>> ^FishBulb:

If "any intelligent person will evaluate an argument or what is being said by the core information facts and logic , not the poetry and colourful use of language", then why are you so upset that he is "so verbose and shouting"?


Because he is a teacher doing a specific talk to a receptive audeance who he acnolages at the start as alredy knowing the subject mater and thus would know that the students don't need him to be so verbose and noisy to understand what he is saying.

also my comment above says "does make some valid observations and interesting listen just a shame about the above points. " so I acknowledged the content of his talk and just point out that the verbosity and loud voice is a waist of his effort.

I am not "upset"

I think its nice finding potentaily inhabitable planets with life , but its a bit of a cock tease no chance in hell will we ever go to one of these places not in the next 1,500 - 3000 years I doubt we will get a visual light spectrum view of them for at least 300-500 years , and maybe some detailed direct radio observation for 150-200 years.

Its actually prity meaningless/useless finding these planets other than confirming that the universe has many planets and high probability of many earth like planets , but I think we knew that prity much for certain maby 20-30 years ago.

Don't get me wrong I Think of Astrophysics of massive importance and a scientific imperative to persure as it will have tangible ramifications on earth evan if unpredictable ones.

Seems to me that you can learn so much more about space and the universe with exsperments on earth such as being done with the LHC , or observations of how mater is spred out in general and those kind of observations.

still would rather have kepler doing its shit than spending money on wars , and i bet kepler probably only costs a small % of all the communications and media satalites we launch so for the relative cost its probably worth it just for shits and gigles.

>> ^bmacs27:

WTF kind of imperial university has a "Chancellor?" All of my universities have had presidents like any self respecting democracy.


I know. From what I understand her other name is Darth Mater Studiorum

Mmmm, nice looking t'mater you got there!

WOLF!! WOLF!!! WOLF!! Oh wait dumb drunk guy, never-mind sorry false alarm.

Maybe they just haven't releasedmanufactured all the damning evidence yet. But why the hell can't they just say, 'we're investigating the mater and will know more later.', instead of, 'ZOMG TERRIST TERRIST, RUN FOR COVER, FORGET ABOUT OUR ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AND OWS!'

I will say it is possible Iran is involved, just because it was sloppy doesn't mean they weren't. After all it is the country that photo-shopped some missile tests to prove the superiority of their rockets.

>> ^heropsycho:

And the government requiring paid materity leave is....survey says... SOCIALIST IN NATURE!


And you're saying that's bad? Nothing wrong with a little socialism.

And the government requiring paid materity leave is....survey says... SOCIALIST IN NATURE!

Ahhh thanks my fellow person of truth! I have embraced my ignorance, as the word seems to full of people with all the answers.


In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Currently, I am very fascinated the metaphysical explanation of immaterialism of George Berkeley. There is a certain simplicity that makes it appealing. It is also unverifiable, thus making any means of discovering the truth of the mater impossible. Recently, I have started to become more of a strong agnostic rather than a weak one. It really does seem like we are ill-equipped to deal with the question of real, certain truth as it pertains to our complete condition. Our current tools are a priory reasoning, science, and intuition; one only goes so far, one can't make truth claims, and the other can't show that it is right. There has to be some other form, that is what faith is supposed to be, divine revelation: that only an outsider could inject insight into your situation. Kind of like Newton's third law, you have to be acted on by an outside source to cause change in a given system. That is an actual scientific argument for faith being a method to discovering truth. It can't, however, tell us how, which one, when we are wrong...and so many other problems it is why I have abandoned it as my method.

that was really well said my man.
i use the term "seekers" often.
never heard of that book.it looks interesting.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Currently, I am very fascinated the metaphysical explanation of immaterialism of George Berkeley. There is a certain simplicity that makes it appealing. It is also unverifiable, thus making any means of discovering the truth of the mater impossible. Recently, I have started to become more of a strong agnostic rather than a weak one. It really does seem like we are ill-equipped to deal with the question of real, certain truth as it pertains to our complete condition. Our current tools are a priory reasoning, science, and intuition; one only goes so far, one can't make truth claims, and the other can't show that it is right. There has to be some other form, that is what faith is supposed to be, divine revelation: that only an outsider could inject insight into your situation. Kind of like Newton's third law, you have to be acted on by an outside source to cause change in a given system. That is an actual scientific argument for faith being a method to discovering truth. It can't, however, tell us how, which one, when we are wrong...and so many other problems it is why I have abandoned it as my method.

that was really well said my man.
i use the term "seekers" often.
never heard of that book.it looks interesting.

Currently, I am very fascinated the metaphysical explanation of immaterialism of George Berkeley. There is a certain simplicity that makes it appealing. It is also unverifiable, thus making any means of discovering the truth of the mater impossible. Recently, I have started to become more of a strong agnostic rather than a weak one. It really does seem like we are ill-equipped to deal with the question of real, certain truth as it pertains to our complete condition. Our current tools are a priory reasoning, science, and intuition; one only goes so far, one can't make truth claims, and the other can't show that it is right. There has to be some other form, that is what faith is supposed to be, divine revelation: that only an outsider could inject insight into your situation. Kind of like Newton's third law, you have to be acted on by an outside source to cause change in a given system. That is an actual scientific argument for faith being a method to discovering truth. It can't, however, tell us how, which one, when we are wrong...and so many other problems it is why I have abandoned it as my method.

