Astrophysics Question
Beable van Polasm
If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't exist
(because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
nowhere to be) exploded.
The evidence for the Big Bang is that there are lots of galaxies which
are moving away from us, indicating that they used to be closer to us,
which means that a long time ago they would have all been at the same
place. This "same place" is where the Big Bang happened, and this place
didn't exist before the Big Bang because no places existed before then.
Doesn't this theory just raise a whole bunch of unanswered and
unanswerable questions? Like:
1. What exploded?
2. Why did it explode?
3. If "nothing" exploded, how did we end up with all this "something"
out of it?
4. If "nothing" exploded, then why doesn't "nothing" explode every day
and create a whole bunch more galaxies etc?
5. If "something" exploded, then "something" existed before the Big
Bang, and therefore matter and space already existed, and the Big
Bang theory answers no questions at all.
6. If space didn't exist before the Big Bang, then what was in the
place where space is now? Crunchy nougat?
7. Sure the Big Bang theory explains well why the galaxies are moving
apart, but how can scientists OF SCIENCE expect people to swallow
the line that "nothing exploded and created the universe"?
Wondering simply,
Beable
--
POWERS MAY NOT MATCH POWERS PICTURED ON BOX. PLEASE USE POWERS ONLY FOR GOOD,
NEVER EVIL. WHEN NOT TO USE POWERS, SHALL KEEP IN POLYBAG. -- Joe Bay
http://beable.com
Paul R. Mays
"Beable van Polasm" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:eeispyt...@dingo.beable.com...
>
> If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
> The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't exist
> (because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
> nowhere to be) exploded.
>
> The evidence for the Big Bang is that there are lots of galaxies which
> are moving away from us, indicating that they used to be closer to us,
> which means that a long time ago they would have all been at the same
> place. This "same place" is where the Big Bang happened, and this place
> didn't exist before the Big Bang because no places existed before then.
>
> Doesn't this theory just raise a whole bunch of unanswered and
> unanswerable questions? Like:
>
> 1. What exploded?
A Quantum Point ( ciaos point[Alun Williams], singularity)
>
> 2. Why did it explode?
It was governed by the only law that applies.. probability...
it had the probability of converting its energy into matter/anti-matter
or not... since you asked the question... It did....
>
> 3. If "nothing" exploded, how did we end up with all this "something"
> out of it?
Its not nothing... Its pure, unified energy... a finite amount..
And as has been proven with every nuke blast and accelerator,
energy can be converted into matter and matter can be converted
into energy
>
> 4. If "nothing" exploded, then why doesn't "nothing" explode every day
> and create a whole bunch more galaxies etc?
Only one Quantum point gave birth to all matter in our universe
and since that Quantum point still exists and we are all within it
no other quantum point can exist within this one... There may well
be billions of BB's going on... outside the box we are in but we
could never know it...
>
> 5. If "something" exploded, then "something" existed before the Big
> Bang, and therefore matter and space already existed, and the Big
> Bang theory answers no questions at all.
Nope.. cause until you have matter you have no space,, You have
only within the box to us.. never knowing what's outside... And the
concept of space is a human one
>
> 6. If space didn't exist before the Big Bang, then what was in the
> place where space is now? Crunchy nougat?
Billions and billions of quantum points that may or may not
become universes with no space between them because all
physical laws we now use, which only model the effect of
matter in motion, can not apply...
>
> 7. Sure the Big Bang theory explains well why the galaxies are moving
> apart, but how can scientists OF SCIENCE expect people to swallow
> the line that "nothing exploded and created the universe"?
Because you are the one calling it nothing...not the scientist.... Remember
the only reason it seems a nothing is because all our existing physical
laws break down and we have no way to define a quanta of energy
without reference to matter... Its all relative... so to speak...
Bryce Utting
> "Beable van Polasm" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 1. What exploded?
>
> A Quantum Point ( ciaos point[Alun Williams], singularity)
>
>>
>> 2. Why did it explode?
>
> It was governed by the only law that applies.. probability...
> it had the probability of converting its energy into matter/anti-matter
> or not... since you asked the question... It did....
dammit Beable, QUIT asking STOOPIT questions or ANOTHER quantum point
will explode and Dean Stockwell will get all mad. also, YOU made this
one happen by asking the question so it's YOUR universe, so clean the
damn thing up. y'can start by sweeping my driveway, it's a disgrace.
yours, etc, butting (qualified)
Nine Stones
<beable+...@beable.com.invalid> writes
>
>If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
>The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't exist
>(because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
>nowhere to be) exploded.
>
>The evidence for the Big Bang is that there are lots of galaxies which
>are moving away from us, indicating that they used to be closer to us,
>which means that a long time ago they would have all been at the same
>place. This "same place" is where the Big Bang happened, and this place
>didn't exist before the Big Bang because no places existed before then.
>
>Doesn't this theory just raise a whole bunch of unanswered and
>unanswerable questions? Like:
>
>1. What exploded?
Who knows?
>2. Why did it explode?
Who knows?
>3. If "nothing" exploded, how did we end up with all this "something"
> out of it?
Who knows?
>4. If "nothing" exploded, then why doesn't "nothing" explode every day
> and create a whole bunch more galaxies etc?
