It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We are in a living THING.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Think about it.

The universe is expanding at a really fast rate....AKA growth

We and everything we call life..feed of other thing's just to live..AKA..Parasitic

Stars are born and die out....What we call cell regeneration. just on a larger scale
Energy can never be created or destroyed.
Yet new star's out of thin air are made...science is wrong on some things

A universe can not expand with out new or even more energy...thus energy is being made..thus it can also be destroyed.

All matter in the universe..is made of the exact same 92 element's...just in a different order.
Humans are just the most complex..as far as how are atom's are put together.that we know of..but humans are vain.

We claim it's dark matter and dark energy..that make the universe what it is...but we can never see it or capture it.

Why becouse we are in the inside of the living thing..or universe...it's whats technically on the outside is our answer.

See we are no more special than a star or the dust of it when it explodes.
or even a piss ant...we are all part of the same thing...WE HAVE THE SAME ATOM'S...the very core we are all one.

Think of human's as a parasite...we have to leech..steal..kill anything we can to live..and even our young...leech's from the parent or host.

Air carbon dioxide...all the stuff blowing in the universe we depend on very well could be a bloodstream of sort's.

has anyone ever thought beside me we are on the inside looking out.
Or we are in a petri dish lol

I know someone somewhere has had to think we are actually in a living being..beside me

If everything is made of the same EXACT stuff ..in the universe...
it's very safe to say a GOD would be to..
In fact he is every matter in the universe's host.

Big bang was possible the conception..of our host..everything..came into existence..
and grew to where we are now.
it' very plausible.

Think about our conception...but on a grand larger scale..
remember life does not have to be defined..as what we know on earth.
the universe feed's of it's self..to expand..or grow.


i know it's far fetched but still ..it can't for the like of me see why it can't be true.





posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Yes we are all made of the same stuff....So God if you want to use that word is a good assumption...just dont go thinking God had any conscious decision in it all...or he is looking down on us etc and btw usually when i do refer to god im talking about energy...so god to me could be anything from a piece of cheese...to a star....to us....Energy is da man!
And we dont leech really..animals need plants plants need animals...like the late and great terrence mckenna once said “Animals are something invented by plants to move seeds around. An extremely yang solution to a peculiar problem which they faced.” i like that quote!



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by beforetime
 


I have always felt we are living in a being very much so, and ill go in to detail when people ask and ill go in to depth of why.
very good question and theory



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Originally posted by beforetime

If everything is made of the same EXACT stuff ..in the universe...
it's very safe to say a GOD would be to..


Well String Theory for one proclaims many different dimensions.
en.wikipedia.org...

There's also whatever may be possible in the world of Abstract
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And probably some combination of them both

Regarding the question are we in a living thing the answer for me is a definite yes; though it remains unclear if the universe can reproduce itself (one technical requirement for life). But whether it’s intelligence is greater than bacteria’s-a computers and-or if we are just being watched by something that has intelligence greater than our own I really don’t know.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by beforetime
 


In your reasoning your are missing 2 things.
One is “energy”, which never stop to exist.
The other is the “soul”, which is as many people claim to be made of unknown energy stuff.
Of course we live and exist in a “being” as bacteria live and exist in our body. This bacteria have no awareness about us the Body.
Maybe as we have no awareness about the “God” or supreme being, we are the bacteria of God that try to be self aware about it.

Good post any way…it always generate some interesting thoughts.

Kacou.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Maybe the universe is a giant cancer growing on a living thing.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   


Yet new star's out of thin air are made...science is wrong on some things


Care to show this?



A universe can not expand with out new or even more energy...thus energy is being made..thus it can also be destroyed.


Care to prove this? The universe is probably going to die of heat death. If I throw a ball, it will fly until it runs out of energy. We are in the flight path of the aftermath of an explosion.



All matter in the universe..is made of the exact same 92 element's...just in a different order.
Humans are just the most complex..as far as how are atom's are put together.that we know of..but humans are vain.


What?Yes, matter is made of energy, energy can take the form of matter. I wouldn't call Humans the most complex thing in the universe considering that we have a lot to explore yet.I would consider a black hole to be slightly more complex than a human.



We claim it's dark matter and dark energy..that make the universe what it is...but we can never see it or capture it.


Scientists claim that dark matter makes up more of the matter of the known universe (more than "visible matter"), and that dark energy is the reason that the universe is expanding, but science hasn't pinpointed what exactly it is yet, but we know it's there.

