star signs

As any scientist knows, it's not for the the sceptics to prove that the stars DON'T have influence over us; it is for the believers to prove that they DO. And I think it is telling that almost the entire scientific world does not believe in astrology- precisely because there is no supporting evidence for it whatsoever.

It may seem churlish to dismiss astrology in that way, but it really is the only way to treat things. And it's not as if people haven't TRIED to prove it over time. But it only ever 'works' in isolated conditions- scientifically meaningless.

Science and stuff like astrology is not by definition incompatible, of course. But the universe works by rules, and you have to stick with them. 'To the rational mind, nothing is inexplicable, only unexplained.' If astrology DOES have a good grounding, then one day science will work that grounding out and we will understand it. Until that day, you cannot blame people for disbelieving in it- indeed, this should be the basic response of any rational person. If you have a personal experience with it, that's different, but don't expect the rest of us to believe it.

But queeq, you are wrong about there being no evidence for the big bag (and you said you weren't talking about evidence, which is odd, because you clearly were), and I cannot find a physicist who gives credibility to any other explanation. The discovery of the big bang's echo is EXACTLY the record of it that you said did not exist.

While still not 100% conclusive proof, you seemed to make out that there was no solid evidence for it whatsoever. Well, there definitely is. And meanwhile every single thing we discover about the Universe is consistent with the Big Bang theory. Believing in something other right now seems pretty blind.

Meanwhile, I would remind you that it is utterly impossible to create extra universes- the universe, by definition, is EVERYTHING. EVERY THING. That is literal. There cannot be more than one; the universe encompasses the whole lot, through time and space. No matter how many 'things' there are (planets, dimensions, planes of existence, whatever), there is only ONE Universe which comprises of all of it.

Pedanticism aside, there is nothing solid so far that disproves the Big Bang, and several pieces of evidence that prove it. That wraps it up for me.

thank you professor Ush...

you know what I'm thinking? what's BEFORE the big bang (or for queeq: what was there in the beginning?)

Originally posted by yerssot

you know what I'm thinking? what's BEFORE the big bang (or for queeq: what was there in the beginning?)

that is an irrelevant question, for time did not exist then, or to put it defferently there was no 'then'. nothing could excist when time itself had not started.

but how can that be so? what's before time?

Nothing 'is' before time, yerss. Something can only 'be' if there is time in which it can 'be' in.

yerss:nothing! or, it's not nothing, it's not ANY thing. I don't know how, but time did not start before the big bang, and when there is no time nothing is.

so how can a big bang come when there is nothing to bang from or with?

Whilst I agree with much of what Ush has said, there are two paragraphs that trouble me somewhat. Here's why, let me break this down into the two distinct areas.

1. Astronomy

Meanwhile, I would remind you that it is utterly impossible to create extra universes- the universe, by definition, is EVERYTHING. EVERY THING. That is literal. There cannot be more than one; the universe encompasses the whole lot, through time and space. No matter how many 'things' there are (planets, dimensions, planes of existence, whatever), there is only ONE Universe, which comprises of all of it.

Therefore you statement will forever be inherently flawed until the day we (the Human race) are able to comprehend and understand what makes the Universe work. The concept of multiple universes, multiple space-time paths and all that other great stuff can not be dispelled simply because we can not begin to understand how it might work, simply because we don't know if it does work.

Once the world was flat, once the earth was the centre of the universe, then the centre of the galaxy, then the centre of the solar system. As our understanding grew, our view of things changed, who are we to say that the view does not have some more changing to do. Until we can fathom the nature of the universe, it is not possible to make such grandiose statements.

1. Astrology

Science and stuff like astrology is not by definition incompatible, of course. But the universe works by rules, and you have to stick with them. 'To the rational mind, nothing is inexplicable, only unexplained.' If astrology DOES have a good grounding, then one day science will work that grounding out and we will understand it. Until that day, you cannot blame people for disbelieving in it- indeed, this should be the basic response of any rational person. If you have a personal experience with it, that's different, but don't expect the rest of us to believe it.

There is not a person alive today who can truly tell you what the structure of the universe is. Many who try to contemplate the infinite universe rapidly go mad with frustration, it is simply a concept we do not yet have the capacity to grasp. If you reach the end of the universe, what next? Spend 30 minutes thinking this through and see just how big a headache you have, not a metaphorical one, but a real, blinding headache.

And this is the problem; Many do believe in the power of the stars to rule there would, I was always very sceptical but now I truly believe there is something in it. Each must decide for themselves though. I like to think I have a pretty open mind when it comes to this kind of stuff, but also analytical. I have seen important elements of my life displayed on a page before me, both progressively and retrospectively. Not just minor things, but important stuff. Maybe I am reading to much into it, but I don't think so. The kind of events I'm talking about are not everyday ones, you might even call some of them life changing, and they were there, before my eyes.

