Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirtydawg

Now you're just dealing in semantics which is the problem with philosophy. Philosophers create terms to put human definitions on things that are not human. What is time but a word of when when is, and how can we know that that when is really the beginning of existence and not that there isn't some other when that the when we know is dependent on?

---

Aristotle believed that time was a result of change. So, if the Big Bang were the first motion in the universe, there would be no time before it because there was no change before it. His prime mover is outside of the contraints of time and is unmoved. In his initial action, he created time when he brought about change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Are you telling me that you have never heard of negative energy?

http://www.starbreezes.com/neg.html

---

No, I HAVE heard of it. But your reply was not cogent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Are you telling me that you have never heard of negative energy?

http://www.starbreezes.com/neg.html

---

Seriously, negative energy is a component of the space-time fabric. It is a very minute force so it can't act in small spaces such as inside galaxies but in the vast reaches of interstellar space it produces a constant force that drives the galaxies apart. in short, it is responsible for the red shift and the increasing acceleration of the most distant galaxies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirtydawg

Nope. That's a physical experience and action. You've already stated in the knowledge thread that emotions are creations of the mind that are given definitions once we learned words to relate that experience to the physical experience it is related to.

---

There are two parts two it (1) the trigger [a concept] and (2) the sympathetic response [a physical tool, just like your hand].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Seriously, negative energy is a component of the space-time fabric. It is a very minute force so it can't act in small spaces such as inside galaxies but in the vast reaches of interstellar space it produces a constant force that drives the galaxies apart. in short, it is responsible for the red shift and the increasing acceleration of the most distant galaxies.

---

Did you even read the article you linked?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

There are two parts two it (1) the trigger [a concept] and (2) the sympathetic response [a physical tool, just like your hand].

---

Based on my experiences and observations, that's on accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Seriously, negative energy is a component of the space-time fabric. It is a very minute force so it can't act in small spaces such as inside galaxies but in the vast reaches of interstellar space it produces a constant force that drives the galaxies apart. in short, it is responsible for the red shift and the increasing acceleration of the most distant galaxies.

---

First, are you talking about negative "rest" energy or Newtonian gravitational potential? If you haven't heard of gravitational singularity, why should I think you know what you are talking about with negative energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirtydawg

Based on my experiences and observations, that's on accurate.

---

Not to be personal, but your statement begs the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Aristotle believed that time was a result of change. So, if the Big Bang were the first motion in the universe, there would be no time before it because there was no change before it. His prime mover is outside of the contraints of time and is unmoved. In his initial action, he created time when he brought about change.

---

I guess it is pointless to respond to these posts since I am ignored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

I will let Randy tackle this, but consider this - if Salty is right about the Big Bang creating time the phrase "before the Big Bang" would be a contradiction in terms. "Before" is a description of time.

---

True in the sense that our universe of time, space, energy and mass started at the Big Bang. But we can still talk about the pre-Big Bang situation even if we don't know anything about it since the Big Bang was a specific event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

First, are you talking about negative "rest" energy or Newtonian gravitational potential? If you haven't heard of gravitational singularity, why should I think you know what you are talking about with negative energy.

---

I'm not talking about gravity. I had heard of the concept of gravitational singularity but it was in regards to the expanding/collapsing model. i don't think that very many people are buying into that theory these days because of the rate of expansion of space. Negative energy is a new theory to explain why galaxies exist as the largest "things" in the universe and are moving at tremendous ever faster speeds the further there are from any one particular point.

It's clear to me that I know more about this star stuff than you do, even considering the last textbook i read on Astronomy was 35 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Did you even read the article you linked?

---

Why do you ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Not to be personal, but your statement begs the question.

---

You can get personal. I don't wear my feelings on a sleeve.(most of the time)

Let me put it another way. There is no proof that emotions are two part-a concept and a sympathetic response-[ a physical tool like a hand.] That makes no sense at all. You can see a hand, but not an emotion. The sympathetic response is totally independent of the emotion and differs from being to being(some run when afraid, others strike out), as does the emotion from concept to concept (some people actually do feel excitement in the face of peril while others feel fear and trepidation)depending on the concept.

You can feel the physical responses of the emotion on your body. The difference in response between one individual to another can be explained the differences in the individual's conceptual structure. Conceptual structure influences value-judgments and many of these value-judgments are capable of triggering the physical response. The chemistry of the nervous system is no less physical than your hand.

I leave for a short time, and I no longer follow the conversation. Am I at least correct that we are discussing the following concepts:

1)Aristotle and Prime Mover (random assertions from Johnny at this point, since he's not listening or replying to us.
2)discussion on the big bang, gravitational singularities, etc.
3)discussion on the role of emotions in triggering common sympathetic nervous pathways

Anything else I'm missing as I try to distinguish the different lines of the thread?