Dark Matter

In physics and cosmology, dark matter is matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe.The observed phenomena which imply the presence of dark matter include the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.Dark matter also plays a central role in structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation: the remainder is called the "dark matter component."

The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the "visible" component of the universe.At present, the density of ordinary baryons and radiation in the universe is estimated to be equivalent to about one hydrogen atom per cubic meter of space. Only about 4% of the total energy density in the universe (as inferred from gravitational effects) can be seen directly. About 22% is thought to be composed of dark matter. The remaining 74% is thought to consist of dark energy, an even stranger component, distributed diffusely in space. Some hard-to-detect baryonic matter makes a contribution to dark matter but constitutes only a small portion.Determining the nature of this missing mass is one of the most important problems in modern cosmology and particle physics. It has been noted that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of human ignorance, much as the marking of early maps with "terra incognita."


Dark Energy

In physical cosmology, dark energy is an exotic form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.Dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe.

Two proposed forms for dark energy are the cosmological constant, a constant energy density filling space homogeneously, and scalar fields such as quintessence or moduli, dynamic quantities whose energy density can vary in time and space. Contributions from scalar fields that are constant in space, are usually also included in the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is physically equivalent to vacuum energy. Scalar fields which do change in space can be difficult to distinguish from a cosmological constant, because the change may be extremely slow.




See we are no more special than a star or the dust of it when it explodes.
or even a piss ant...we are all part of the same thing...WE HAVE THE SAME ATOM'S...the very core we are all one.


I agree that we are no more special than a piss-ant, but since we are both made of matter that does not mean we are connected somehow. I can't feel what the ant feels, or anything else. I can have empathy for something or someone, but I can never truly be in the other persons shoes.



Air carbon dioxide...all the stuff blowing in the universe we depend on very well could be a bloodstream of sort's.


Ok...



has anyone ever thought beside me we are on the inside looking out.
Or we are in a petri dish lol


I used to think that, but it's a philosophical thing, and unverifiable. The only thing we can do is wait and see if our existence is killed by a giant stream of water from some unexplainable direction, washing us down the drain of the universe.




If everything is made of the same EXACT stuff ..in the universe...
it's very safe to say a GOD would be to..
In fact he is every matter in the universe's host.


That is actually a pretty good reason why he can't exist. If he's made of the same stuff, then he would have to defy all laws of physics to do what he does, something that is impossible, as far as science is concerned.



Big bang was possible the conception..of our host..everything..came into existence..
and grew to where we are now.
it' very plausible.


So, god is a result of the big bang? The universe is said to be a constant state of flux, and I think it is most likely our creation was cause by an uneven virtual particle reaction, but that's hard to prove.Eventually we will find out the cause of the Big Bang.We are scientifically certain that virtual particles seem to pop in and out of existence without cause.Born in a black hole?

[edit on 26-8-2008 by OnionCloud]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OnionCloud
 


I quote you:
“”The universe is probably going to die of heat death. If I throw a ball, it will fly until it runs out of energy. We are in the flight path of the aftermath of an explosion.””

We should never dogmatize theory. What you have wrote is just a theory, pure and simple.
No proof of any big bang have yet been measured or witnessed unlike many past theory that have become a law.
The big bang is not a law!
So please don’t push your argument in a dogmatic way.


kacou



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by kacou
 


It's a scientific theory, which is different to an every-day theory. Please at least read about it before immediately dismissing it. "Deny Ignorance" not "Embrace Ignorance and be happy with it because then you don't have to think about the belief structures that have been steadily imposed upon you by the members of your family who have gone through the exact same dogmatizing process you have gone through, perpetuating ignorance through every generation of your family until one suddenly starts to think for itself and break the cycle".



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I quote myself:



The universe is probably going to die of heat death. If I throw a ball, it will fly until it runs out of energy. We are in the flight path of the aftermath of an explosion.””


"Probably" is hardly dogma.

Dogma: "a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

I did say "we are" as if it were fact, and if that is your point, I do respect what you say, and apologize. I should have said "we are fairly certain because of the cosmic microwave background radiation and various other scientific evidences and measurements made by instruments and people who have spent their lives trying to figure out our existence that we are living in the aftermath of a great explosion."

