RE: Black Hole eats sun

RE: Black Hole eats sun (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - Off Topic: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=23
- - - RE: Black Hole eats sun: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=198678

Message

Ricardo -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 4 2012 22:37:38)
quote: Ummm...not exactly. Counter-intuitive in some respects, perhaps, but not "non-logical". Sorry, you are correct, not the best word choice. At the moment I felt it was an easy way to make my point about singularity as it pertained to black hole existence. Abstract math concepts allow for lots of things that might not be a part of reality yet appear to "exist". Singularity interms of a black hole means at the heart of the thing we have infinite density and a boundry of spacetime itself. More then simply counter-intuitive as are some concepts of Quantum mechanics (wave particle duality, enganlement, etc, all experimentally verifiable) or Relativity (time dilation, gravitational lensing, etc, again observationally verified) the physics and math we use to describe other objects in our reality are not available to describe what happens inside the black hole's heart. So in order to study these things as actual objects in our reality, you have to sort of pretend there is no singularity and just deal with gravity effects at the supposed "event horizon". If it turns out that the singularity does not exist (the point where matter and energy time and space are obliterated) then these massive objects are NOT black holes and we need a new description of them. Meanwhile, we keep reading and hearing about how matter of factly black holes are doing this that and the other simply because we don't have any other stellar remnent more massive then the observed nuetron star/pulsars or white dwarves....which incidentally do similar things (of course not as powerfully) as depicted in the top simulation, with no need for singularities. Also about Sagan, he says Evolution is a FACT not a theory, after showing how artificial selection (human encouraging or discouraging reproduction of animals and plants) and natural selection are similar ways species originate. The idea that humans evolved from apes is the "theory" that everyone gets bent out of shape about as the obervational data (the gaps in the fossile record) is not all there. But the basic FACT that evolution is going on since life began on this planet is indisputable.

odinz -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 4 2012 23:00:37)
Humans did not evolve from apes, humans evolved alongside apes from a common ancestor![:D] Black holes are cool too, even though they are not exactly holes and all.. Dark matter and dark energy, alongside figuring out exactly how the big bang was set into play is even more interesting. People say "big bang" happened at the beginning, but if it happened it is still happening, wit the expansion and all that. Interesting topic but nothing new, anyone want to prove or solve the Riemann hypothesis with me?[:)]

ToddK -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 4 2012 23:12:44)
quote: Humans did not evolve from apes Doitsun evolved from apes, no question.[:D] He is also often surrounded by dark matter.[8D] Man, this thread is really getting deep now, huh?

estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 5 2012 1:32:36)
quote: Also about Sagan, he says Evolution is a FACT not a theory, after showing how artificial selection (human encouraging or discouraging reproduction of animals and plants) and natural selection are similar ways species originate. I was told not to argue with Ricardo or I would get played like a ping pong ball.

HemeolaMan -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 5 2012 1:58:26)
One small but important correction: black holes do exist. we can observe them and measure their mass by looking at the gravitational pull and acceleration of mass around them. we can view the xrays that escape from them as well. my first revision of this statement had said "gravitational putt" which is kind of funny, because if you watch stars and planets as they go around massive objects it kind of looks like putting =)

Doitsujin -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 5 2012 7:22:11)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToddK quote: Humans did not evolve from apes Doitsun evolved from apes, no question.[:D] He is also often surrounded by dark matter.[8D] Man, this thread is really getting deep now, huh? Yeah I evolved. Some other people here make me think they didn´t. I wonder why this random attack. Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px

Estevan -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 5 2012 20:04:27)
quote: we can observe them and measure their mass by looking at the gravitational putt Does this mean there are 18 black holes in a standard universe?

odinz -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 5 2012 20:43:00)
quote: Does this mean there are 18 black holes in a standard universe? [:D]

Richard Jernigan -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 9 2012 3:38:28)
For those who may be interested there is a program on the Science Channel (a cable TV channel in the USA) on black holes that is scheduled for 3 AM CDT (UTC-7) Wednesday, May 9. You may want to record it. The show aired yesterday at a more reasonable time. It is well put together and features a number of leading experts on the subject. One facet I didn't know about is a guy at the Haystack Observatory of Massachusetts Institute of Technology near Boston who is working on synchronizing a large number ot radio telescopes all across North America. He hopes to build a large enough virtual aperture to image a black hole--that is the halo around the event horizon caused by gravitational lensing. I know and have worked with several people at Haystack--pretty exciting. To expand a little on my comment, general relativity predicts a singularity for mass concentrations above a certain level. Perfectly logical mathematics. So far, no measurements invalidate this prediction. Trouble is, quantum mechanics won't stand for such a large mass concentrated in such a small volume. In the application of quantum mechanics to atoms and subatomic particles, the masses are so small that gravity can be ignored. But not for the huge mass and tiny dimensions of a black hole. No one knows how to combine quantum mechanics and general relativity into one consistent mathematical theory. Thus the interest of both theoretical and experimental physicists in the extreme concentrations of mass seen, for example, at the galactic center. The guy at Haystack says, "No one wants to be the person who disproves Einstein," but still he doesn't know whether he hopes his measurements will confirm or invalidate general relativity. They're working on it. None of the big dogs claim they're even close. RNJ

