyone the right to dream up some fanciful explanation, either magical or not. And I don't claim that people are lying, at least not deliberately. They have, certainly, had some kind of experience. But at this point in time there is no evidence to suggest that these experiences are anything other than hallucinations, or lucid dreams, or tricks of a damaged brain. And the more we learn about the brain, and about memory, the less "miraculous" these NDEs seem to be. People can, and have, experience dream fragments, mingled with garbled memories, and the mind tends to weld these fragments into some kind of coherent whole. Our brains are very good at filling in the gaps, and what is filled in does not have to have anything to do with reality. And when people relate such experiences, they tend to fill in even more gaps, whether deliberately or subconsciously. The mind wants a smooth narrative, even if what was experienced was anything but smooth.

Again, I'm not saying such things cannot be real. Any more than I would say that ghosts, or Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster cannot be real. All I claim is that there is no evidence to suggest that such things ARE real, and so there is no justification in treating them as if they are. Investigate? Certainly! I have no quarrel with that. Just don't claim such things as fact until you have been able to prove them.