[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Perhaps understanding that spirit was conjured by the fact that the invisible forces of nature were mistaken as such, Lloyd. Whether we call lightning, "the lightning god" or simply "lightning" doesn't change the fact that it is not known exactly what light is. Spirit is nothing more than the invisible part of the "scientific" spectrum.

That's funny, I see it moving the physical bodies. I even read people's personalities, through their physical jestures of spirit actions. If you truly look at imagination, as I've said before, all you really see is photons. As a matter of fact, what else do we truly see? Photons, on the outside of all particles, making them visible, even when looking into our minds___The visible is always photons. Even my vehicle, it's basically protons/atoms, but our eye's spectrum only sees the photons on the protons/atoms, etc.,___No...? So, in my conjectured opinion, we see our spirits, as visible photons, i.e., imagination's possibilities of projections of photonic visions...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

I could refer you to message one of my thread, Lloyd. I agree with you, but you seem to not even want that.

The problem is with understanding exactly how they propagate - motion - moreso than to what they are made of. Explain to us, or to yourself, how it is that you see what you see?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I could refer you to message one of my thread, Lloyd. I agree with you, but you seem to not even want that. The problem is with understanding exactly how they propagate - motion - moreso than to what they are made of. Explain to us, or to yourself, how it is that you see what you see?

Cognitive micro-biology of vision/mind has already done that. The Russians explain it best, IMO... Use google to find it... Some say there are still some incompletenesses, but others are satisfied with the science, as is. I'm satisfied with the established science...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Explain it as the Russians do, Lloyd, or forever hold your peace. In other words, what makes us see that "c" is a constant factor in determining our perceptions of reality?

[futrethink]

Lloyd.

Keep waiting...

---Sure, I’m patient.

I gave my answers...

You gave answers to questions that I never asked. You also avoided answering my question(s) in any way, shape or form.
---Moreover, if you are going to discuss something that isn’t a part of the original thread, you might want to start another one.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Explain it as the Russians do, Lloyd, or forever hold your peace. In other words, what makes us see that "c" is a constant factor in determining our perceptions of reality?

In a very simple answer, Nobody___C is always C to us, even if it's truly varrying, when viewed from a virtual outside position... Same as the quantum cat, Nobody___We are the C that sees C, or we are the cat that can't know C, other than C, so far...

Lloyd

[alphachapmtl]

I don't think an infinite universe make sense. What can be the basis for a size gauge or reference, if not the size of the universe itself? I mean if the universe was infinite in size, why would the atoms be the size they are, and not double or half? They are the size they are by reference to the universe size. Of course a finite universe may be huge, and a finite universe need not have boundaries. Of course the universe (in the sense of all there is) may be made of many parts, like many disconnected space time bubbles of differents sizes, and whatever else in whatever dimensions. Even if we are slowly starting to grasp what is our own spacetime bubble, we frankly have absolutely no idea what is the universe (in the sense of all there is).

Sometimes I think we are like tiny bacterias. After generations of research, having invented the Bubble water telescope, we start to envision that our universe might be a kind of watersphere of unimaginable size, with edges forever beyond our reach. And unknown to us, we are bacterias in a drop of water suspended to a leave in a tropical forest full of butterflies and tigers and trees on an island on a planet in a galaxy in ...

[tardis]

hmmm, there is no answer to this question and there never will be , it is too much for the human mind to comprehend. everything has to have an end and if it has an end what is on the other side of that end and so on and so on. so, in contradiction, maybe not everything has to have an end ie, the universe !

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by tardis hmmm, there is no answer to this question and there never will be

Sure there will: we simply measure the curvature of the universe.. if the universe is flat, then it is infinite. We're getting closer and closer to getting a definitive answer to this question.

[Profpat]

Hi Neutralino;

I'm a little confused by your answer. I thought the universe is flat but spherical in shape. I thought the flat part is like how the Earth appears flat if you are on the surface. Similar for the universe, but nothing inside. No molten core, just void. The balloon analogy.

I hope things are going well for you.

Pat