This can't be answered until we have a piece of nothing to look at. You
can't just bimble into town and buy nothing for twenty bucks. There is
no nothing in the Universe.
>5. If "something" exploded, then "something" existed before the Big
> Bang, and therefore matter and space already existed, and the Big
> Bang theory answers no questions at all.
Hmmm.
>6. If space didn't exist before the Big Bang, then what was in the
> place where space is now? Crunchy nougat?
Crunchy Planckton.
>7. Sure the Big Bang theory explains well why the galaxies are moving
> apart, but how can scientists OF SCIENCE expect people to swallow
> the line that "nothing exploded and created the universe"?
Check out the other professions, see what their hypotheses are. It may
be interesting to hear what the bakers, butchers and farmers have got to
say about it all.
>Wondering simply,
>Beable
Paul R. Mays
"Nine Stones" <r...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:SZK9X+GkZmG$Ew...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk...
> In message <eeispyt...@dingo.beable.com>, Beable van Polasm
> <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> writes
> >
> >If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
> >The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't exist
> >(because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
> >nowhere to be) exploded.
> >
> >The evidence for the Big Bang is that there are lots of galaxies which
> >are moving away from us, indicating that they used to be closer to us,
> >which means that a long time ago they would have all been at the same
> >place. This "same place" is where the Big Bang happened, and this place
> >didn't exist before the Big Bang because no places existed before then.
> >
> >Doesn't this theory just raise a whole bunch of unanswered and
> >unanswerable questions? Like:
> >
> >1. What exploded?
>
> Who knows?
I think I do .. but I could be wrong...
>
> >2. Why did it explode?
>
> Who knows?
I think I do .. but I could be wrong...
>
> >3. If "nothing" exploded, how did we end up with all this "something"
> > out of it?
>
> Who knows?
I think I do .. but I could be wrong...
>
> >4. If "nothing" exploded, then why doesn't "nothing" explode every day
> > and create a whole bunch more galaxies etc?
>
> This can't be answered until we have a piece of nothing to look at. You
> can't just bimble into town and buy nothing for twenty bucks. There is
> no nothing in the Universe.
We all have billions of pieces of nothing on the tip of every
finger....
>
> >5. If "something" exploded, then "something" existed before the Big
> > Bang, and therefore matter and space already existed, and the Big
> > Bang theory answers no questions at all.
>
> Hmmm.
Kazoo?
>
> >6. If space didn't exist before the Big Bang, then what was in the
> > place where space is now? Crunchy nougat?
>
> Crunchy Planckton.
Variable Crunchy Planckton
>
> >7. Sure the Big Bang theory explains well why the galaxies are moving
> > apart, but how can scientists OF SCIENCE expect people to swallow
> > the line that "nothing exploded and created the universe"?
>
> Check out the other professions, see what their hypotheses are. It may
> be interesting to hear what the bakers, butchers and farmers have got to
> say about it all.
Maybe even a Electromachanical Engineer or two...
madge
>
> If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
> The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't exist
> (because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
> nowhere to be) exploded.
>
> The evidence for the Big Bang is that there are lots of galaxies which
> are moving away from us, indicating that they used to be closer to us,
> which means that a long time ago they would have all been at the same
> place. This "same place" is where the Big Bang happened, and this place
> didn't exist before the Big Bang because no places existed before then.
>
You are asking the wrong question. It should be, Who was Gods mother?
Go to the back of the class and stand in a corner. Sheesh.
--
"Free flow of information has a price and responsible Internauts"
The Internet under Surveillance a report by Vinton Cerf
"For $20 (SAIT) anyone can be an Internut" - Madge
Darla Vladschyk
>Beable van Polasm wrote:
>>
>> If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
>> The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't exist
>> (because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
>> nowhere to be) exploded.
>>
>> The evidence for the Big Bang is that there are lots of galaxies which
>> are moving away from us, indicating that they used to be closer to us,
>> which means that a long time ago they would have all been at the same
>> place. This "same place" is where the Big Bang happened, and this place
>> didn't exist before the Big Bang because no places existed before then.
>>
>
>You are asking the wrong question. It should be, Who was Gods mother?
>
>Go to the back of the class and stand in a corner. Sheesh.
You're English. Doesn't he need to be slippered?!
-=D=-
Zagan
"Beable van Polasm" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:eeispyt...@dingo.beable.com...
>
> If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
> The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't exist
> (because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
> nowhere to be) exploded.
[Zagan]
The theory, as I understand it, says the universe we know came into
existence when a singularity (containing all that exists now, matter/energy,
space/time) began to expand. None of these things existed before as we know
them, because they are properties of our universe. Until our universe came
into existence, such concepts had no meaning. Physics, as we know it, is a
property of our universe, and we cannot assume that this physics applies
external/prior to our universe, if there is such a thing.
It is natural (common sense) that we assume space and time preexisted and
that our universe exist within this preexisting space/time. Most people will
assume that our universe consists of matter/energy created within the
preexisting space/time. And they will assume the matter/energy already exist
somewhere.
I used the word "assume" several times in the previous paragraph. And in
every case the assumption given was wrong.
> The evidence for the Big Bang is that there are lots of galaxies which
> are moving away from us, indicating that they used to be closer to us,
> which means that a long time ago they would have all been at the same
> place. This "same place" is where the Big Bang happened, and this place
> didn't exist before the Big Bang because no places existed before then.
