As I said theory and suposition.
Without an actual black hole to measure an study these cocepts though perhaps proven by mathe are just theory of what might happen. And it clearly state that there is more than one type of black hole and 1130 Kg is not alot of mass. We are talking about billions of Kg’s. Which would mean that a black hole to us would seamm eternal, But as I have already stated nothing is eternal.
Is that where we should go when discussing a poem? Open up another thread with a clear question in the subject “Eternal in science and eternal in philosophy” and I’ll be happy to join in. There, you should have a better context for developing your thought.
I have something to say about the getting off the track, among others. Not now and perhaps not even today, though. Bye!
First of all you were the one who went off track. Dan~'s quote is based on theory science and actuality of existance of the physical compared to the metaphysical.
“You” Compared it to a poem. Or actualy I think you made it one for a girl. or somthing.
Anyway. Poems do not belong in a conversation concerning the theories of “why” unles they directly contest with the information. We were not talking about thoughts and feelings in the artistic sense.
There are other websites for that. and actualy a forum here on literiture. You should take the poem and go there. This is the religious debate forum not the Fine arts club. (no offense ment I happen to be a patron of the arts, and myself write poetry)
I thought you were debateing the actuality of a black hole or star compared to mans conciousness and being greater than man in concept. I just took one side and debated the possibilities that only a few see.
Poetry means whatever the writer wants it to, So it is impossible to debate the writer about the meaning of his poem.
man is greater than a star. a star cannot assimilate matter and replicate. a star cannot gain knowledge and put it into technology to gain power and manipulation through science.
we can grow in number, and in theory,POSSIBLY(it would be difficult) colonise other planets or build space stations.
meanwhile a star just floats around. we are the bigger threat.
in fact, life is the greatest power in the universe.
A group of organized, progressive organisms, or a self-distructive mass of bumbelling fools?
But – Drift, you know the non-carbon-based spirit beings are superior.
#1 i’m not here to say man is great or even cool,but i feel is greater than a star.
#2 Indeed.
Very advanced/evolved spirit life is even more of a “code-basterd” then bio is.
evolved? 
Watcher, you fucking shit-head.
Well Drift, who is dependent on whom for their existence???
You´ll find it´s man who is dependent on stars for his existence. (and please don´t retort by saying stars need to be observed in order to exist, as how would the observer exist in the first place?)
Rewucki:
I cant really tell if that was ment to be offensive or amuesing, Personaly I found it rather amuseing. It made me laugh.
Good. Learning through laughter then.
I somehow get to understand you. But please, don’t take these words against me, because you’re going to spoil something good then.
i was merely stating in terms of potential. the star starts hell more powerful than us.but even the star burns out eventually.
however, in terms of defining ‘greatness’ , it goes to linguistics ,not the simple question at the outset.or perhaps,encompassing that question as well.
if mankind destroys itself,i’ll take back my ‘man greater’ comment.
In terms of potential you certainly may be one day proved right.
But man already “destroys himself” in the same way stars do - by natural processes beyond control. But man also goes one step further and can also actively destroy himself.
I mean completely destroy all of himself.Like using all ‘our’ gorgeous nukes at once which where created with(by) the aggression theory.* If humankind destroys all of itself,it will not only be a waste,unfair and possibley sad, but it will be the stupidist thing (man has) ever done in the universe.
Thus proving einstien utterly correct in his certain famous comment.
I made the aggression theory, and never announced it at ILP,though it’s nothing that would not have been thought up 1000 times before.
yes,welcome to the 21st century.*
** not to mention that the aggression theory is now integrated into the economy now and thus backed by the all-mighty dollar.
Which capitalism bows to.