Ruphus -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 9 2012 23:41:36)
quote: ORIGINAL: BarkellWH The ignorance of such people knows no bounds. They are fond of saying that the Theory of Evolution is just that, a "theory." They do not understand the difference between a "theory," which has withstood repeated testing, registering the same result without exception, and "hypothesis," which is what the ignorant mean when they say "theory." Unfortunately, we have many school boards in the States who, either because they actually believe it or because they are spineless in the face of fundamentalists, dictate that "creationism" must be taught alongside evolution, under the laughable assumption that both are equally valid "theories." And we wonder why our high school students trail much of the advanced world in science! Cheers (although not much to be cheerful about on this subject!) Bill Somehow life to me appears almost like a sarcastic string of consciousness towards the converse of an initial or simple apparent. Fascinating and maybe often enough even amusing to the observing mind about himself on the one hand, but just painful to the appointed stand on the opposite shore. With the latter mindset one other time presenting a converse of appearance, with its firm conviction and that hyper fragility all in the same time, that paniks it to blinkers. And so, intellectually drowning the appointed mind grabs after the straw by taking entities apparent none-linearity and gaps of explanation as "proof" for sciences arbitrariness altogether. So far even that it will comfort itself by levelling all the effort of science with the pure predetermination of belief. On such an attitude the fact that a big bang must have been preceded by something shall then equal creation by the almighty. Just like the perfection of creatures ought to have come from a purposeful source in place of from billions of years of evolution. The more insecure and sobriety-dreading the more confidently incongruency will be set. Still, the most minuscule portion of reason, always provided unconsciously even with the least educated spirit, will remark the inherent vagueness of belief, sitting there in the predetermined´s cold sweaty neck about the hence untold injust caused. All only taking place unconsciously though as merely pangs, and with that of no constructive effect. Farther away even from realization remains the insult of almighty´s intellect, who accordingly ought to be driven by archaic human characteristics like vanity, venality, radical estimate in a lump sum and unforgivingness. Detouched one more time farther even from the consistency of wisdom; not to mention of an uber soundness of who would have created the post bang and all of its unthinkbale complexity; a wisdom actually that could not ever be seeing any sense, lesser even arrange any thelike perverse insanity that we have raged to over the past millenia. Not even just a humble measure of soundness would had let happen such abyss of incongruency, injust and torture, just because of a disobeident maid that ate an apple. Who won´t let his offspring alone to decide about ways of reason or belief first of age is not a caring mentor, but ordinarily occupied with defending his own fragility. To manipulate children is one of the most shabby ways of bypassing own shakiness. Children mus not be blackmailed by antiquated pedagogics of ambivalent granting and retracting existential legitimation. The young have a right to being raised with untouched legitimation, so that they may develop fair personalities who won´t be banally dependent on bending of complex externity for protection of a mere and fragile internalization. Men should be an example for the most shrewed species on earth. Instead we serve as a likely globally unique case of discrepancy between intellectual capacity and mental fallow land. Over 2000 years in our calendar and billions of individuals still stuck in the most basic of cognitive ability. Sheer incredible. No creator and perceiver of the world could be sitting by watching this and all the painful futility it causes. Not for a minute of any dimension. Sheer impossible. Ruphus