>
> Doesn't this theory just raise a whole bunch of unanswered and
> unanswerable questions? Like:
>
> 1. What exploded?
[Zagan]
A singularity, although I'm not sure "exploded" is the correct term.
> 2. Why did it explode?
[Zagan]
For the same reason the Earth exists, or a fly buzzes around your kitchen.
Nature doesn't deal with "why's". Nature requires no reasons for anything!
> 3. If "nothing" exploded, how did we end up with all this "something"
> out of it?
[Zagan]
The "something" was in the singularity.
> 4. If "nothing" exploded, then why doesn't "nothing" explode every day
> and create a whole bunch more galaxies etc?
[Zagan]
Because "nothing" didn't explode.
> 5. If "something" exploded, then "something" existed before the Big
> Bang, and therefore matter and space already existed, and the Big
> Bang theory answers no questions at all.
[Zagan]
All the matter/energy and the space/time that we know are properties of our
universe. If we ask what came before the Big Bang, then we cannot answer
the question until such time as we understand the "equivalent" notion
outside of our universe, if there is such a thing. Whatever the case, we
can't talk about what came before using the laws of physics of ~our~
universe. The laws of our universe came into existence when our universe was
created, including matter/energy and space/time. If there is a "before"
timewise and spacewise, we can know nothing of such or the properties of
such, or even if such things exist.
> 6. If space didn't exist before the Big Bang, then what was in the
> place where space is now? Crunchy nougat?
[Zagan]
Why do you think anything has to have already been there? The "space" that
we know was in the singularity. It became space as we like to think of it
once the expansion began.
Strangely, I have a sudden urge for "crunchy nougat." :*)
> 7. Sure the Big Bang theory explains well why the galaxies are moving
> apart, but how can scientists OF SCIENCE expect people to swallow
> the line that "nothing exploded and created the universe"?
[Zagan]
What, exactly, is "nothing?" It seems to me that until one comes to grip
with the concept of nothing (and a concept is all it is), it's a useless
concept.
"Nothing" simply means the absence of something.
No one claims the universe was created out of nothing, but rather the
singularity. Where the singularity came from and where/when it was located
in space has no meaning per our physics as we know it. In terms of our
universe's physics, it's origin is at every point in our space. The reason
is that the singularity expanded and created space. Thus all of space is
that which once was within the singularity.
My 2 cents. :*)
> Wondering simply,
> Beable
[Zagan]
Me too! :*)
// Jim
--
|| Free Science Fiction
|| The Keepers of Forever
|| Read reviews & download Novel
|| http://jcd.members.atlantic.net/
Paul R. Mays
"Zagan" <j...@atlantic.net.N.O.S.P.A.M> wrote in message
news:Q6CSa.21059$Ry3.2...@monger.newsread.com...
Well stated Zagan.....
Absolutely... Just because we do not have the necessary knowledge base
to know something does not mean we will not acquire that knowledge at
some point. Since all physical laws we use are based on matter in motion
its not to say that there are not other laws that apply to unified energies
in
the absence of matter... We just are a dot in the mist of a vast universe
and
to think that we have all the answers...or even all the questions at this
point
in our history is to put us back at the center of the universe and thump our
chests as being the great domain of man.... We are but a pimple on a knats
butt, sitting on a log, floating down a river,running through a
continent,sitting
on a planet...etc....
>
> > 6. If space didn't exist before the Big Bang, then what was in the
> > place where space is now? Crunchy nougat?
>
> [Zagan]
> Why do you think anything has to have already been there? The "space" that
> we know was in the singularity. It became space as we like to think of it
> once the expansion began.
>
> Strangely, I have a sudden urge for "crunchy nougat." :*)
>
> > 7. Sure the Big Bang theory explains well why the galaxies are moving
> > apart, but how can scientists OF SCIENCE expect people to swallow
> > the line that "nothing exploded and created the universe"?
>
> [Zagan]
>
> What, exactly, is "nothing?" It seems to me that until one comes to grip
> with the concept of nothing (and a concept is all it is), it's a useless
> concept.
>
> "Nothing" simply means the absence of something.
>
> No one claims the universe was created out of nothing, but rather the
> singularity. Where the singularity came from and where/when it was located
> in space has no meaning per our physics as we know it. In terms of our
> universe's physics, it's origin is at every point in our space. The reason
> is that the singularity expanded and created space. Thus all of space is
> that which once was within the singularity.
Or we are still in the same Quantum Point (Ciaos Point[Alun Williams],
Singularity)... We are in the box... its a bit hard to define what's out
side the box
if all you know and all you can detect is only inside the box....
My 1.324 cents
madge
When I were lad, we used to get caned or slippered depending of the
level of the offence.
Kevin S. Wilson
<deletethisbit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>When I were lad, we used to get caned or slippered depending of the
>level of the offence.
"Were lad"? That's odd. Here in America we say "got laid."
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Who put these fingerprints on my imagination?"
Darla Vladschyk
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:00:10 +0100, madge
><deletethisbit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>When I were lad, we used to get caned or slippered depending of the
>>level of the offence.
>
>"Were lad"? That's odd. Here in America we say "got laid."
<guffaw>
-=D=-
Beable van Polasm
>
> "Beable van Polasm" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in
> message news:eeispyt...@dingo.beable.com...
