Stood still effect

I've often wondered when that emoticon should be used ! This must be it !

Busma,

You need to establish a connection between the concepts "life" and "space". Biologists such as Maturana define "life" as "an autpoietic process in a dynamic system far from equilibrium". Physics has now combined "space" with "time" in the hybrid concept "space-time", thus we logically have a problem separating "life" as a structural and functional process from the very fabric.....space-time.... which describes that process. In short the idea of "motion" which post Newton is logically always relative is now too simplistic a concept to raise in overviews of "life" as a an aspect of "dynamic systems".

Re: Stood still effect

On the other hand, you could say that we are always still because we are always where we are. We could interpret that everything moves relative to us. Even time might move relative to our consciousness.

We usually perceive ourselves as moving through time, traveling along with it. But we could turn it around and think of our self (our consciousness) as a fixed point around which time flows as it changes things.

Additionally, on a purely scientific basis, there is a school of thought among cosmologists which suggests that rather than the matter of the universe, the "galaxies" moving with relation to one another, that these bodies of matter are actually stationary, and that it is space itself which is expanding.

Hmm.. If two cars were to drive away from eachother they would be moving, obviously. Simultaneously, the space between them would be expanding.
Even if the objects in space were moved by space expanding, they would still be moving.
My point is that movement is a matter of perception, nothing more.

One says "objects move"
The other says "space moves"
But the truth is that "the mind moves"

Spare me your two-bit philosophizing.

I was simply referring to an hypothesis which some cosmologists have advanced--i did not assert anything to be or not to be true.

Your dull-witted and irrelevant analogy refers to space only in the referential sense of the distance which separates the cars involved--it still refers to energetic actions on the part of the cars. The massive bodies of our cosmos, using galaxies as a convenient and simplistic example, all appear to be moving away from one another, as opposed to moving away from any specific point within the cosmos. The hypothesis to which i refer simply removes the concept of the galaxies themselves being in an inertial state with regard to any specific point within the cosmos, which has significant implications for hypotheses that the universe is "open," "closed," or "flat."

I suggest that you research "space expansion theory." I, personally, am not interested in your crypto-buddhist rambling.

Set
I think you're just angry still that the last exchange we had clearly reveals that the dullest wits between the two of us does not belong to me.

Anyway, I post for those who are interested. If you wish to be spared of my opinions, simply disregard them, and save yourself some irritation. :wink:

You grossly overrate your importance to me--and as for dull wits, no one could ever master your abilities there. I post, among other reasons and as do many others here, with a view to providing information. I wouldn't want anyone to think that the drivel with which you responded to my remarks is anything more than the deluded ramblings of someone caught up in his own silly crypto-buddhist false profundity.

Priceless...

Anyway, I do not wish to trun this thread into a battleground for inflated egos. Think what you will of me. I don't care.

I think of you very rarely. In this context, i think you've contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion of cosmology.

For anyone who may not get the point:

If the galaxies are moving away from one another as the result of a residual inertial effect, and if the eventual loss of inertia ends expansion, and if there is sufficient matter in the universe for the weak force of gravity to cause material mass to subsequently "gather," then we might be in a closed universe in which each "big bang" would be succeeded by an eventual "big crunch," possibly leading to another "big bang" and making the cosmos an eternally oscillating series of "bangs," expansions, collapses and "crunches."

If, however, the galaxies are not "moving" as a result of inertia, and the observed apparent expansion is actually the expansion of space, without reference to matter within the universe, the prior hypothesis goes right out the window.

The main problem with a theory of space expansion is to account for the cause of that effect.

Setanta,

With respect to Busma's enquiry about "life" what significance, if any, do you attach to the fact that it takes "intelligent life" to "measure" cosmological phenomena. Since the basis of all measurement is the nominal level (naming), is it not the case that "galaxies" and their behaviour are ontologically dependent on homo-sapiens ?

In a way set is right. I do not know much about cosmology. My area of interest is perception, among others. But that's a needle eye all other subjects have to pass through if they are known to us. That makes the subject of the nature of our perception a very important one, and also one that is relevant in absolutely every context.

Therefore it is my opinion that one who ignores the mechanisms of his own perception will never understand fully the relationship between him and any subject he applies that perception to.

Cyracuz,

Perception is fundamental. To "know about" cosmology is to "predict" cosmological events. This involves active perception primed by theoretical constructs or "seeking of order".

I agree with that, fresco.

Of every puzzle, the perciever of it is always a vital part.