New Space Telescope

[Mark Earnest]

Can see billions of light years away, billions of years ago. Soon we will all be seeing the Big Bang.

[Whisper]

On 19/07/2022 11:12 pm, Mark Earnest wrote:
> Can see billions of light years away, billions of years ago. Soon we will all be seeing the Big Bang.

We'll never see something that never happened.

[Mark Earnest]

It happened. We can already see the stars and galaxies coming from it, long ago.

[R Kym Horsell]

According to the theory there was a point before which light could not move
because elementary particles got in the way.
If telescopes for EM develop further we might get to the point where
we see the "big wall" and that will be evidence for the theory.

The views of the group hillbiliies -- where guessing, wishes and fears are
more important than resaon -- of course will be much different.

--
When was the first light in the universe?
phys.org, 7 Nov 2016
This was the moment of first light in the universe, between 240,000 and
300,000 years after the Big Bang, known as the Era of Recombination.

[Mark Earnest]

The big wall happened later, much later, after the Big Bang.

[Whisper]

No that's not what you're seeing at all. We don't understand what we're
seeing, some astronomers smoking dope just made up the big bang theory.
Trust me you will never see it as it never happened. The idea is
ludicrous.

[R Kym Horsell]

Yes. That's what is says.

So the big bang is 240ky past the big darkness at the edge/center of the
observable universe, according to the theory.

There's a long way to go to confirm it in a way a person-in-the-street
can understand.

E.g. the theory says the universe is 100 bn LY across yet the furthest
object seen so far (HD1 last I heard) is ~14 bn LY away.

[Whisper]

On 19/07/2022 11:47 pm, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> Mark Earnest <gmea...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 8:19:16 AM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:
>>> On 19/07/2022 11:12 pm, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>>> Can see billions of light years away, billions of years ago. Soon we will all be seeing the Big Bang.
>>> We'll never see something that never happened.
>> It happened. We can already see the stars and galaxies coming from it, long ago.
>
>
> According to the theory there was a point before which light could not move
> because elementary particles got in the way.
> If telescopes for EM develop further we might get to the point where
> we see the "big wall" and that will be evidence for the theory.
>
> The views of the group hillbiliies -- where guessing, wishes and fears are
> more important than resaon -- of course will be much different.
>

Anyone who seriously believes the universe unfolded from an atom sized
big bang would absolutely believe anything. There is no more ludicrous
idea in existence than the big bang.

[Mark Earnest]

Maybe the astronomers were smoking dope but isn't everybody in one way or another? Everything else has a beginning. Why not existence itself? It all came apart from a point. And here we are.

[Whisper]

You're making a big assumption. You think the universe is knowable to
humans. It really isn't. We measure things and make some
extrapolations, that's it. Because we are human, we are born and we
die, we think in those terms about everything around us, including the
universe. Trust me, the big bang never happened. There is no end or
beginning to the universe, proving that the universe is beyond human
comprehension.

[R Kym Horsell]

Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 19/07/2022 11:47 pm, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>> Mark Earnest <gmea...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 8:19:16 AM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:
>>>> On 19/07/2022 11:12 pm, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>>>> Can see billions of light years away, billions of years ago. Soon we will all be seeing the Big Bang.
>>>> We'll never see something that never happened.
>>> It happened. We can already see the stars and galaxies coming from it, long ago.
>>
>>
>> According to the theory there was a point before which light could not move
>> because elementary particles got in the way.
>> If telescopes for EM develop further we might get to the point where
>> we see the "big wall" and that will be evidence for the theory.
>>
>> The views of the group hillbiliies -- where guessing, wishes and fears are
>> more important than resaon -- of course will be much different.
>>
>
>
> Anyone who seriously believes the universe unfolded from an atom sized

...

No. You have it backwards. People that would believe that because it
follows logically from a theory based on checkable assumptions are
the ones that would not accept just anything,

You lot of drongos that guess every damn thing because it makes you feel
better are the ones that are chockers with the B/S.

[Whisper]

What's more logical;

a) We observe inflation all around us, but don't understand this
phenomena. Is it true inflation or just appears to be so, and will
probably never fully understand it?

b) The universe is expanding, so keep winding the clock back like a
Looney Tunes cartoon and we end up with everything sprouting from an
invisible dot.


It would take a lot of pot for me to entertain 1 of those of options.