Each must make his or her own decision, personally I have made mine.

Well, THERE'S a question...

Technically, of course, it comes from the big crunch before it.

Hmm so wev'e moved from astrology to astronomy hey? 🙂
I like science but i dont understand some of the complexities....well i'm only 15 its not as though i'm a supergenius mastermind like some people 🙄
I follow most of my own philosophy,you can't believe everything,finding out how we came to be is not for us to find out,we are just to live our lives and wonder.
But i'm not saying you have to,its human nature for us to know the truth.But the real truth can be found in one place only-in every man and womans communion with an eternal source of hidden knowlege within,which each and every individual must seek out and find for his or herself.
We may point out the path to others,but each of us must walk along that path alone,until every single "lost one" has made the whole journey,and all of us have finally reached the light of full born wisdom at the end of the way,where we began a long *forgotten* time ago. 🙂

Originally posted by mah
yerss:nothing! or, it's not nothing, it's not ANY thing. I don't know how, but time did not start before the big bang, and when there is no time nothing is.

Time is a constant, a measure, nothing more. You may mean Space-time which is actually something different.

If you ask me, 'real truth' can only be found if we continue to explore the Universe around us. It is one of the reasons we live, I think.

Crumbs, I hope we aren't going to get into 'spacetime' because it gets real complicated from there on in, and the next thing I know my friend is telling me that if I walk through a doorway slowly enough I'll diffuse and that wardrobe over there is only PROBABLY there, and so on...

Meanwhile, RC, I should point out that is absolutely DOES NOT MATTER that we do not yet comprehend the nature of ther Universe. No matter what happens, EVER, there can onbly EVER be ONE Universe, by it's very definition. We simply have to re-define the nature of the universe every time we find there is more to it. But there will only ever, EVER be one. It is impossible for there to be more, It is the ONE thing that is EVERYTHING.

ok... getting to complecated!!!
*brains will shut down in 5 seconds*
*searching for brains*
*still searching*
*no brains found*
*no shut down available*

And meanwhile, RC< I do not undersatand your second problem with my post. Science is merely ther operation of understanding tyhe universe around us, no matter what that may contain. So what if we're not done yet? The basic principle that you should not beleive in something unless it is proven holds.

Space=Time isn't that complex, well, it IS complex, but it's not the brain melter you imply.

And I think your safe with you doorway Ush....

And to Aquarius87 I can only say this, when trying to discuss how our lives may or may not be influenced by the stars, it is important to be able to undertand that we DON'T understand enough about the stars and the universe to say whether they do or do not influence our lives.

As I said, personally I think there is something to it, but there are many who do not. Neither side can prove nor disprove the other.

Well you know,this is going to be a great age for human discovery,you wanna know why?
Its the Age of Aquarius,scientific breakthroughs,change,humanitariasm and the technology is going to boom.
My sign also represents Genius.
The age of Pisces will be much better though.

I'm still not sure if people 100% get what I meant when I say there is only one universe; it's a problem I've had before.

It's more a matter of grammar than science. 'Universe' is the word that you use to define the sum total of all things. So, it doesn't matter what we do or don't know yet; if we find out there are a billion billion realities beyond our vaguest comprehension; it doesn;t matter if time is linear, curved or non-existent... in there end there is one word you use to define the WHOLE lot, and that is Universe. SO there cannot be more than one.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And meanwhile, RC< I do not undersatand your second problem with my post. Science is merely ther operation of understanding tyhe universe around us, no matter what that may contain. So what if we're not done yet? The basic principle that you should not beleive in something unless it is proven holds.

My point was that we simply don't know all the rules yet, therefore I would suggest that nullifies your statement. I suppose the later part of the paragraph did delve into that aspect, but the initial opening seemed somewhat finalised and therefore I felt it required further comment.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm still not sure if people 100% get what I meant when I say there is only one universe; it's a problem I've had before.

It's more a matter of grammar than science. 'Universe' is the word that you use to define the sum total of all things. So, it doesn't matter what we do or don't know yet; if we find out there are a billion billion realities beyond our vaguest comprehension; it doesn;t matter if time is linear, curved or non-existent... in there end there is one word you use to define the WHOLE lot, and that is Universe. SO there cannot be more than one.

Originally posted by Ratcat
That is ONE theory, however the contracting/expanding theory of unioversal continuity is in contension with that.

Time is a constant, a measure, nothing more. You may mean Space-time which is actually something different.

well all I'm saying is it's not appropriate for us to discuss the 'before-the-bigbang' as 'then' because time as the forward moving 'thing' we know it as, didn't excist.