Science is never 100% settled, but we can be fairly certain is correct. Please, don't argue the "just a theory" point, it is weak and unsubstantiated. I've addressed it before, and I'll address it again:


The scientific meaning of a theory has a more precise and mechanical definition: "An extremely well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of the natural world that incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses" [1]. Clearly, when scientists use the term "theory of evolution", they really mean that evolution is a large body of consistent, well-substantiated facts, laws, predictions, and observations that describe natural phenomena; they don't use the word to imply that evolution is yet to be proven. There is a popular misconception that a theory must be proven, then it becomes a fact or a law. However, a scientific theory is, most generally defined, a large body of facts and laws, so this criticism does not make sense. The weakness of the "just a theory" criticism becomes obvious because in light of other well known theories, such as Einstein's theories of Relativity, atomic theory, germ theory, quantum theory, electromagnetic theory, plate tectonics theory, etc. No one would seriously imply that any of these theories are unproven and uncertain.


Lots of things are theories. Gravity is a theory, but seems to hold us down very well. The atomic theory seemed to help kill a lot of people on August 6th and 9th in 1945 when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with nuclear weapons. Computational Theory is allowing you to deface the very scientists who worked very hard to get where we are today with computers. Science is allowed to change because we accumulate new knowledge that is better and more accurate. I shouldn't have to explain why something being a theory isn't a weak point.

You would deny that if you heat something up, and then stop heating it up, it will lose its temperature? That is hardly a dogma, it is just knowledge. You can never be 100% certain if it will cool down, just because of the nature of our existence, but I am pretty sure that if you boil water on your stove and then turn off the element, you will get the same results each time.



No proof of any big bang have yet been measured or witnessed unlike many past theory that have become a law.


Oh really? The Cosmic microwave background radiation would have something else to say. It was the very observation of the cosmic microwave background radiation that lead to the theory of the big bang.



The big bang is not a law!


Nope, it is indeed not law. It is perhaps the best theory we have, though, until we can improve it and make it better, or discover reasons to scientifically believe that something else is correct. This requires a lot of work and hard scientific evidence though. Not something that can just come out of thin air.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by OnionCloud]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


How ignorant of you to assume that I have never read the Theory of the Big Bang.
And how ignorant of you to assume all sort of none sense about me when you don’t know me.
who is denying what in this discussion?
I have pint point someone dogmatic way of presenting a theory (scientific or not, in the end it is a human theory), that after all this grey matter been used in deciphering the start of our universe, we have come up with only a theory born back in the 60’.
But what saddens me is the same zeal that religious dogma has proven to master is also embedded in the mean stream science.
Hence presenting the big bang theory as a fact.
Currently, rebellious physicists are making a new case in disputing the big bang theory.
They now believe that it didn’t start in an instant but they believe in no beginning and no end universe .
But for sure the scientist and humans in generals wouldn’t take this proposition as valid because it will diminish the greater role of human being in discovering the last frontier of science.
This post as more to do with metaphysics then science.

Kacou



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I know the post wasn't directed at me, but I feel like I have to respond.



I have pint point someone dogmatic way of presenting a theory (scientific or not, in the end it is a human theory), that after all this grey matter been used in deciphering the start of our universe, we have come up with only a theory born back in the 60’.


There's the whole dogmatic thing again, which I already pointed out is a false argument. Science is (that is to say, this is science and its natural properties):

1. Public and replicable
2. Cumulative
3. Systematic, Coherent, Comprehensive
4. Empirical
5. Fallible and Falsifiable
6. Comes from real evidence and conclusions
7. In Science, the Burden of Proof is on the Affirmative
Source



Hence presenting the big bang theory as a fact.


I certainly did not present it as fact, I present it as the best theory that science has accumulated to this date, in my opinion.



Currently, rebellious physicists are making a new case in disputing the big bang theory.
They now believe that it didn’t start in an instant but they believe in no beginning and no end universe .


Yes, and I eagerly await their empirical proof. If they can prove it, why should it not be considered?



But for sure the scientist and humans in generals wouldn’t take this proposition as valid because it will diminish the greater role of human being in discovering the last frontier of science.


This is a grand assumption. Just today I read an article that show that something we've taken to be true for over a hundred years in the way chemicals pass through our cell walls to be incorrect for at least the four chemicals that were tested, and it's because until now we couldn't physically observe the process happening.

If their research can empirically prove with good evidence and research that they are in fact correct, what they say has to be done is in fact true:


"This was a surprising and exciting finding. Our direct observations appear to totally undermine a key rule that has withstood the test of time for over a century. We will now make observations with a range of other chemicals, and with other techniques, to further elucidate the molecular basis for our observations. Text books will have to be rewritten to revise a rule that has been relied on for over a century. Advanced techniques, such as the one we have developed, should give much clearer insight into the action of a wide range of drug molecules, which will be of significant interest to drug developers."