[R Kym Horsell]

Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 20/07/2022 12:44 am, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>> Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 19/07/2022 11:47 pm, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>> Mark Earnest <gmea...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 8:19:16 AM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/07/2022 11:12 pm, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>>>>>> Can see billions of light years away, billions of years ago. Soon we will all be seeing the Big Bang.
>>>>>> We'll never see something that never happened.
>>>>> It happened. We can already see the stars and galaxies coming from it, long ago.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to the theory there was a point before which light could not move
>>>> because elementary particles got in the way.
>>>> If telescopes for EM develop further we might get to the point where
>>>> we see the "big wall" and that will be evidence for the theory.
>>>>
>>>> The views of the group hillbiliies -- where guessing, wishes and fears are
>>>> more important than resaon -- of course will be much different.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone who seriously believes the universe unfolded from an atom sized
>> ...
>>
>> No. You have it backwards. People that would believe that because it
>> follows logically from a theory based on checkable assumptions are
>> the ones that would not accept just anything,
>>
>> You lot of drongos that guess every damn thing because it makes you feel
>> better are the ones that are chockers with the B/S.
>>
>
>
>
> What's more logical;
>

...

If you cain do science they you cain do logic.

--
Stigmata of anti-science dropkick:
(a) Cain unnerstan wot they reed.
(b) Cain do rithmetic.
(c) Cain reason.
(d) Too ashamed to sign own name to anything they say.

[Whisper]

I can't do science fiction.

[R Kym Horsell]

some anonymous troll squeaked:

...

We understand. You need to be able to science to do that.
And 10 sec ago you showed you dont know science when you're looking at it.
The "People that would believe [some science} would believe anything"
projection.

All covered by incompetence theory aka the bible of internet troll-ology.

--
Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
they can be trained to substantially improve [their own performance].
Dunning later drew an analogy with anosognosia in which a person who
suffers a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of
or denies the existence of the disability, even for dramatic
impairments such as blindness or paralysis.
Dunning & Kruger & others concluded that the root cause is that, in
contrast to high performers, "poor performers do not learn from
feedback suggesting a need to improve".
Ehrlinger, Joyce; Johnson, Kerri; Banner, Matthew; Dunning, David;
Kruger, Justin (2008). "Why the unskilled are unaware: Further
explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent".
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (105): 98-121.

[casagi...@optimum.net]

>Can see billions of light years away, billions of years ago. Soon we will all be seeing the Big Bang.

THERE WAS NO BIG BANG !

The notion that all the stars and galaxies somehow sprang from a
single point 13.8 billion years ago is contrary to all reason, logic
and science.

Absolutely amazing that so many actually believe this crap !

[Mark Earnest]

You dismiss both God AND the Big Bang? How? The only thing left is to believe the stars and galaxies were there forever. To think that way requires more marijuana than anything I can think of!

[R Kym Horsell]

There are other possibilities.

QP and GR both seem to point at a so-called Bloch universe where
everything is frozen and there is essentially no time.

Think of a piece of graph paper with a plot on it showing the
position of a ball at a given time.

The graph doesnt move. It just shows a relationship between
one dimension X and another dimension T.

Spacetime just views time as another dimension. You can't "travel in
time" because travel *involves* some kind of change and you are
implying there is more than one kind of time. Infinite regress unless
you're not careful.

QP views quantum machines as a set of base states with the probability
of "finding" a the machine in a given state described by a wavefunction.
Each base state is fixed. It doesn't change. Only the wave function
can evolve over time and the wave function is not part of any base state.
So the "universe" is a collection of states with a wave function
"somewhere else" describing how it changes over time where the time
is not inside the universe.

It all kinda points to all the old ideas about 2 planes of existence
and minds not being part of the physical universe and Descartes dualism
and all that stuff we all were taught to hate in Phil 101. :)

So the universe doesnt last for 13 billion years or infinite years
because time is not what you think it is.

[casagi...@optimum.net]

It is the responsibility of believers to demonstrate the existence of
God and the Big Bang.

The Universe had no beginning. It always was. Contents may change, but
always existed. BTW, no end either.

[casagi...@optimum.net]

>
>QP and GR both seem to point at a so-called Bloch universe where
>everything is frozen and there is essentially no time.
>

At the risk of showing my ignorance, who are QP and GR ?

[Mark Earnest]

Thank you for relating a surely popular view. If only it was comprehensible to your average Joe. Time is what it is. Since I have known about it, it has always moved forward at a steady pace. Nothing is ever observed to be stopped in time and space. Provably everything is in motion relative to each other.

[Mark Earnest]

> >You dismiss both God AND the Big Bang? How? The only thing left is to believe the stars and galaxies were there forever. To think that way requires more marijuana than anything I can think of!


It is the responsibility of believers to demonstrate the existence of
> God and the Big Bang.

God exists. There has to be an ultimate premise. Otherwise knowledge is quite impossible.
The Big Bang happened. All galaxies are moving away from one another.

>
> The Universe had no beginning. It always was. Contents may change, but
> always existed. BTW, no end either.