> >
> > If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big
> > Bang. The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which
> > didn't exist (because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere
> > (because there was nowhere to be) exploded.
>
> [Zagan]
> The theory, as I understand it, says the universe we know came into
> existence when a singularity (containing all that exists now,
> matter/energy, space/time) began to expand. None of these things
> existed before as we know them, because they are properties of our
> universe. Until our universe came into existence, such concepts had
> no meaning. Physics, as we know it, is a property of our universe,
> and we cannot assume that this physics applies external/prior to our
> universe, if there is such a thing.
If the singularity contained everything that exists now, then that
means that it must have been jam-packed with even more energy than a
Mars bar, because famous scientist Alfred Einstein said that you are
allowed to convert matter to energy and back the other way if you want
to. So if we assume that the sun weighs about 2x10^30 kg, and that the
universe weighs 10^9 as much as the sun, then it's pretty easy to
calculate that the singularity had to have about 1.7975104e+41 PJ of
energy in it. And that's not pyjamas, that's PetaJoules.
Of course this just makes people want to ask "Where did the energy
come from?" and "Where did the singularity come from?". It's pretty
clear that scientists are just going to shrug and say "I dunno".
Right?
> > 6. If space didn't exist before the Big Bang, then what was in the
> > place where space is now? Crunchy nougat?
>
> [Zagan]
> Why do you think anything has to have already been there? The "space" that
> we know was in the singularity. It became space as we like to think of it
> once the expansion began.
>
> Strangely, I have a sudden urge for "crunchy nougat." :*)
My work here is done.
Beable van Polasm
Crunchy Nougat Marketing Board
Mark Palenik
"madge" <deletethisbit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F1B02...@yahoo.com...
> Darla Vladschyk wrote:
> >
> > madge <deletethisbit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Beable van Polasm wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
> > >> The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't
exist
> > >> (because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
> > >> nowhere to be) exploded.
> > >>
> > >> The evidence for the Big Bang is that there are lots of galaxies
which
> > >> are moving away from us, indicating that they used to be closer to
us,
> > >> which means that a long time ago they would have all been at the same
> > >> place. This "same place" is where the Big Bang happened, and this
place
> > >> didn't exist before the Big Bang because no places existed before
then.
> > >>
> > >
> > >You are asking the wrong question. It should be, Who was Gods mother?
> > >
> > >Go to the back of the class and stand in a corner. Sheesh.
> >
> > You're English. Doesn't he need to be slippered?!
> >
> > -=D=-
>
> When I were lad, we used to get caned or slippered depending of the
> level of the offence.
>
Interesting. When I was a lad, I served a term as office boy to an
attourney's firm.
John Druid
<beable+...@beable.com.invalid> inquired:
>
>If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
>The Big Bang happened
When pornstar Houston got 500 guys in a studio and...ooops, that's the
Gang Bang...sorry.
>when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't exist
>(because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
>nowhere to be) exploded.
In the words of Meher Baba (or was it Pete Townshend), "everything is
nothing"...or is it "nothing is everything"?
>
>The evidence for the Big Bang is that there are lots of galaxies which
>are moving away from us, indicating that they used to be closer to us,
>which means that a long time ago they would have all been at the same
>place. This "same place" is where the Big Bang happened, and this place
>didn't exist before the Big Bang because no places existed before then.
That's because there's no place like home. There's no place like
home. There's no place like home...for the holidays.
>
>Doesn't this theory just raise a whole bunch of unanswered and
>unanswerable questions? Like:
>
>1. What exploded?
A big zit, with volumes of pus. All we are is pus in the wind.
>
>2. Why did it explode?
That's obvious. Somebody squeezed it.
>3. If "nothing" exploded, how did we end up with all this "something"
> out of it?
Ask any teenager. A zit is not "nothing", it's "everything", the
"whole universe".
>4. If "nothing" exploded, then why doesn't "nothing" explode every day
> and create a whole bunch more galaxies etc?
Because no one has yet to invented a cure for acne.
>5. If "something" exploded, then "something" existed before the Big
> Bang, and therefore matter and space already existed, and the Big
> Bang theory answers no questions at all.
Will this be on the test?
>6. If space didn't exist before the Big Bang, then what was in the
> place where space is now? Crunchy nougat?
Farmland. Now it's all shopping malls and parking lots.
>7. Sure the Big Bang theory explains well why the galaxies are moving
> apart, but how can scientists OF SCIENCE expect people to swallow
> the line that "nothing exploded and created the universe"?
Because a lot of scientists still are cursed with teenage acne. Maybe
if they stop eating at McDonalds, and had some good ol' home
cookin'...
In conclusion, I'd like to say that the link between creation and the
Big Bang, between Adam and Eve and evolution, is simply this.
God is a extra-dimesional being, and a scientist. The universe is his
grand science experiment. He sets things off, and the watches it all
grow. If thing don't go the way it likes it, he scraps the experiment
(or a portion thereof), and tries it again using a different set of
parameters. If everything is going fine, he sits back with a
corned-beef sandwich (and a bottle of Doctor Brown's Cream Soda), and
watches it unfold.
