After life?

**Sentaku senshi** · 04-19-2002

>let me spell it out for you. If everything grows by 60 feet, then a neutron will be approximately the size of your head. Right? Will you notice this? Answer the question, and don't give more weak and inclusive examples.<

Your head would be 60 feet biger, so no.

>An explanation of what is wrong with your previous example, and undefined aboutentire scenario:
When you stretch the rubber band, the individual particles do not grow larger. The only thing that "grows" is the distance between the particles. But of course, what really changes? The distance between the nuclei and their electrons? No. What really changes when you stretch the rubber band? Can you answer? Are you beginning to see the problem?<

Ever watch Men in Black? sure you did, right. Rember the universe, ball thing. Wow amzing, a universe the size of a golf ball, but yet if you lived in it you would think it is enomise. Now if was streached in all directions at once, and equily would you notice? No, but someone outside the ball universe would as they did not become larger.

**fyodor** · 04-19-2002

I am going to explain it to you if it kills me. I am going to kick around that pathetic ball of wasted neurons that is your brain until I manage to impart some information. Here goes.
Assuming you mean that your head's radius grows by 60 ft and that it is already 6 inches:
Your head will now have an approximate volume of 4/3*(3.141549)*(60.5)^3=930,000 cubic feet. A neutron will have the approximate volume of 4/3*3.14159*(60)^3=905,000 cubic feet. This means that one neutron will fit in your brain. A neuron is at least a couple hundred million neutrons if not more,so your brain will not have the capacity for any neurons whatsoever. For you, of course, that won't be too much of a change. Tell me if I need to clarify something, and be specific.

**Xterria** · 04-19-2002

In english

**Sentaku senshi** · 04-19-2002

>I am going to explain it to you if it kills me. I am going to kick around that pathetic ball of wasted neurons that is your brain until I manage to impart some information. Here goes.
Assuming you mean that your head's radius grows by 60 ft and that it is already 6 inches:
Your head will now have an approximate volume of 4/3*(3.141549)*(60.5)^3=930,000 cubic feet. A neutron will have the approximate volume of 4/ 3*3.14159*(60)^3=905,000 cubic feet. This means that one neutron will fit in your brain. A neuron is at least a couple hundred million neutrons if not more,so your brain will not have the capacity for any neurons whatsoever. For you, of course, that won't be too much of a change. Tell me if I need to clarify something, and be specific.<

OK, I see the problem now, (I think)

I thought of a much better way to explain what I think aran ment?

Pretend that you have 3 ballons that are filled with air
1 ballon is the size of a basketball
1 ballon is the size of a tenisball
1 ballon is the size of a pinpong ball

Now add air to all the ballons keeping the amound of air added to the ballons equll. Now assuming that the ballons expend at the same rate, and maintan there shape the proportions of the ballons will remain the same.

**fyodor** · 04-20-2002

That's not quite true either, actually. Say you have a balloon with a radius of 3 inches, and one with a radius of 4 inches. The volume of the first will be 36*pi cubic inches, and the second 256/3*pi cubic inches. Say you inflate each balloon with 14*pi more cubic inches of air. Then the first will be 50*pi, and the second will be around 100*pi. This corresponds to about a radius of 3.3 inches for the first and 4.2 inches for the second. The difference in delta radius is small because they were initially similar, but it would be noticeable for larger balloons. The problem is, you cannot change one attribute and have the others stay the same. Adding the same volume will change the proportionality of the radii and surface areas and vice versa.

**Clyde** · 04-20-2002

"A soul is a force thus what is fouce made up of? "

A force is an attraction or a repulsion, between two particles. It is equal is the rate of change of momentum, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a soul.

"The truth of the mater is you can't work out what is real and what is fake"

You might not be able to, but the rest of us can.

"Invisable sheep would leave marks in the grass were they walked"

Not if they were invisible and untouchable.

"I've just thought of something, most men have belived in having a soul since ancient times, but most men have not belived in Faires, invicible sheep, talking cows, ect. Why?"

Well, people have believed in spirits, witches, etc. The reason why religious ideas persist is because of the way they are taught, they taught to children when they are very young by authority figures and they are taught that questioning is BAD. Religion started because man didn't know squat about the world, he couldn't explain, the weather, or anything else around him, so he imagined that there wer Gods, controlling his environment, the first Gods were Gods of the weather.

Anyway your entire line of reasoning is totally invalid, your basically saying that because lots of people believe it it must be true! LOL yea right, because when the population of Europe believed the world were flat they were obviously right.

Fyodor seems to have done a pretty good job at pointing out your lunacy: You cannot increase all measurements by a fixed amount because the ratio's will change.

Incidently you cannot multiply all measurements by a fixed amount either because in doing so you will alter ratios like: volume:surface area. Thats what you do with your basketball example.

If you were doubled in size and all your proportions were kept exactly the same, your legs would break, because your weight is proportional to your volume which would have been multiplied by 8, whereas how much weight they can hold is based upon the cross sectional area of your legs which would have been multiplied by 4. Hence breakage occurs.

Aran · 04-20-2002

Originally posted by Unregistered
[B]"How do you know that is a "fact"? it was viewed by a human and measured. It's measurement is completely relative. If everything in the universe grew 60 feet, would you know? no! everything would still appear to be the same because our system of measurements is relative."

... Would we know? Why can't giants exist? - because their legs could never hold their weight. You cannot keep the volume/suface area ratio constant if you increase all the dimensions by a fixed amount.

well, i kinda made the assumption that everything would grow proportionately with their weights/masses/other physical properties fully proportionate to their height.

So that deals with the first rediculous point.

