and where's the foetus going to gestate?

there are many arguments to state for the case of non-existence. i thought once that if something could be labeled and defined then it obviously existed. thus non existence was impossible. because it would have to be outside existence and thus have a boundry wich would define it and allow it to be labeled. making it exist.

but then i also thought that everything has it's polar, or opposite. so obviously existence must as well. i guess it depends on the perspective of the monkey.

the new theory is that two parrallel universes contsantly bump into eachother causing explosions of creation. eventually the created elements dissipate before the collision occurs again. so we are a big bang in a sequence of endless big bangs.

Why only two parallel universes? Because existence should have an opposite? Like a photo-negative? What would our photo-negative be? What is the opposite of our existence? Just thought how similar that 'opposite' would be to what is often described in religious text as some form of 'spirit world', 'after-life'.

ope, ope, ope......you're referring to the "correlation of opposites"....that you can't have day without night, hot without cold, etc......however, existence is a valid truth against this, such as a circle.....whats the opposite of a circle? there isn't anything (and no, a straight line does not count, for a straight line can be considered to go on into forever, as having infity, much like a circle).......

anyway, here is something i just found out.....the planet Jupiter, was once a star, but it failed because it began to ionize b4 it was hot enough, and now it is known as a "brown dwarf"

Things spin around because that's physics. If you take two bodies which exert gravitational pulls on each other and set them moving, they will move around each other in orbit, and these orbits will naturally, over time, become more and more like perfect cricular movements. That's just physics. Trust me (or rather my physics teacher) or else go and work it out yourself. You also need to remember that the sun is not a stationary object, even relative to the planets in our solar system. All the planets exert the same pull on it as it does on them, so it's being moved around too. That is its 'orbit.' Planets are round because they are or were liquid or gaseous and were spinning, and pulling itself together by gravity. That makes things spherical. sixxx(sic)six is right about Jupiter as well, it's a failed star.

So that's the spinning thing. The universe is expanding but has no centre point where the big bang could be said to have occurred. This is because space is curved back on itself. Take the balloon analogy, and imagine that the two dimensions of the balloons surface are the three dimensions of space. Where is the 'centre' of the balloons surface? There isn't one. In the same way there is no centre of the universe, or else it could be said to be anywhere. Everywhere appears to be the centre because everything is moving away from any given point in proportion to its distance. Think of the dots on the balloon again.

Whether or not the universe will contract in a 'big crunch' under the force of gravity is still open to debate. It probably won't. Indeed, the universe appears to be expanding ever faster, but no one is at all sure why that might be.

All these theories of 'correlation of opposites' and so on might all sound very interesting, but I think it's probably better to stick to the science on all of this.

And the universe can definitely be said to have begun at a certain point, even if none existence is impossible, because time began with the universe too, so there would be no time when the universe didn't exist.

Time began with the universe?? Well what started the clock ticking then? Is that the extent of scientific evaluation in the field? At some stage the universe just happened? and, we might all just implode, but, probably not.

Time breaks down into the measure of reactions between molecules/atoms.

Or so my chemistry teacher taught me.

Which means if nothing exists, then you have no time...since no reactions are occuring.

Okay, so there is nothing (no chemical reactions) then one just occurs. How? If nothing is happening then there is no environment to cause the initial reaction. Unless the initial reaction is what's come to be know as God. God was originally one lonely atom (Adam, atom see the similarity) Who tasted the forbidden fruit of reaction by an abnormal act of the uniquely malformed. Suddenly sweet serenity is abandoned through the subsequent reactionary chaos incurred. Neat!

No one knows how. But they do know that time came into being along with the other dimensions when they universe began. Don't ask me how they know that.

The fact that we don't understand something doesn't mean that God did it. When people didn't understand lightning they thought that Zeus or Thor was throwing it down from the sky.

I just don't understand why there has to be a beginning at all. Just because we can't comprehend there not being one.

see.....the problem is, if you have infinity, you don't really have time.......yet, a notion of it.....we know this because us humans can concieve of this notion........we understand that if there's an existence, then there's time.........but what it really takes is the existence of two things..............for example, i can't tell time unless i something else exists, and i can watch it change, grow, die, whatever............so, as i always state, i believe that "time" essentially comes into play when the physical and the metaphysical come into play together.........therefore, it would be possible for the metaphysical to exists for a period of "time" by itself.......if this whole ordeal is circular, then you have infinity

Yeah, I get that. But time (to me)sounds like a man made concept to label an arc of a circle. You know what I mean? We act as though time blankets existence but we are kidding ourselves. Time is just a label we've given to a jigsaw piece.

even so.......where there's change, some notion of time must have existed prior, during, and after........

Maybe that's where our problem is. Only being able to interpret time linearly, in reference to before and after.

It's not just because we can't comprehend it. It's because that's what physics says. It's far harder to comprehend there not being time at all.


I agree with this totally right up to the big Xs that I put in. I think we see time in the same way that footprints show us that motion exists, but we can't see it directly moving because movement is relative and we have nothing to compare it to.

After the Xs I think it's extremely speculative, and I don't quite see the reasoning behind it. You might have to expand. How does the convergence of the metaphysical and the physical create time, or a sense of it?


But there's only one dimension of time that we can perceive, so there is only a before and after, and a present point. Same as a line in any other dimension.

as to what you said about the after XXX"s part.....check the thread where i talked about the metaphysical.......i don't honestly know what the metaphysical is, but it seems that physical laws imply the notions of movement.........otherwise, it isn't physical.......the convergence of it.....i dunno.......but itz a new philosophy i am adopting and one day i will justify it thoroughly

Look, I know I'm odd but sometimes I just want to try and conceive the inconceivable. Each moment is a bubble. Instant limitless thought. A cyclical second. Forget limiting laws for a moment. What if we're all just atoms reacting off each other?

sorry...momentary lapse of reason.

I did look at that thread, so I sort of know what you mean by 'the metaphysical,' but this idea seems really vague and undefined.

are you shitting me? do you read much philosophy?

try using some math to hypothesize time and infinity. simple math like 1=1.

picture an infinitely long line.
now pick any point on that line.
no matter where you choose, you have chosen the exact midpoint as both ends of the line on either side of the point are equal, because the line remains infinite in either direction and infinity=infinity.

also, identify two differing distances on that line.