Of course, another way to look at...is that the universe is like a
lung. It expands and contracts, breathing in and out. Just before
the big bang, the universe was finished exhaling, and the big bang
marked a the beginning of the inhalation of cosmic matter. We are
still in the middle of that inhale, and the universe is still
expanding. Eventually, the universe will start exhaling, and
eventually there will come the big crunch. Conversely, of course, you
can take all that and invert it (in reverse), and it still won't make
much sense.
**************************************
The first man on the moon,
John "my spaceship is gone!" Druid
**************************************
Joseph Michael Bay
>If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
>The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't exist
>(because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
>nowhere to be) exploded.
8. If this is true, why are there still monkeys?
--
"Public office is a public trust, Joe Bay
and people who violate it ought Dept of Cancer Biology
to be held accountable." Leland Stanford
-- William J. Bennett Junior University
Paul R. Mays
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:bfffha$3kt$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> Beable van Polasm <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> writes:
>
>
> >If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
> >The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't exist
> >(because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
> >nowhere to be) exploded.
>
> 8. If this is true, why are there still monkeys?
Now that made absolutely 0 Sense....
Beable van Polasm
> "Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> news:bfffha$3kt$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> > Beable van Polasm <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> writes:
> >
> >
> > >If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
> > >The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't exist
> > >(because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
> > >nowhere to be) exploded.
> >
> > 8. If this is true, why are there still monkeys?
>
> Now that made absolutely 0 Sense....
Did it? Well what about this one: Many people say that humans are
intelligent because they have an opposable thumb and live a long
time. This lead to tool usage, which led to BIG BRANEZ, which led
to world dominations.
Well cockatoos have TWO opposable thumbs on each foot, and live to
be over a hundred years old. So why don't cockatoo parrots rule the
world?
And if monkeys evolved into sapient humans, then why isn't that
still happening today? With monkeys under more and more pressure
with their habitats being destroyed, they better evolve some
intelligence pretty soon, or they will go extinct! GOOOOO MONKEYS!
--
A wise lobster knows the power of its own claws -- Doctor Yes
http://beable.com
Paul R. Mays
"Beable van Polasm" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
> "Paul R. Mays" <Sima...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > "Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> > news:bfffha$3kt$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> > > Beable van Polasm <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > >If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
> > > >The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't
exist
> > > >(because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
> > > >nowhere to be) exploded.
> > >
> > > 8. If this is true, why are there still monkeys?
> >
> > Now that made absolutely 0 Sense....
>
> Did it? Well what about this one: Many people say that humans are
> intelligent because they have an opposable thumb and live a long
> time. This lead to tool usage, which led to BIG BRANEZ, which led
> to world dominations.
Many people say thats not the reason at all...
>
> Well cockatoos have TWO opposable thumbs on each foot, and live to
> be over a hundred years old. So why don't cockatoo parrots rule the
> world?
Maybe someday they will...
>
> And if monkeys evolved into sapient humans, then why isn't that
> still happening today? With monkeys under more and more pressure
> with their habitats being destroyed, they better evolve some
> intelligence pretty soon, or they will go extinct! GOOOOO MONKEYS!
No one said Monkeys evolved into sapient humans... No one, that
is, that studies human evolution.. Lucy.. the 3 foot little critter
that we think was a precursor species to human was not a monkey..
We actually evolved from bacteria that formed from the slow
process of trial an error as carbon based oregano compounds
mixed in liquids and bathed in UV radiation in a non oxygen
atmosphere.. And in a few million years we may evolve back
into some kind of underwater critter being caught by a parrot
with his new out board motor boat...
Rich Holmes
> 1. What exploded?
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
> 2.
That's more than one question!
> Why did it explode?
Cuz there are no static solutions to the equations of General
Relativity. It's gotta do something, collapse or expand.
As for why it decided to obey the equations of General Relativity,
rather than Admiral Relativity or Chief Executive Officer Relativity
or Pope Relativity, I haven't a clue.
> 3.
That's more than one question!
> If "nothing" exploded, how did we end up with all this "something"
> out of it?
Nonequilibrium, CP nonconservation, and baryon nonconservation. If
your conditions include the first and your laws of physics allow the
other two, then you can go from "nothing" to "equal parts matter and
antimatter" to "very slightly more matter than antimatter" to "almost
nothing, relatively speaking, but it's all matter". Sounds like an
Amway scheme to me, but it works on paper.
As for why nothing decided to obey physical laws that included CP
nonconservation and baryon nonconservation, see above.
> 4.
That's more than one question!
> If "nothing" exploded, then why doesn't "nothing" explode every day
> and create a whole bunch more galaxies etc?
Who says it doesn't? Mama universe could be spitting out baby
universes like crazy. And mama universe could've been some other mama
universe's baby too. And so ad infinitem. But you don't see all the
mamas and babies because they're over there ---->.
> 5.
That's more than one question!
> If "something" exploded, then "something" existed before the Big
> Bang, and therefore matter and space already existed, and the Big
> Bang theory answers no questions at all.
Oh, it does. Like why the primordial helium abundance is what it is.
It just doesn't answer the Big One.
> 6.
That's more than one question!
> If space didn't exist before the Big Bang, then what was in the
> place where space is now? Crunchy nougat?
If space didn't exist before the big bang, where would you put the
crunchy nougat? The place where space is now would be space, but
there was no space. No space, no place; no place, no nougat: it's
just that simple.