Ricardo -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 11 2012 15:18:25)
quote: He hopes to build a large enough virtual aperture to image a black hole--that is the halo around the event horizon caused by gravitational lensing. That is exciting, but hopefully they won't get bent out of shape if they find nothing or observe something not expected. In the 70's Stephen Hawking made waves with scientests because he showed that Black Holes evaporate over time (perhaps that is only rotating ones, and perhaps applying thermodynamics? don't remember exactly). So that means that early primordial low mass black holes should have had enough time to evaporate. As these HYPOTHETICAL objects lose mass via evaporation, at a point they will explode, or flash off something only as luminous as the sun. So they went looking for these things...apparently an engineer John O'Sullivan came up with a way to use Fourier Transforms to filter the background noise of such weak radio signals and reconstruct them in order to dectect their existence. But they found NADA. (Luckily this engineer used the technology he developed to make a Chip that was the start of wireless internet we use now.) Of course that doesn't mean they don't exist, but as per the phyisics they SHOULD be observed but they were not. To me it shows that we still don't know what's going on for sure with black holes in general. I happily wait for more observational data and an actual event horizon would be great to "see". quote: No creator and perceiver of the world could be sitting by watching this and all the painful futility it causes. Not for a minute of any dimension. Sheer impossible. Impossible Ruphus? Have you ever created something, or started to compose something or build something, or start a project, etc, after a while to discover it was going bad, or on the wrong lines and simply gave up on it, left it on the shelf for later, destroyed it or trashed it or started over? Perhaps a "creator" need not be a benevolant gray bearded old man floating above or in another dimension yet still observing the mess made. Has man not made both beauty AND horrbile messes with it's own creations? Why must a "creator" of nature be so more accountable then humans? Belief and faith are followed in science just as easily as in religion and theology. Notice Richards statement from the scientist above "no one wants to be the one to disprove Einstein". While that is not totally true, I am sure most scientist would love to discover something that flies in the face of scientific pillars, you can still sense the feeling that some scientific ideas are as strong as any religious belief of faith. The problem is that despite intuition, counter intuitive or contradictory ideas coexist perfecty well inside human brains. How can the bible be true IF there were dinosaurs? How can God exist if we don't need him involved in evolution? How can Relativity AND quantum mechanics both be describing our true reality? How can a photon or electron be both a WAVE and a point Particle? How can a black hole exist yet have a singularity? These dualities can't actually be both correct or coexist....yet life goes on perfectly fine dealing with both "truths" sometimes pretending one or the other does not exist depending on what we are doing. I can personally state that despite the fact I love science logic and truthful explainations, I have had "coincidental" experiences that thanks to the timing of certain events leave me intuitivly understanding the "truth" that there is someone outside observing. I don't get a sense that the observer is benevalent, but for sure favors "balance".

marrow3 -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 11 2012 21:02:21)
quote: That is exciting, but hopefully they won't get bent out of shape if they find nothing or observe something not expected. In the 70's Stephen Hawking made waves with scientests because he showed that Black Holes evaporate over time (perhaps that is only rotating ones, and perhaps applying thermodynamics? don't remember exactly). So that means that early primordial low mass black holes should have had enough time to evaporate. As these HYPOTHETICAL objects lose mass via evaporation, at a point they will explode, or flash off something only as luminous as the sun. So they went looking for these things...apparently an engineer John O'Sullivan came up with a way to use Fourier Transforms to filter the background noise of such weak radio signals and reconstruct them in order to dectect their existence. But they found NADA. (Luckily this engineer used the technology he developed to make a Chip that was the start of wireless internet we use now.) Of course that doesn't mean they don't exist, but as per the phyisics they SHOULD be observed but they were not. To me it shows that we still don't know what's going on for sure with black holes in general. I happily wait for more observational data and an actual event horizon would be great to "see". It might be harder to think a reason or a process that prevents formation of black holes than to accept that they do form. What's the evidence ? Light is formed of photons, photons are deflected by gravity (all very well established), heavier objects deflect photons more than lighter ones. We observe objects in the unniverse that are pretty heavy. Really only one logical extension for some heavy objects to aquire more mass e.g. particularly center of galaxies. And as a consequence the gravitational field heavy enough to deflect photons enough to capture them and in so doing form an event horizon. Can say nothing about singularities so 'we don't know'. (i.e. define black holes by capture of light not by existence of singularity in the middle) What's the indirect evidence ? (i) stars in orbit from which infer heavy mass, (ii) emmission spectra from objects such as stars consumed by black holes (iii) bright sources of light behind black holes under going gravitational lensing. In method of science, use Occam's razor to pick simplest explanation - where you'd have to say it's likely (at least) for them to exist, assuming telescopes of one form or another had collected sufficient data. Talk of ideas in science as hypothetical can be difficult as ideas are never considered proven. Karl Popper/ falsification and so on. Although it does depend as so much does on the way in which language is used. p.s. reserve the right to be wrong about anything above

KMMI77 -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 12 2012 1:09:42)
quote: Impossible Ruphus? Have you ever created something, or started to compose something or build something, or start a project, etc, after a while to discover it was going bad, or on the wrong lines and simply gave up on it, left it on the shelf for later, destroyed it or trashed it or started over? Perhaps a "creator" need not be a benevolant gray bearded old man floating above or in another dimension yet still observing the mess made. Has man not made both beauty AND horrbile messes with it's own creations? Why must a "creator" of nature be so more accountable then humans? Sounds possible. I'm just imagining. After dying we all see a written sign that says, Sorry about that, I was mucking around with this and that and i messed it up. This time i will send you to a better version that I'm working on[:D]