"We just have faith in nature that all the parts of our universe don't simultaneously expand and contract by billions of miles every second."

Uh, why are you talking about topics you clearly have no idea about? If the universe did expand or contract by large amounts it would be easily noticeable, because we would see funky effects in the stars.

it would be noticeable if the other physical properties remained constant, but if everything changed proportionately at once, it would be impossible to notice.

"Sciences are based on observation, and observation is based on senses, and senses are based on humans, and humans are error-prone, generalizing, foolish beings. There is no reason to believe anything that you learn, we just choose to because there is no where else to turn. "

Sciences are based on observations... yes, observations are limited by human perception...yes. Does that invalidate everything we know about the universe? BBBZZZZZZT, you see we can TEST our theories, bottom line is, IF our sense's were REALLY misleading us, and all of our theory was in fact completely wrong then STUFF WE BUILD based on that theory WOULD NOT WORK! Planes wouldn't fly, computers would not compute, but they do, so you have no case.

but you don't know how things work when you turn your back to them, do you?

"reality doesn't exist, and has never existed. There isn't one reality in the universe, there is one for every living being, and every reality is different. There isn't a single static reality"

Drivel, pure unadultered grade A garbage.

1) If reality didn't exist, we wouldn't exist either.

2) If everyone had their "own" reality, A: We would not be able to communicate with each other, and B: Given that we can communicate (Which we shouldn't be able to do) we should all see the world in a COMPLETELY different way, we patently don't, we all see the sky as blue, we all experience wet-ness with liquids, we all experience a force pulling us towards the ground.

3) Different people would not be able to reproduce the exact same data by replicating an experiment.

4) All the principles and understanding we have of the world would be false, as a result nothing based on them would work, planes, cars, computers, would do nothing.

you are missing one thing: all realities are conformed together by the ideas of language and the arbitrary labelling of objects. Is the sky blue if you don't know what blue is?

The reason why people can replicate experiment's results is because they are trained to see things a certain way, so they look for the one thing in one of two states (or multifarious measurements) and just check that when they see it.

Why do you think we exist in reality?

**-KEN-** · 04-20-2002

You're all blowing around a very painful amount of hot air.

Now where to start first?...I haven't been able to read this entire thread so forgive me if I comment on a refuted point or two...

>>but you don't know how things work when you turn your back to them, do you?<<

If a tree falls in the woods, and no-one's around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Well first define sound for us. In my understanding it's the vibrations in the substance around us (be it air, water, or otherwise). Now I've never taken any for of science that's discussed sound at length, so I guess that could be taken as conjecture on my half, but oh well. So anyhow, the tree still causes the air to vibrate around it, creating "sound", there's just no mind around to interpret into sound as you know it.

On aran's idea of everything increasing by 60ft, think of everything growing (mass, weight, volume, height, width, radius, whatever) proportionately. So there we've proved that it's all relative, but even so it doesn't prove your initial point, Aran. Just because it's based on things that are relative doesn't mean a thing, everything still works out whether the universe and everything in it has enlarged by 60 or 60,000 feet. I can only seem to approach teaching you guys this, but no matter how I word what I want to say, I don't think it'd help you understand enough...

nvoigt made a good point awhile back on blind faith, which I don't think seeped into your head, Clyde. Your scientific beliefs, at their roots, are all blind faith as well. We have faith that energy can never be created or destroyed, but how was it created in the first place? Where did the universe come from? What makes up the particles that make up the particles that make up the particles that make up..[...]..the atom? Ok so maybe that's not so much blind faith as it is just being unknown, but these are fairly basic principles of science (atoms and energy) and they're unkowns.

::sigh:: I'd really like to type up more but I don't feel like sitting in front of the computer all day.

**stevey** · 04-20-2002

The Flat Earth Society still believe the world is flat !!! apparently those satellite pics of the globe are fake !!

Some people still believe that there was no landing on the moon, it was faked !!

Some people believe we live in a Matrix, all reality is a fake somehow !!

Some people believe in a God.

Theres no real point in arguing with any of these people......

**ctimm46** · 04-20-2002

While I believe that most people believe what they are taught at a young age and so on, I also believe that sometimes people change their ways. I was taught to believe in heaven and hell but now I don't believe it. It isn't that I have been wronged by the world, it is just that logic (or the way I see it) deems it virtually impossible. I fear the "afterlife" like nothing else. In fact, it is really my only fear. Which isn't too bad when facing the boss looking for a raise or something like that. But a discussion while interesting, will never provide an answer, just more questions.

**DavidP** · 04-20-2002

oh my gosh...a thread about the after life and there is no religious discussion....just discussion about neural networks...

thats amazing.....utterly amazing.....

**Sorensen** · 04-20-2002

nvoigt made a good point awhile back on blind faith, which I don't think seeped into your head, Clyde. Your scientific beliefs, at their roots, are all blind faith as well.

I don't wish to repeat what's already been stated but Clyde is arguing about what is known (and basing his opinion on things proved). If you don't agree with him then you're making unqualified asumptions about the unkowns that you mention.

oh my gosh...a thread about the after life and there is no religious discussion....just discussion about neural networks...

thats amazing.....utterly amazing.....

That's progress.

Unregistered · 04-20-2002

Here's a great site:

http://www.mysticweb.org

It really is great. I'm on the free course there and I'm learning. Have a look, it's well worth it!

**tim545666** · 04-21-2002

We have faith that energy can never be created or destroyed, but how was it created in the first place? Where did the universe come from?

I have a theory: The universe was never created, matter was never created, energy was never created. It has always been here. There was no begining. It makes sense if you think about it.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" -Karl Marx