Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Intoscience last won the day on July 16 2021

Intoscience had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    United Kingdom
  • Interests
    Science, off road motorcycling, golf, fitness
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Occupation
    Technical Operations Director

Recent Profile Visitors

742 profile views

Intoscience's Achievements


Molecule (6/13)



  1. Yeah, and since I can't really add to what has already been posted I believe philosophy and science in raw form are yin-yang
  2. "what is the point of philosophy" To partner science.
  3. Ah, ok I hadn't noticed, thanks for the heads up!
  4. So what are you telling us that we don't already know? That light passes through space and is not reflected, so appears dark? What a revelation!!
  5. Space appears dark (black) in colour because black is the colour our brains attribute to the lack of detectible light entering our optical system. It has nothing to do with the colour of "space". Colour is nothing more than the frequency of the light being reflected off the object which is being illuminated. When the light is reflected it will appear as a colour, or a combination of colours, and possibly a multitude of colours if the light is reflected at different frequencies, like a prism. Space doesn't reflect visible light so will just appear "dark", this doesn't mean space has a colour, its just the way we perceive it visually.
  6. Your own personal experience of the present maybe. But experience is about perception and interpretation. Then, if you throw relativity into the mix, which you should, since its the most valid current model that has been verified over and over for the past century +. "Your" present relative to another's within a different frame of reference may not align, you may not agree on the timing of an event, thus may not agree on the "present". Then you may also want to consider the definition of present in perception terms anyhow. Since the experience of each present moment is an after event, so to speak, (it takes time for you body & brain to process information received) technically you could say you only ever experience the past not the present, so time only ever exists in the past. Then you may want to consider the "flow" of time, is each moment a discreet point separate from the previous & next, or is it a continuous blend within no definitive moment (present)? Then what does this mean from a relativity view point, if my present is now and yours is later which moment exists and which doesn't? You seem to want to model with absolutes, but unfortunately the universe doesn't work this way. The sooner you understand this the better! Then maybe you can start to re-think some of your ideas and realise why they are incorrect and some completely absurd.
  7. What do you mean by darkness? We perceive (observe with our eyes) space to be dark (black) because that is the "colour" our brains attribute to the lack of enough photons entering our eyes at the perceptible frequency we are designed to detect. Darkness just means the lack of brightness, in other words a reduction in photons (EM radiation) within a certain frequency that is detectable with the human eye. As an example, infra red cameras/scopes etc, makes visible EM radiation at a different frequency that would normally be undetectable with the naked eye.
  8. I still don't understand what your idea is trying to portray from this diagram?? What is virtual time? In what manner is history recorded?
  9. What do you mean by special? Time is used as a coordinate along with the 3 dimensions of space, e.g. "I'll meet you for lunch at the Café Royal at 1pm". Your question is a bit like asking is dimension a position? Your clock is just showing coordinates on a chart, there are an an infinite number of discreet positions. From your chart are you suggesting that the direction of time goes around in a circle so eventually you end up back in the past?
  10. How do you know that your physical life is any better than your spiritual one? Assuming so, that your spirit lives on and is eternal then I would hope that eternal happiness is part of that story also. Physical life is full of suffering, this is the point and what Jesus was basically promoting, that when you die (assuming you follow his teachings) then you will ascend to something greater than that which you now experience. If people want to believe this, it gives them hope and eases the suffering they may endure in life then I think its a good thing and no harm is done. If people choose to use religion for other less moral or more damaging agenda then it becomes an issue. If your going to sell something to someone they need to be convinced its going to be of some benefit. You can't sell them an eternal physical life story because there is no evidence of people living eternally. But cleverly what you can sell them is an eternal spiritual life, for a number of reasons this is an easy one to sell. First off, you don't get your prize until you physically die so its a one way ticket. Secondly, no one can refute the claim convincingly because once you die you can't come back and tell everyone about it, so there is no proven evidence either way. Thirdly, the selling tactic is that you must believe (buy into it) to guarantee your prize, so you have sort of nothing to lose if it turns out a crock, but potentially plenty to lose if it turns out to be true.
  11. As exchemist states, our current models suggest there was a beginning of space & time, and as yet we have no idea whether there is and end or not. There is no limit to numbers, but there may be a limit to words and events Well since matter and energy (that which we can observe and measure) only makes up a small portion of the universe it all depends on your point of view. Time and space is also very very important and matters, else we would not exist in the first place. There is no requirement to invoke a "creator", this is a belief rather than an observation.
  12. The people that knew her well personally all say the same thing about her, that she was very intelligent, diligent, hard working and committed to her duty. But above all she had a sense of humour and was very personable showing care and sympathy not only for those close to her but for all people. In answer to what was her job, well she was a leader. Not in the sense of like a general or president etc.. but as a role model. She did lots of diplomatic work helping to secure relations between many nations. Her responsibilities go far deeper than what may have been portrayed. Though there has been lots of scandal over the years with many members of the royal family I don't think its fair to say that Charles has failed miserably. He is portrayed in a poor light and probably unduly lost much respect because of the all the events around his divorce with Diana and then this compounded more so by her sudden and tragic death. Charles is much like his mother in many ways, and shares many of her values. I think we should give him a fair crack at the whip before condemning him at this early stage. He has big shoes to fill (not literally she was a tiny lady) and its going to be a tough time to try and live up to his mother's legacy. Lets hope he steps up to the mark and proves that he is a worthy successor to the throne.
  13. Exactly this is why the question makes no sense when worded such a way "the speed of time" I assumed from the rest of the post that the poster was confusing this with the speed at which the rate of change can occur 0 > C.
  14. I guess there are 2 things to consider 1. The measurement of time for any relative observer. 2. The "speed" at which time propagates 1. The measurement depends on what you are comparing to. each frame of reference will measure time to tick away at 1 second per second (a constant rate) however different frames of reference (as swansont stated) may not agree and find that their clock seems to tick away slower or quicker in comparison to the clock in the other frame of reference (variable rate) 2. The speed of time propagation (though makes little sense really), or rather the speed at which change takes place will be C, since time is a measurement of the rate of change, no rate of change happens faster than C so this will be constant (though this rate may have varied during different stages of the evolution of the universe).
  15. Yeah partly agreed, that was sort of my point with this; However, you may not have been aware or have the inner desire to be a master paint sprayer, but you were dedicated, committed and must have had some pride/focus in your job even if you didn't consciously feel it considering you did it for 20 years. Paint spraying is a skilful task, not something all people would have an aptitude or desire for.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.