Your points are both well made and entirely pointless regarding the video. I say that not as an insult but as someone who sees things much as you suggest. The crux is, though, that the same can be said for all of science together. The dissecting of space into abstracts of meaning is no different from any other abstraction that people do. The trouble is, and where I think your description is too simple is that the abstraction and the dynamics are one in the same. The geometry they're trying to get down to in the video here describes the base dynamics of gravity throughout the universe. In that sense, it isn't just a structure applied to the universe by human minds but something fundamental. Describing gravity as a curvature in space time could be considered a human abstraction (like the electromagnetic field or the wave function in quantum mechanics) but the issue of whether the mean gravitational background of the universe is flat or not goes beyond that. Just like the mass and charge of the electron. It's a fundamental; it is the dynamics, the flow.


>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

More over, what is it say it isn't changing or is due to change, or is always in a state of flux. There might be some other more fundamental rule governing that overall shape...or what if the same isn't consistent through the galaxy. And is shape something you need to confine to matter and not the container in which mater is in? If both have a shape, and ones shape is affecting the others shape, what does shape even mean anymore. Is the shape the thing you have, or is it the thing you have after the thing above you is taken into account. What is shape?
My metaphysical interpretation of the universe is non-dimensional. Space having depth, IMO, is a result of the minds interpretation of the details of the universe. While the elements (heheheh) of Euclid's geometry are completely sound, and thus, trying to talk about the shape of the universe as humans experience it will be a question that has an answer, it doesn't answer the more important question, does existence itself have dimension. In the same way that I don't believe color is a property of light, I think you can reduce space and time (though time gets interesting) to an experience of minds.
Even without my own metaphysical framework built up, all interpretations of space (lines, squares, rays) derive their existence from one essential element, the point. A point has no dimension. A line is essentially a collection of dimensionless points. It is not necessary to interpret them as something with dimension. For example, y=x. Algebra, in general, allows for a dimensionless explanation for the interaction of points. Y=x doesn't have to look like anything, per say, for it to be solved in algebra. While humans will retain the contextual information of space and shapes when working for algebra, those are interpretations that correlate back on the human reality. In other words, much akin to a computer program, the universe could (and I believe does) operate without a property of space. Space is a result of minds in the same way monitors construct visual images from a computer. Both are interpretations of dimensionless data.
Seeing in spaces helps us be better hunters, but as that confers to the ultimate truth of reality, I am less certain. The real story might be less about space and gravity, but the overall governing dynamics which exist as a simple set of seemingly arbitrary rules. The reality of the universe might be very closely understood as a computer program or a very sophisticated algebra expression.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

Misleading. He is saying density is directly related to shape. What exactly qualifies as flat in the view of shapes? That implies that the Earth if flat too. I have a feeling there is quite a bit of debate about the process used here to determine it is flat and not saddled.


More over, what is it say it isn't changing or is due to change, or is always in a state of flux. There might be some other more fundamental rule governing that overall shape...or what if the same isn't consistent through the galaxy. And is shape something you need to confine to matter and not the container in which mater is in? If both have a shape, and ones shape is affecting the others shape, what does shape even mean anymore. Is the shape the thing you have, or is it the thing you have after the thing above you is taken into account. What is shape?

My metaphysical interpretation of the universe is non-dimensional. Space having depth, IMO, is a result of the minds interpretation of the details of the universe. While the elements (heheheh) of Euclid's geometry are completely sound, and thus, trying to talk about the shape of the universe as humans experience it will be a question that has an answer, it doesn't answer the more important question, does existence itself have dimension. In the same way that I don't believe color is a property of light, I think you can reduce space and time (though time gets interesting) to an experience of minds.

Even without my own metaphysical framework built up, all interpretations of space (lines, squares, rays) derive their existence from one essential element, the point. A point has no dimension. A line is essentially a collection of dimensionless points. It is not necessary to interpret them as something with dimension. For example, y=x. Algebra, in general, allows for a dimensionless explanation for the interaction of points. Y=x doesn't have to look like anything, per say, for it to be solved in algebra. While humans will retain the contextual information of space and shapes when working for algebra, those are interpretations that correlate back on the human reality. In other words, much akin to a computer program, the universe could (and I believe does) operate without a property of space. Space is a result of minds in the same way monitors construct visual images from a computer. Both are interpretations of dimensionless data.

Seeing in spaces helps us be better hunters, but as that confers to the ultimate truth of reality, I am less certain. The real story might be less about space and gravity, but the overall governing dynamics which exist as a simple set of seemingly arbitrary rules. The reality of the universe might be very closely understood as a computer program or a very sophisticated algebra expression.

I'm with IronDwarf here. There are many things that people can be angry about with religion, but taking one day off a week is not one of them. As a mater of fact, the reason we have the weekends off at all is largely due to this crazy commandment to remember the sabbath

this guy claims annyone can get these lights to apear infront of them ,

well if thats the case why do we not have thousends of people actualy doing it and recording it ,

if it was possable all u wud do is go to sumone like james randy and be like hay i can materalize bright sparks of light infront of me and in the sky above me , and then u do it on a beach or in the open and ud win the 1 milloin prize.


if sumone makes an exstrodinary claim they better provide evidence , this guy talked for over 1 hour and provided no evidence.

I love implosions. There is a lot of math involved, but there is also a lot of "gut" knowledge that these guys get over the years. An implosion is still fracken crazy chaotic no mater how much math you throw at it, so there is a great degree of knowing what works on paper and what works with you have cement, explosions and gravity all really in play!