Ruphus -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 12 2012 10:26:36)
Hi Ricardo, The common idea is that god created the world; purposefully stuffed with what´s around. Hence, not just igniting the initial process and then wait and watch what happens like with an experiment. But maybe you prefer a meta version with everything having been set up systematically until merely the experimental founding of menkind? Yet, both ways would be lacking basic congruency. Even just the purposeful creation on earth before the arise of homo sapiens, just the targeted igniting of a process that would encompass known elements and their potential to mingle for substance of living and further up to specialized organisms, provides a creator of such anticipating complexity that procedure of experiment would not be required, let alone experiments on such trivial level like observation of what a drive-steered species could be evolving too if allowed to exploit fellow individuals and environment under a retarding culture. Such a trial could quite exactly be predicted at our intellectual level already; and to assume that a creator of the universe to be in need of such an experiment to first see the outcome is an assumption only potential by human mind of little ability to congruent assess. ( Not aiming at you.) Secondly, there is a linear relationship to be derived already within the limited range of wisdom that we are capabale of. Which is that above of a certain level of comprehension reason and consequently empathical skills will thrive. With a being way independent of drives, just the more anyway. Even if we provide the contradiction of a hypothetical almighty capable of creating the world, albeit not of predicting hell on earth, what actually a creator should be able to still at the very least, would be to stop the needless scream of pain on our planet. Which again he would be doing inevitably in the same time, for the least demoninator of how he cannot be sadistic. Thus, to the human mind who wants to be logical, yet feels a romantic need of superordinate existence, there remains only one scenario, which would be god as inherence of entity. Not external of the being nor ruling, but part of it all, growing and aging with the universe ( and its possible countless siblings, for that matter ). A ruler however of such complexity who in the same time let happen needless harm for vast of his creature on earth, is a logical impossibilty for any human mind of dedication to congruency. So much about logic. Practically, I am of the clear impression that an intellectually weak being like us under given culture, with that overwhelming difficulty to use a given cognitive potential for reason, should be all but busy with vague spending on hypothetical existence of the almighty. Every bit of energy invested there will inevitably be one more measure of dismiss on urgent demands of deconstructive, constructive and just-being in the mundane world and its definite existence and needs. A god, unlike outlined by simple minds of past millenias, but rather clearly free of destructive human characteristics like vanity would not see any sense in us bowing to him, pretending him to be wanting us self-contradictory, bigot and traders of intellectual lazyness or shabbiness for piousness, would instead expect us to respect his creation and our efforts to let his creatures including fellow men prosper and live unchecked and in just. If he exists, albeit unable or worse unwilling to cancel all the maliciousness as many consequently believe, he however must be absolutely mad at us for causing and condoning the unspeakbale measure of grief for his creation on earth. Even the most detouched religious works in their contradictoriness contain minuscule sequences to a rough extend of "all animals are gods children" or "beware of those who cannot speak. God will redress for them vigorously". Even authors of simplest mind have a ray of hope at times. - Where I am residing you might be sentenced to death for much less even of a consistent approach. - My fate has it that me just can´t keep shut when of the impression that contemporaries could be inspired to thinking things over. Wish me a thoughtful internet bailiff. Ruphus

odinz -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 12 2012 18:56:27)
One of the things I have a problem with is that people can believe in afterlife, and in most religions you have to do certain things to get the good afterlife, or else it is an eternity of torture. In any case it does not make any sense that we could have an afterlife, I mean our bodies are left to decay in the ground and there is no way we would have the brains we have now if there was a consciousness outside of out bodies. I mean why is the brain there to fulfill all purposes of emotion, thought and movement yet we also have that outside of the body? I also wonder what happens to the people who have chromosone disorders, mental illness and so on, I mean we can observe what disorders and damages can do to the mind, why are they affected at all if there is a soul and will the soul be normal or will it still be a disabled soul? When it comes to the universe we have many hypothesis' about construct and origins, but we also have theories and fact. Facts are not interesting for the most part in science, hypothesis' and theories are. One of the most common things I hear in debates or argument by people of religion is the so called fine-tuning and design of the universe. The fine-tuning that seems to be put there perfectly for us is pretty obvious right? Not so, we are the ones that has adapted to it. When life started to bloom surrounding conditions were not perfect for life, but life adapted, and it had to do so, and it is still doing so. When it comes to how the universe can seem like it was designed perfectly for us, like it is a safe and good place for us to exist, just like a cradle, that is also not so. The universe rather seems to try to kill us in so many different ways and there are many dangers, some of wich might appear in our lifetime. I can also not find any real reason why some deity would even want to create all of this, and if there was a deity that did create the universe and could personally interfere with our life, who created the deity? I find that many use a form of "higher power" to give meaning or reason to what has happened or things happening, but do things really need meaning? I like science because it is about testing hypothesis' and theories and also testing theories that has been around for a long time, some day they might not be valid anymore, but the ones that we have tested over and over and still stands sturdy are the ones that lets us progress in all manner of ways. But what I know for a fact is that the world is harsh but it is also immensely beautiful, I don't want to concern myself too much about religion, but America and the middle east often comes to my mind as being driven by impulse together with religion, and I think that is unhealthy. An atheist internet friend of mine was thrown out of his home because of him being an atheist. And there are also alot of issues that have become issues because of religion, like abortion or homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and such. I also don't the way some places teach creationism together with science, or even that such things can even be considered, because it should never ever be like that. If anyone is wondering, I consider myself a freethinker and agnostic-atheist. I have now probably written a crappy comment that does not make sense and probably will be banned, so sorry for that. I don't mean to cause any trouble, I also don't remember wich person I chose to reply to, but it was not meant as a reply to that person, I just did it. So sorry if I am causing any trouble. I do love you all though[:)]