Also, I personally don't think there is any particular "last frontier", as new things are constantly being discovered. The "last frontier" is a feeling, I think, of being on the leading edge of research in a particular field of science.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by OnionCloud]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by OnionCloud
 


Your quote:
“The universe is probably going to die of heat death. If I throw a ball, it will fly until it runs out of energy. We are in the flight path of the aftermath of an explosion.”

It doesn’t matter if you use the word Probability in explaining the birth or the aftermath of the universe, in the general view point of the large public (people that don’t read books about it) the word probability has been associated with close precision in they mind. You can deny this fact.
A French science magazine had once made a survey on this notion of misconception of words where by people got to get lead by assumption instead of certitude.
This is why I always pinpoint this manner of “words managing” which I call it dogmatism in disguise.
You may have measured your words in your mind but the facts remain that people are very docile.
Kacou.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Ah, so science is at fault for peoples lack of careful comprehension. Gotcha.

"Dogmatism in disguise" is pretty humourous, considering the fact that I've already shown that science can and does change. A dogma would not do that.

A dogma is something that should not to be disputed or doubted.
Source

But, as one of the properties I suggested earlier, Science is fallible. This means you can freely doubt it and prove it wrong. The key word is prove. Although it isn't dogma, you must be able to prove your position well, which is easily understandable. If you let someone come in and just start changing things around because they just feel you are wrong, you quickly end up with a bunch of ill-defined nonsense. If a judge in a courtroom accepted every testimony as truthful and 100% accurate, there would be mayhem and revolting throughout the world, more so than there is now. If one can prove their position within reasonable doubt, there is a reason to consider a change. Dogma is not to be doubted or disputed, but science changes quite regularly, within reason.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by OnionCloud]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OnionCloud
 


Look I don’t want to get this more attention then it received (the one to one).
Science it at risk in the hand of those that have manipulated the data or theory in pursuit of entrapping people notion of self knowledge.
But for sure you maybe have no idea about what I am talking.

Good continuation,
Kacou.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
dear OP i completly agree with your theory but i aslo think that within every living thing you see, inside of them it goes compelely the oposite directions,

so for example we are inside a living thing (which we percieve to be the universe) but that thing could be inside something else... and so its growing infinitly bigger, and the same goes for the otherway, inside of me and you there could be entire other universes with living things infinantly smaller but this goes for everything we see and that is alive,
so thats multiple universes infinite amounts inside everything time infinity and outside everything times infinity

heres a cool video about us being a parasite

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 28-8-2008 by robertnesta]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Wow, this is strange. I was out stargazing the other night, and I had this same exact thought. I can't believe I found this thread here. I was thinking that we are part of a living being....the universe. All the stars and planets could be like the atoms/molecules that make up the living being, much like the atoms that make us and everything we see.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Maybe the universe is the inside of a living being? Do you ever wonder why the universe is expanding? Well it's not, it's actually growing. The big bang was when the universe was conceived. Perhaps we are just a nucleus or something, but no wonder space is so dark. Anyone else ever think of something like this? Like how do we honestly know there's not something on the outside of the universe? It's like we're bacteria(humans) on huge electrons(earth and other planets) spinning around a nucleus(Sun).

Atomic structure acts using quantum physics upon the same grounds and pattern than solar systems follow due to gravity and inertia. Solar systems revolve around a galaxy using the same theory and physics of gravity as atoms and solar systems. Galaxies revolve around each other using the same theory, and entire galaxies of galaxies do the same. So allow us to scale infinitly up as from the most tiny quantum particle to the largest galaxy the same forces hold sway, their patterns are the same, and they appear to move in the same path logic. Therefore it can be assumed that the universe itself revolves around something else, following the same logical condition that every other atom in ours currently follows.

mindblown420.livejournal.com...

The picture of a cell compared to the universe is on there.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
LOL the way you put it really creeps me out ..made me ITCH all over ..(I saw that on Discovery channel about bugs being stuck to every hair on our body including our eyebrows and they feed on us ..I went and got alcohol and tried to kill them all it creeped me so bad LOL) >.........
Parasites eh ...eww ..I hate bugs ....

I had a dream one time where the Earth was like a huge WOMB ..
People were all connected with an umbilical chord to the Earth ...
I was watching from space ..it was dark all around and everyone was curled up and sleeping as if in the womb ..but floating just above the earth (the chord held them here) still connected to the earths umbilical chord ...all of a sudden some of the peoples chords just broke off and they floated up to GOD ..the rest stayed asleep and connected ..
end of dream ..
It was pretty cool ..but also creepy like ...



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join