> 7.
That's more than one question!
> Sure the Big Bang theory explains well why the galaxies are moving
> apart, but how can scientists OF SCIENCE expect people to swallow
> the line that "nothing exploded and created the universe"?
That's more than one question!
You've swallowed crazier ideas, like VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR
EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH or THE WORLD IS A BIG
PLUTONIUM ATOM or YOU'RE ALLOWED or RALPH NADER WOULD BE A GREAT
PRESIDENT. This one's EASY.
--
- Doctroid Doctroid Holmes <http://www.richholmes.net/doctroid/>
"We're waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on." -- Pete Seeger
Paul R. Mays
"Rich Holmes" <rsholme...@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote in message
news:u4wuebs...@mep1.phy.syr.edu...
He swallows?
Nine Stones
<beable+...@beable.com.invalid> writes
>"Paul R. Mays" <Sima...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> "Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>> news:bfffha$3kt$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
>> > Beable van Polasm <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> writes:
>> >
>> >
>> > >If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
>> > >The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't exist
>> > >(because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
>> > >nowhere to be) exploded.
>> >
>> > 8. If this is true, why are there still monkeys?
>>
>> Now that made absolutely 0 Sense....
>
>Did it? Well what about this one: Many people say that humans are
>intelligent because they have an opposable thumb and live a long
>time. This lead to tool usage, which led to BIG BRANEZ, which led
>to world dominations.
I'm only posting so that I can show everyone my TJ Frazir quote so that
I may be considered for victory in this thread.
>Well cockatoos have TWO opposable thumbs on each foot, and live to
>be over a hundred years old. So why don't cockatoo parrots rule the
>world?
Because they have beakers instead of hooters.
>And if monkeys evolved into sapient humans, then why isn't that
>still happening today? With monkeys under more and more pressure
>with their habitats being destroyed, they better evolve some
>intelligence pretty soon, or they will go extinct! GOOOOO MONKEYS!
>
"New partical my fucking ass ." - TJ Frazir
--
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
Theresa Willis
<beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>Well cockatoos have TWO opposable thumbs on each foot, and live to
>be over a hundred years old. So why don't cockatoo parrots rule the
>world?
They do. George W. takes all his orders from a pissed-off cockatoo.
--Terri
--
When I'M trying to get somebody fired, I always walk a mile in their
shoes first. That way, when I get them fired and they get all angry
with me, I'm a mile away, and I'VE GOT THEIR SHOES! HAW HAW!
--Beable van Polasm, alt.religion.kibology
Ben Wolfson
>On 21 Jul 2003 11:53:17 +1000, Beable van Polasm
><beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>Well cockatoos have TWO opposable thumbs on each foot, and live to
>>be over a hundred years old. So why don't cockatoo parrots rule the
>>world?
>
>They do. George W. takes all his orders from a pissed-off cockatoo.
Three, actually.
--
BTR
The Glass Marble, mistaking the No. 37 Penpoint for the Four-Holed
Button, pushed it into the Yawning Chasm.
Zagan
"Paul R. Mays" <Sima...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_v6cnXRk_Kq...@comcast.com...
>
<snip>
>> if such, or even if such things exist.
>
>
> Absolutely... Just because we do not have the necessary knowledge base
> to know something does not mean we will not acquire that knowledge at
> some point. Since all physical laws we use are based on matter in motion
> its not to say that there are not other laws that apply to unified
energies
> in
> the absence of matter... We just are a dot in the mist of a vast universe
> and
> to think that we have all the answers...or even all the questions at this
> point
> in our history is to put us back at the center of the universe and thump
our
> chests as being the great domain of man.... We are but a pimple on a
knats
> butt, sitting on a log, floating down a river,running through a
> continent,sitting
> on a planet...etc....
[Zagan]
Careful now. Don't give us too much credit. :*)
"To think that we have all the ...or ...questions", was pure genius on your
part.
Mark Hill
> In article <j7uohv0dcq2h8d69m...@4ax.com>, Theresa Willis wrote:
> >On 21 Jul 2003 11:53:17 +1000, Beable van Polasm
> ><beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Well cockatoos have TWO opposable thumbs on each foot, and live to
> >>be over a hundred years old. So why don't cockatoo parrots rule the
> >>world?
> >
> >They do. George W. takes all his orders from a pissed-off cockatoo.
>
> Three, actually.
Hey, if you had three pissed-off cockatoos, you would too, I don't care
if you are the President of the United States or what not.
John D.F. Stone
> "Nine Stones" <r...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
[...]
> > Crunchy Planckton.
>
> Variable Crunchy Planckton
Max Planckton
[...]
--
John Stone| Yay, yay for Santy Claus! He creeps, | Absolute
----------+ and leaps, and glides and slides across | Diskretion ist
the floor, right through the door and all around the | Selbst-
wall, a splotch, a blotch -- hooray for Santy Claus! | verstaendlich
Jeremy D. Impson
> Beable van Polasm <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> writes:
>
> > 1. What exploded?
>
> "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
>
> > 2.
>
> That's more than one question!
>
> > Why did it explode?
>
> Cuz there are no static solutions to the equations of General
> Relativity. It's gotta do something, collapse or expand.