Ruphus -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 13 2012 11:01:33)
Your post appears perfectly fine and thoughtful to me. - And the owner of this board seems as far as it gets from banning sober ponderings. quote: ORIGINAL: odinz I find that many use a form of "higher power" to give meaning or reason to what has happened or things happening, but do things really need meaning? Entelechists would answer with "No". I think: Things might rather not need a meaning, but conscious beings will for certain. Even unwillingly ( hence, of opposing attitude to it), a potentially self-aware being will suffer mentally if it can´t figure any meaning to its existence. ( Thus enhanced mental disorders in industrialized contemporary societies.) From there, the so commonly as PC dealt phrase that it was allegedly fruitless ( completely arbitrary / unpredictable ) to even just ask about the meaning of human life, is appearing like fundamentally contradictive to me. Just as every species has its specialization, ours is the one of awareness. ( Which is not to say that we´d be the only species on earth who emerged to this specialization, but that we are the one most advanced with this.) Awareness again demands recognition. Thus, together with the one meaning common to every living being, the self-preservation, recognition is the basic meaning of our life cycle. Or maybe better to say: Recognition is our means to self-preservation. And recognition to an evolutionary social and associating species like us would be the appreciation of supporting values like of cooperation and ethics. Both requiring approach towards objectivity / research / education. As an eagle needs sharp sight to spot prey for survival, we need an eye for sobriety to survive as human beings. The systematics behind it, do not apply to aware species alone, however. Ethics, due to their long-term efficiency, manifest with unaware species as well; eventhough unconsciously / genetically transmitted. Like with the example of lions that I like to mention in this regard. When fed, the lion will unconsciously indicate his idle being by the position of his tail. Thus, potential prey can recognize his current status from far and will not flee needlessly. That way both sides win. The animals of prey won´t waste energy and can continue feeding / grooming, which in return will support the lions food supply. The avoidance of stress or needless killing as a constructive phenomenon, existent ever since and practically evident even without the precondition of humane philosophy. Ruphus

Ricardo -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 14 2012 20:23:17)
quote: The avoidance of stress or needless killing as a constructive phenomenon, existent ever since and practically evident even without the precondition of humane philosophy. Have you never seen an animal engaged in "needless killing"? That being, an animal killing or hurting an other animal neither for food nor for protection or fear? After all humans also do things on "instinct", and further many acknowledge a "6th sense" although hard to pin down, it appears useful for survival as well. I feel many religions and supernatural beliefs and superstitions arise from the mysteries of our most primal instincts. We as humans pretend to be above these things, yet animals seem "smart" enough to use them wisely. I am not always convinced animals are not "aware" or don't use "recognition" as humans do just because they don't have "morals" or technology to kill themselves so easy. When looking for "meaning" after all these years of evolution of life on earth, the answer becomes clear when we realize what we have offered nature and the universe that did not already exist before us. Our gods? Our brains? our art or music? NO, none of that will survive (well we did send that gold record into space, not counting that). The only thing we have offered, our meaning for evolving and developing, is simple as Gearge Carlin stated....PLASTIC....and styrofoam type **** that is non biodegradable. The only thing not "natural" we have offered the universe. We should be proud as a species to have accomplished this.

estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 14 2012 23:13:51)
Spent plutonium rods seem non natural...and decay in .. what is it 60,000 years. I think plastic degrades eventually too. What I really think is unnatural ungodly and wrong is Superglue. It makes talentless boobs think they can fix guitars. Beethoven's Grosse' Fuge will last longer, but yeah anyone aver actually listen to it? And what context will aliens hear it in? ~ Personally I think we should have fracked with the aliens heads and sent John Cages 4'33" in to space on the gold record. But Carl Sagan picked Beethoven thinking that is our music that will endure. Can you imagine an alien race finding that record with Cages 4'33" on it: "Smilbonili come here! I find Earth record we play to see if Earth people intelligent. " "Hmm Gravibhhmgthiiii I hear nothing." "Maybe something wrong with Bang and Olufsen Hi FI? " "Not Really Smilbonili, I just change needle two parsecs ago. Must be very low volume on Earth music. I turn up HiFi." "Still nothing. Earth people are making joke on us Gravibhhmgthiiii. " "Yes Earth people not to be trusted with music. "

Ruphus -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 15 2012 17:19:11)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ricardo Have you never seen an animal engaged in "needless killing"? That being, an animal killing or hurting an other animal neither for food nor for protection or fear? The infamous fox in the chicken stable, killing all he can get. Wolves in sheep gates etc. However, such will happen in blood frenzy of hunters that naturally would come accross of only a single or a very small number of prey in the wilderness that would require full load to bag them in. With the hunting invador now being far from aware of the needless killing occuring in that situation. He will kill them all, before they could eventually escape his sudden cockaigne. In such cases there have just not been enough of millions of years with predators finding themselves in the midst of masses of exposed prey animals. Had there been, you bet that modern foxes, martens, cojotes alikes would only be taking as much as they can drag away. So, such an example in the end will still count for the meaning you were referring to. Only men developes pathological greed. quote: ORIGINAL: Ricardo After all humans also do things on "instinct", and further many acknowledge a "6th sense" although hard to pin down, it appears useful for survival as well. Laymen routingly mix up given unconscious reactions and genetic preconditionings of humans with the specific item of instinct. People long for "human instinct" for romantic reasons. Behavioural sience tells us that humans however do have no instincts. And if you read into it, you´ll understand why. Instincts have been exchanged for consciousness. quote: ORIGINAL: Ricardo I am not always convinced animals are not "aware" or don't use "recognition" as humans do just because they don't have "morals" or technology to kill themselves so easy. Old science which wasn´t really all that scientific, but often predefining for clerical background of the academies, used to aim for distinct seperation between menkind an animals. Thus they eagerly defined that animals could not have: # awareness # humour # playing # empathic skills and mourning # intentional approach # usage of tools All these claims had to be cancelled during actually scientific approach of past decades, and even prearrangement of action as the last of the exclusives has been refuted by a chimpanzee as of late, who gathers and hides stones in his enclosure before opening of the zoo season, in order to throw them at gawping visitors. quote: ORIGINAL: Ricardo When looking for "meaning" after all these years of evolution of life on earth, the answer becomes clear when we realize what we have offered nature and the universe that did not already exist before us. Our gods? Our brains? our art or music? NO, none of that will survive (well we did send that gold record into space, not counting that). Well said! The ancestors of todays religious strongholds in the preceding epoches of different and long since past religions used to be just as fanatic, destructive, and aggressive to "infidels". Those preceding religons are considered baseless superstition by todays believers. One could only wish them a conscious look back into ancient times, considering the eventuality of how they are mistreating mundane surrounding for sake of arbitrary and transitory culture phenomenon. But only scarcely will the cognitive skills be there to allow a reconsidering in the first place. quote: ORIGINAL: estebanana And what context will aliens hear it in? I see folks grown up exclusively with oriental patterns frigid to advanced musical structure. Still am convinced though that open listening could provide musical sensibility over time. I assume, aliens with the intellectual ability to track our planets sounds rather likely would provide the sense and patience for the systematics of versatile rhythm and melody with terristic music. After all it is kind of a mathematical thing. Correspondingly the brains region that is being associated with processing music is the same one that is supposed to manage mathematical tasks. Ruphus

estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 16 2012 1:45:56)
quote: I assume, aliens with the intellectual ability to track our planets sounds rather likely would provide the sense and patience for the systematics of versatile rhythm and melody with terristic music. After all it is kind of a mathematical thing. Correspondingly the brains region that is being associated with processing music is the same one that is supposed to manage mathematical tasks. I think those who packaged off the gold record of Earth sounds knew there was a chance that whomever interprets the stored sounds waves might not even conceptualize the stored data as music as we know it. Who know what structure of the brains of alien life forms might be. They might not even have brains as we know them. Consciousness in other life forms might be totally different elsewhere in the galaxy. The gold record could be nothing more than space trash to them, like one trinket in a sea of deep space plastic chunks. The life of Beethoven might be a singular occurrence, not only here, but galaxy wide. Other life forms might not understand what it means to us, yet we threw that gold frisbee into space to float for millions of years. We must be the most desperate of all life forms trying to pick up other forms in a huge intergalactic singles bar.