You can imagine backwards forever? I cannot without blowing several fuses.

[palsing]

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 11:11:39 AM UTC-7, casagi...@optimum.net wrote:

> THERE WAS NO BIG BANG !

There is a ton of evidence that says there might have been a big bang, but it is admittedly just a model... do *you* have evidence to the contrary?

Evidence rules... got any?

[palsing]

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:11:45 PM UTC-7, Mark Earnest wrote:

> God exists.

What evidence do you have to offer in support of this claim?

[Whisper]

Why is that?

You're making 1 big presumption - that the human brain is able to
comprehend the universe. It isn't. Once you accept this fact you'll be
at peace.

Your dog, cat and fish can't comprehend the universe in the way we can,
and we can't comprehend it in absolute terms. That's why we make up
nonsense like big bangs - that's something we can relate to.

[Whisper]

Correct. Yes it's hard for us to comprehend as we live in birth/death
cycles, but universe is above that.

[Whisper]

Now you're getting it. 'imagine' is a human concept. Our brains are
limited as we can't comprehend eternity.

[Whisper]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show me the
evidence everything we see and can't see burst forth from an atom?
Completely nonsensical. Just because it appears everything is inflating
doesn't mean it all sprang from nothing. When we can't explain
phenomena we just make it up eg big bang.

[R Kym Horsell]

I'm personally a bit careful of using the concept given the yuge
amount of historical baggage.

A better question is -- what evidence is there that the universe is
an artefact and not a natural creation.

And there is some.

A few years back some cosmologists calculated the odds at around 30%
with an arguments along the lines of:
(1) is would be so useful to simulate the past that someone is bound
to do it when computers become powerful enough.
(2) Given (1) than what make you so certain this isn't one example?

--
[Free real estate as far as the eye can see!]

Comets, the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud
The Oort cloud has never been observed, but is believed to have at least
10***12 icy objects located between 3000 AU [.05ly] and 100,000 AU [1.6ly]
in a spherical distribution around the Sun.
-- lco.global
[Objects are believed to be mostly <100 km in diam with a total mass
estimated 10-100x the Earth].

[R Kym Horsell]

Stand by for another hillbilly argumentum ad ignorantiam the rest of
us can use as evidence they cain lern and theyfour cain no nuttin.

[R Kym Horsell]

R Kym Horsell <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
> palsing <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Tue, July 19, 2022 at 2:11:45 PM UTC-7, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>> God exists.
>> What evidence do you have to offer in support of this claim?
> I'm personally a bit careful of using the concept given the yuge
> amount of historical baggage.
> A better question is -- what evidence is there that the universe is
> an artefact and not a natural creation.
> And there is some.
> A few years back some cosmologists calculated the odds at around 30%
> with an arguments along the lines of:
> (1) is would be so useful to simulate the past that someone is bound
> to do it when computers become powerful enough.
> (2) Given (1) than what make you so certain this isn't one example?

I remembered a more entertaining argument I saw on an ep of
"Through The Wormhole".

Being able to simulate the earth in detail would be very useful.
So useful we imagine as soon as computers are powerful enough
various groups will do it.
How many simulations of the earth might be running by different
groups at any time?
10? 100? 1000?
If you think there is nothing special about the Earth
then maybe you have to consider anyone in the universe
anytime might be interested in simulating it.
So there could be a very large number of these projects going on
over time. :)

There is a principle of probability theory that argues if you
are faced with a choice that goes N way and you have no
particular information saying which one is the best you should
weight them equally.

So if there have been (say) 1000 detailed computer simulations of
the Earth and only 1 "real" Earth,
what is the probability you are on the "real" Earth right now?

Cunning argument and mathematically sound. :)

[Whisper]

There is no such thing as time travel, alternate universes, computer
simulations etc. It's a kind of retarded thinking, a mental illness
specific to a significant % of humans who are by other measures
reasonably intelligent - ie can hold down employment, speak well etc.

There are about 9 million species of animals on earth, and only 1 of
those thinks about computer simulations and going back in time are
feasible. What does this tell you? There is zero proof any of this is
possible. Pure insanity imo.

[Mark Earnest]

Try praying. You may get lucky and find God.

[palsing]

So... you basically admit that you have zero evidence that there is a god... got it!

Why do you think they call it "faith"?

faith
/fāTH/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: faith

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

[Mark Earnest]

Being polite. You could have returned the favor. As with anything else, faith comes before awareness of what is real.

[Rockinghorse Winner]

Discovered by a priest!
(just thought I'd rub some salt in the wound...)

--

"Many have sought in vain to tell joyously of the Most Joyous. Now at last It
declares Itself to me, now in this misery." - Holderlin