>
> As for why it decided to obey the equations of General Relativity,
> rather than Admiral Relativity or Chief Executive Officer Relativity
> or Pope Relativity, I haven't a clue.
Actually, if the flag in the corner has gold trim around it, the universe
IS obeying the laws of Admiral Relativity.
--Jeremy
--
Jeremy Impson
jdimpson can be contacted at acm dot org
http://impson.tzo.com/~jdimpson
Zagan
"Beable van Polasm" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:eevftws...@dingo.beable.com...
> "Paul R. Mays" <Sima...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > "Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> > news:bfffha$3kt$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> > > Beable van Polasm <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > >If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
> > > >The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't
exist
> > > >(because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
> > > >nowhere to be) exploded.
> > >
> > > 8. If this is true, why are there still monkeys?
> >
> > Now that made absolutely 0 Sense....
>
> Did it? Well what about this one: Many people say that humans are
> intelligent because they have an opposable thumb and live a long
> time. This lead to tool usage, which led to BIG BRANEZ, which led
> to world dominations.
[Zagan]
And all kinds of nonsense...
> Well cockatoos have TWO opposable thumbs on each foot, and live to
> be over a hundred years old. So why don't cockatoo parrots rule the
> world?
[Zagan]
Maybe they do, but we're too stupid to notice the fact. Be nice to any
cockatoos you encounter...:*)
Actually, no one says "only" the opposable thumb was involved. A bunch of
other factors were involved, most of which cockatoos apparently don't
possess.
> And if monkeys evolved into sapient humans, then why isn't that
> still happening today? With monkeys under more and more pressure
> with their habitats being destroyed, they better evolve some
> intelligence pretty soon, or they will go extinct! GOOOOO MONKEYS!
[Zagan]
I am aware of no theory that says humans evolved from monkeys. If they did
they'd be no monkeys around to, er, monkey with. The theory says higher
primates have a common ancestor from which the various species, including
humans, evolved. If you wanna go further back, all mammals have a common
ancestor from millions of years ago.
Mark Palenik
"Jeremy D. Impson" <jdim...@acm.spam.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030723...@monster.apt.net...
> On 21 Jul 2003, Rich Holmes wrote:
>
> > Beable van Polasm <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> writes:
> >
> > > 1. What exploded?
> >
> > "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
> >
> > > 2.
> >
> > That's more than one question!
> >
> > > Why did it explode?
> >
> > Cuz there are no static solutions to the equations of General
> > Relativity. It's gotta do something, collapse or expand.
> >
> > As for why it decided to obey the equations of General Relativity,
> > rather than Admiral Relativity or Chief Executive Officer Relativity
> > or Pope Relativity, I haven't a clue.
>
> Actually, if the flag in the corner has gold trim around it, the universe
> IS obeying the laws of Admiral Relativity.
>
> --Jeremy
>
But, wait a second, what's this "there are no static solutions. . ." what if
we throw in a cosmological constant?
And it is quite apparent that the laws of GR break down some time back near
the big bang - so this is clearly no longer a useful model.
Now, if Smart1234 saw that on a website, I'm sure he would take it to mean
that I'm saying GR is not a useful model, and site it on his website as
further evidence for his theories. In reality, I am saying that GR is not a
useful model around singularities, or at the quantum level.
Paul R. Mays
"Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:y-qcnYBh09e...@wideopenwest.com...
>
> "Jeremy D. Impson" <jdim...@acm.spam.org> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030723...@monster.apt.net...
> > On 21 Jul 2003, Rich Holmes wrote:
> >
> > > Beable van Polasm <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> writes:
> > >
> > > > 1. What exploded?
> > >
> > > "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
> > >
> > > > 2.
> > >
> > > That's more than one question!
> > >
> > > > Why did it explode?
> > >
> > > Cuz there are no static solutions to the equations of General
> > > Relativity. It's gotta do something, collapse or expand.
> > >
> > > As for why it decided to obey the equations of General Relativity,
> > > rather than Admiral Relativity or Chief Executive Officer Relativity
> > > or Pope Relativity, I haven't a clue.
> >
> > Actually, if the flag in the corner has gold trim around it, the
universe
> > IS obeying the laws of Admiral Relativity.
> >
> > --Jeremy
> >
>
> But, wait a second, what's this "there are no static solutions. . ." what
if
> we throw in a cosmological constant?
Explain to me how you would know if something that varies
on a universal scale can be known to us on a human scale?
By this I mean lets say Planck's Constant, UGC or c vary but
the rate of variance is based on the total distribution of and
separation of all matter in the universe we would never be
able to realize that it varies. Specifically the value of c we
call a constant would not vary on our scale within the life
span of our solar system and therefore would never be able
to be measured other than as a constant to us. And if I
re-address the theory used to explain why an EM wave
slows as it traverses a medium with the bias that c is a variable
,that varies at a rate that is base set by separation distance
of matter on a universal scale, I might well consider that
the actual value of c is slower between particles that are
locally close rather that absorption and retransmission...
It seems more likely that there are no constants and no
infinities in this universe only variables that vary at a rate
which is beyond our ability to determine due to scale and infinity
a illusion that occurs when physical laws breakdown...
>
> And it is quite apparent that the laws of GR break down some time back
near
> the big bang - so this is clearly no longer a useful model.