odinz -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 16 2012 4:21:02)
quote: We must be the most desperate of all life forms trying to pick up other forms in a huge intergalactic singles bar. We just have to remember the most important advice at times like this:"Dont put your **** in crazy"

Ruphus -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 16 2012 7:34:43)
Keep in mind: I was providing that they could make it sound in the first place. Saying that who can reach to there might also be getting the rest. - I am with you on that one: Pretty audacious to point to ourselves in space. Could potentially just as much be hazardous as it could be a great idea. Either a Hernán Cortés landing or a Bartolome de Las Casas. Ruphus

estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 16 2012 17:11:24)
Yeah maybe we are spreading our filthy Earth germs and we will kill the aliens. [:D] I think we should go as far as we can, I would like to see deep space exploration. Think of the telescope clarity. We would see amazing things. Personally I'm not so worried about how the galaxy and its features work, I don't stand in front of waterfalls and calculate the terminal velocity of sand grains and then try to figure our how long it will take to silt up the pool where the water drops. I just enjoy the waterfalls. We are always looking at the galaxy as a thing to explain, to rationalize. To me it ain't rational at all. It's just pretty. Like the speckles on a trout.

Ruphus -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 16 2012 23:28:15)
The way you look at it could really be making sense in a way. Because, for me to whom the visual appearance seems impressive, but not that thrilling, its the astronomic specs that pull me in. Kind of a flash, as if blowing one´s brain ... Only to leave me a bit disorientated after all. In the end I conclude that the gigantics and transience of space won´t render terristics petty. Rather will things appear as if matters of space and those of our particular earthly wolrd were playing simply in different dimensions. Even if our solar system was just kind of an atom and the galaxies molecules, which again were to be forming a universe as a cell that was to be one of trillions of others who assemble a super cow standing on a mega giant grassland of another world ... It couldn´t override the happenings on our blue planet, that has a significance of its own right. From there, while a youngsters freshman glance into the universe might tempt to simultaneously fancy terristic proportions and concerns entelechy, an extented glimps into the gigantomism out there might lead to the distinction of universal and earthly dimensions of time and space. Maybe our little world is what´s actually to our concern. The universe won´t even notice if our solar system lost its advanced forms of living, but mother earth and any reason that ever populated it absolutely will. Quite as if the happenings on our planet were remaining fully counting as what they are amounting to here and now, with the view in the sky in terms of terristic relevance revealing speckles on a trout. In a way it feels to me as if there were often existing several level of recognition. Basically three. A first understanding, an advanced one, and a superiour; with the latter often and ironically ressembling the first, though having emerged on a very different way. In this case appearing sort of like: 1. Earthly is the most immediate relevance. ( Ignorant) 2. Our little world is just insignificant before the big whole. ( Philosophical apprentice) 3. Earthly is the most immediate relevance. ( Old traveller figuring that there´s no sense in blowing your vehicle for a racing beyound sight.) Hoping to be making sense somehow, Ruphus

tri7/5 -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 17 2012 0:10:42)
quote: ORIGINAL: estebanana I think we should go as far as we can, I would like to see deep space exploration. Think of the telescope clarity.. NASA is actually working on the replacement for Hubble as we speak. It's supposed to blow Hubble away in terms of how powerful it is which is hard to fathom. There's no telling the pictures we might pull from it.

Ricardo -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 17 2012 18:57:35)
quote: In this case appearing sort of like: 1. Earthly is the most immediate relevance. ( Ignorant) 2. Our little world is just insignificant before the big whole. ( Philosophical apprentice) 3. Earthly is the most immediate relevance. ( Old traveller figuring that there´s no sense in blowing your vehicle for a racing beyound sight.) Hoping to be making sense somehow, Making some sense but missing an important "dimensionality" between 1 and 3. Like in improvisation, a big difference between a baby banging on the white keys of a piano against a rhythmic backing and experienced pro doing randomly interesting modal improv with no sharps or flats against same backing. Or another view, modern art. To compare a childs distorted picture to one of Picasso's (or any other modern artist's deliberate distortion of reality) though similar on the surface what is deeper down is what really matters to those that can distinguish. Ricardo

estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 17 2012 19:48:03)
quote: Or another view, modern art. To compare a childs distorted picture to one of Picasso's (or any other modern artist's deliberate distortion of reality) though similar on the surface what is deeper down is what really matters to those that can distinguish. Except that Picasso said "When I was sixteen I could draw like Raphael, now that I'm 80 I can draw like a child." God bless the child.