>
> Now, if Smart1234 saw that on a website, I'm sure he would take it to mean
> that I'm saying GR is not a useful model, and site it on his website as
> further evidence for his theories. In reality, I am saying that GR is not
a
> useful model around singularities, or at the quantum level.
The rest I agree with...
>
>
Merlin Dorfman
(You are giving a serious answer to a person who probably
doesn't want one...a person who wasn't really asking a question but
instead was trying to make a point.)
----------------------------------------------------
: "Beable van Polasm" <beable+...@beable.com.invalid> wrote in message
: news:eeispyt...@dingo.beable.com...
: >
: > If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
: > The Big Bang happened when a whole bunch of nothing which didn't exist
: > (because nothing existed) and wasn't anywhere (because there was
: > nowhere to be) exploded.
: >
: > The evidence for the Big Bang is that there are lots of galaxies which
: > are moving away from us, indicating that they used to be closer to us,
: > which means that a long time ago they would have all been at the same
: > place. This "same place" is where the Big Bang happened, and this place
: > didn't exist before the Big Bang because no places existed before then.
: >
: > Doesn't this theory just raise a whole bunch of unanswered and
: > unanswerable questions? Like:
: >
: > 1. What exploded?
: A Quantum Point ( ciaos point[Alun Williams], singularity)
: >
: > 2. Why did it explode?
: It was governed by the only law that applies.. probability...
: it had the probability of converting its energy into matter/anti-matter
: or not... since you asked the question... It did....
: >
: > 3. If "nothing" exploded, how did we end up with all this "something"
: > out of it?
: Its not nothing... Its pure, unified energy... a finite amount..
: And as has been proven with every nuke blast and accelerator,
: energy can be converted into matter and matter can be converted
: into energy
: >
: > 4. If "nothing" exploded, then why doesn't "nothing" explode every day
: > and create a whole bunch more galaxies etc?
: Only one Quantum point gave birth to all matter in our universe
: and since that Quantum point still exists and we are all within it
: no other quantum point can exist within this one... There may well
: be billions of BB's going on... outside the box we are in but we
: could never know it...
: >
: > 5. If "something" exploded, then "something" existed before the Big
: > Bang, and therefore matter and space already existed, and the Big
: > Bang theory answers no questions at all.
: Nope.. cause until you have matter you have no space,, You have
: only within the box to us.. never knowing what's outside... And the
: concept of space is a human one
: >
: > 6. If space didn't exist before the Big Bang, then what was in the
: > place where space is now? Crunchy nougat?
: Billions and billions of quantum points that may or may not
: become universes with no space between them because all
: physical laws we now use, which only model the effect of
: matter in motion, can not apply...
: >
: > 7. Sure the Big Bang theory explains well why the galaxies are moving
: > apart, but how can scientists OF SCIENCE expect people to swallow
: > the line that "nothing exploded and created the universe"?
: Because you are the one calling it nothing...not the scientist.... Remember
: the only reason it seems a nothing is because all our existing physical
: laws break down and we have no way to define a quanta of energy
: without reference to matter... Its all relative... so to speak...
: >
: > Wondering simply,
: > Beable
: > --
: >
: >
Paul R. Mays
"Merlin Dorfman" <dor...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:bidkik$lmc$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> Paul R. Mays (Sima...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
> (You are giving a serious answer to a person who probably
> doesn't want one...
I do that a lot.............
>a person who wasn't really asking a question but
> instead was trying to make a point.)
He may have been making a point ( even though it
was a very dull one) But he asked questions (I
saw the little question marks)
And anyway... What made you think my
answers were serious in the first place?.....
pete
> [Zagan]
> I am aware of no theory that says humans evolved from monkeys.
> If they did they'd be no monkeys around to, er, monkey with.
Does that mean that if terrestrial animals evolved from fish,
that there wouldn't be any fish around, to, er, fish for ?
--
pete
pete
>
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:00:10 +0100, madge
> <deletethisbit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >When I were lad, we used to get caned or slippered depending of the
> >level of the offence.
>
> "Were lad"? That's odd. Here in America we say "got laid."
What's a good place to get scrod in Boston?
--
pete
pete
>
> If I understand correctly, the universe was created by the Big Bang.
No, that's all the stars in Hollywood were created by the Big Bang.
It refers to one of the larger orgies thrown by "Curly" Howard
and his brother Moe.
--
pete
Merlin Dorfman
: "Merlin Dorfman" <dor...@rahul.net> wrote in message
: news:bidkik$lmc$1...@blue.rahul.net...
: > Paul R. Mays (Sima...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: >
: > (You are giving a serious answer to a person who probably
: > doesn't want one...
: I do that a lot.............
: >a person who wasn't really asking a question but
: > instead was trying to make a point.)
: He may have been making a point ( even though it
: was a very dull one) But he asked questions (I
: saw the little question marks)
: And anyway... What made you think my
: answers were serious in the first place?.....
You've got me there. Just an assumption on my part...
Like the assumption on your part that if there were those little
question marks, he was asking a question :-)
Kevin S. Wilson
Worst definition of "rhetorical question" EVER!
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"You can safely ignore Kevin in order to
maximise life's experience." --A. Loon, in alt.religion.kibology
BForest
>
> Worst definition of "rhetorical question" EVER!
>
Why do people insist on asking rhetorical questions?