Ruphus -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 17 2012 22:01:51)
quote: Dr. Katja Schneider, director of the State Art Museum in Moritzburg, has been embarrassed by mistaking a painting done by Banghi, a 31-year-old female chimp, for a work by the late Ernst Wilhelm Nay: The director of the State Art Museum of Moritzburg in Saxony-Anhalt, Katja Schneider, suggested the painting was by the Guggenheim Prize-winning artist Ernst Wilhelm Nay. "It looks like an Ernst Wilhelm Nay. He was famous for using such blotches of colour," Dr Schneider confidently asserted. The canvas was actually the work of Banghi, a 31-year-old female chimp at the local zoo. While Banghi likes to paint, she is not able to build up much of a body of work as her mate Satscho generally destroys her paintings before they can get to the gallery. But this one survived long enough to give Dr Schneider a red face. "I did think it looked a bit rushed," she told Bild newspaper. Of course, this isn't the first time monkey art has fooled an expert. The classic case occurred in 1964 when newsmen from Sweden's Göteborgs-Tidningen obtained some paintings by Peter, a four-year-old chimp at the Boras zoo. They hung the paintings in a gallery, claiming they were the work of avant-garde artist Pierre Brassau. And soon the works were drawing critical acclaim. One critic wrote: "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer." quote: The postmodernists indignantly defend modern art as expressive of some deep conceptual meaning and value inaccessible to the uncultured riffraff taxed to support it. If they were at all honest, the multitude of stories like this one would impel them to rethink their views. After all, what abstract meaning or significant value can some claimed work of art possess if equal to the random smears of a mere beast? Oh, I know that the postmoderns have plenty of rationalizations — that interpretation is all subjective, for example. While such rationalizations may fool some honest folks, none manage to completely conceal the pretentious charlatanism of the whole enterprise of modern art. Most sensible people, I suspect, are so wearied by the steamroller of our postmodern culture that they even cannot rouse themselves to righteous indignation. In fact, the revelation of such “mistakes” in the art world should be treated like a discovery that a widely-respected wine expert cannot tell the difference between Pinot Grigio and urine — or that a prominent dog trainer routinely mistakes Poodles for Dobermans — or that a doctor confuses fingers with toes.

Ricardo -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 17 2012 22:24:53)
got the point about nay or brassau type modern art.....I was talking more about the surreal where a childs version is distorted but you can understand what it is supposed to be (unlike infant scribble or monkey painting) such as people place or thing.....lets see a monkey come up with 3 musicians type work. Not possible. But child might make something close. that is why my point about dimensions goes BELOW THE SURFACE, and is not understood the same way. Scribbling is scribbling. WHO did it might reveal more about the artist, be it a frenchman or a chimp (for example...this chimp must have anger issues, or this french guy has sexual frustrations LOL), and the interpretion reveals so much about the CRITIC not the work or artist. A painting of a muscian is something quite different the scribbling.

estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 18 2012 1:58:44)
* shakes head mumbles to self * This is going to mess you up Ruphus [:D] This essay is called: 'When painting monkeys fly out of my butt' One of the things missing chimp artist thing is that someone, a human, made choices ape. They choose the brushes, the paint type and color, the painting support surface, etc. the chimp just moved paint across the surface. Different chimps will paint with individual touch, mark making gestures, and in different moods. What makes that so different than a modern painter? The way the painter perceives space in the painting has a lot to do with how the painting will look. How do we know a chimp is not thinking about the space in the painting? Chimp paintings are not always as interesting as human paintings, but we don't know for certain what the chimp understands about what he or she is doing. Then again, many human paintings are not as interesting as chimp paintings. -------- Modern art - Nothing is modern. We simply forgot what we walked out of Africa with. We went to Europe and Asia, developed it and became more sophisticated. Art never stopped cycling back a forth between being abstract and realistic for several thousand years and nobody cared. For some reason during the European renaissance a fixation upon the illusion of reality developed and this illusion became the judgement platform of all art. Humans learned to master pictorial illusion though tricks which made paintings look like windows with real scenes. But those windows are in a sense untrue. Chimps and modern painters share some common ground, but looked at in the light of what is illusion and what is real, a blob of chimp thrown paint is more real as paint than a Vermeer. What Vermeer had over a chimp is that he understood the space in the rectangle and how to move the space around to make an illusion. But we had that understanding of how space moves and we understood it profoundly a long time ago. Cave pictures have expressive distortion................. Now you continue it and write the conclusion. [;)]

Page: << < 1 [2] 3 4 5 > >>

Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET