Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What Caused The Big Bang? Answered.
38 views
Skip to first unread message
The Starmaker
Jun 14, 2012, 1:26:08 PM6/14/12
to
It lacked activity.
Raymond Daley
Jun 15, 2012, 8:57:00 AM6/15/12
to
"The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4FDA1E...@ix.netcom.com...
> It lacked activity.
I think it was a few days ago, I wrote a flash short explaining it clearly.
Here. I know it's bad form to post one's work but it's in context as an
answer.
Enjoy. I'll be releasing it "properly" as part of a flash collection
shortly.
13/6/12
The start of the end, A Flash Fiction story by Raymond Daley
Rex pressed the button, the one that started the particle accellerator.
Dino asked "What does this machine do again?"
"It simulates the conditions under which our Universe started" replied Rex.
"Wow!" said Dino. "So you're going to be the first Dinosaur to discover what
caused the start of the Universe?"
BANG.
THE END.
The Starmaker
Jun 15, 2012, 2:45:06 PM6/15/12
to
technology accident.
They love blowing up things.
What did they say about, J. Robert Oppenheimer? "destroyer of worlds"
It is my understanding that "particle accellerators" can destroy a universe.
These people should not be near a ....mouse.
I don't trust them.
The Starmaker
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 15, 2012, 3:09:16 PM6/15/12
to
> > "The Starmaker" <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
There is something that doesn't exist...
That is nothingness.
Mitchell Raemsch
That is nothingness.
Mitchell Raemsch
David Barnett
Jun 15, 2012, 3:39:32 PM6/15/12
to
In article <4FDA1E...@ix.netcom.com>,
star...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> It lacked activity.
I was hoping for a better answer.
If there was a cause for The Big Bang, why did this cause
exist?
--
David Barnett
star...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> It lacked activity.
I was hoping for a better answer.
If there was a cause for The Big Bang, why did this cause
exist?
--
David Barnett
Howard Brazee
Jun 15, 2012, 5:36:14 PM6/15/12
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 05:39:32 +1000, David Barnett
<dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> It lacked activity.
>
>I was hoping for a better answer.
>If there was a cause for The Big Bang, why did this cause
>exist?
As parents of young children know - for every answer there's a new
<dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> It lacked activity.
>
>I was hoping for a better answer.
>If there was a cause for The Big Bang, why did this cause
>exist?
"why".
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
The Starmaker
Jun 15, 2012, 6:29:39 PM6/15/12
to
and you tell her
"We are not going to do anything all day."
Watch her explode!
Or just turn off the TV...everywhere.
bjacoby
Jun 16, 2012, 12:37:49 AM6/16/12
to
The Starmaker
Jun 16, 2012, 1:19:49 PM6/16/12
to
they say the universe is around 4 billions years old
4,000,000,000
take away all the zeros
and you got
a 4 year old baby.
Isn't he cute?
The Starmaker
I hope you're not going to ask me where babies come from...
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 16, 2012, 2:45:05 PM6/16/12
to
On Jun 16, 10:19 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> bjacoby wrote:
>
> > On 6/15/2012 3:39 PM, David Barnett wrote:
> > > In article<4FDA1EB0.5...@ix.netcom.com>,
> bjacoby wrote:
>
> > On 6/15/2012 3:39 PM, David Barnett wrote:
> > > starma...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> > >> It lacked activity.
>
> > > I was hoping for a better answer.
> > > If there was a cause for The Big Bang, why did this cause
> > > exist?
>
> > God. Ask any creationist.
>
> If you're looking for a complete understanding...
>
> they say the universe is around 4 billions years old
> 4,000,000,000
>
> take away all the zeros
>
> and you got
>
> a 4 year old baby.
>
> Isn't he cute?
>
> The Starmaker
>
> I hope you're not going to ask me where babies come from...
>
>
The better answer for all that exists is God.
> > >> It lacked activity.
>
> > > I was hoping for a better answer.
> > > If there was a cause for The Big Bang, why did this cause
> > > exist?
>
> > God. Ask any creationist.
>
> If you're looking for a complete understanding...
>
> they say the universe is around 4 billions years old
> 4,000,000,000
>
> take away all the zeros
>
> and you got
>
> a 4 year old baby.
>
> Isn't he cute?
>
> The Starmaker
>
> I hope you're not going to ask me where babies come from...
>
>
Mitchell Raemsch
cloud dreamer
Jun 16, 2012, 2:53:47 PM6/16/12
to
understand something or technology to properly explain everything
doesn't yet exist is a cop out of the unimaginative.
Especially given that more evidence to explain to big bang exists than
to explain the existence of some fairy in the sky who is responsible.
Nature is the most powerful force in the universe.
Don't believe me? Go stand on a Miami beach when a Cat 5 storm comes ashore.
..
--
I told you so. You damned fools.
- H.G. Wells
Howard Brazee
Jun 16, 2012, 3:55:20 PM6/16/12
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:23:47 -0230, cloud dreamer
<dont.a...@the.messenger> wrote:
>Giving credit to a fictional character simply because you don't
>understand something or technology to properly explain everything
>doesn't yet exist is a cop out of the unimaginative.
>
>Especially given that more evidence to explain to big bang exists than
>to explain the existence of some fairy in the sky who is responsible.
>
>Nature is the most powerful force in the universe.
I thought nature *is* the universe.
<dont.a...@the.messenger> wrote:
>Giving credit to a fictional character simply because you don't
>understand something or technology to properly explain everything
>doesn't yet exist is a cop out of the unimaginative.
>
>Especially given that more evidence to explain to big bang exists than
>to explain the existence of some fairy in the sky who is responsible.
>
>Nature is the most powerful force in the universe.
>Don't believe me? Go stand on a Miami beach when a Cat 5 storm comes ashore.
Shawn Wilson
Jun 16, 2012, 3:56:30 PM6/16/12
to
I believe it involved All You Can Eat Burrito Night, but the details
are sketchy...
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 16, 2012, 3:59:59 PM6/16/12
to
On Jun 16, 12:56 pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe it involved All You Can Eat Burrito Night, but the details
> are sketchy...
>
>
The atheists would say that nothing caused the Big Bang.
> I believe it involved All You Can Eat Burrito Night, but the details
> are sketchy...
>
>
Mitchell Raemsch
Father Haskell
Jun 16, 2012, 4:27:26 PM6/16/12
to
On Jun 16, 2:45 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Where did god come from?
wrote:
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 16, 2012, 4:32:26 PM6/16/12
to
Syd M.
Jun 16, 2012, 5:15:33 PM6/16/12
to
Syd M.
Jun 16, 2012, 5:14:51 PM6/16/12
to
Howard Brazee
Jun 16, 2012, 6:04:06 PM6/16/12
to
be created by something, that obviously something had to create the
universe - something which is an exception to that rule.
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 16, 2012, 6:16:01 PM6/16/12
to
On Jun 16, 3:04 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:59:59 -0700 (PDT), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
There is no before the Big Bang.
Mitchell Raemsch
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:59:59 -0700 (PDT), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
Mitchell Raemsch
Tronscend
Jun 16, 2012, 6:19:04 PM6/16/12
to
<micro...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:5f3c0a6d-8c85-4e11...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> The atheists would say that nothing caused the Big Bang.
Or go read Kant.
Tronscend
Jun 16, 2012, 6:22:08 PM6/16/12
to
<micro...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:9d43efb0-db8d-419a...@oe8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>> Where did god come from?
> He Created Himself...
And this entity is in fact created.
Good to know.
(BTW: the standard answer is that said entitiy has existed for eternity.
Lets you skip a lot of minor problems, and the problrm of eternal existence
is so big, so abstract, so . . . metaphysical that nobody bothers.)
David Barnett
Jun 16, 2012, 7:56:12 PM6/16/12
to
In article <5f3c0a6d-8c85-4e11-8779-6f8f2226af99
@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com
says...
> The atheists would say that nothing caused the Big Bang.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
Then how would the atheists answer: Why did the Big Bang
exist?
I'm agnostic myself.
However, I find it just as plausible to say God exists as
The Big Bang just exists.
So I am really on the fence as it were.
--
David Barnett
@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com
says...
>
> On Jun 16, 12:56 pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I believe it involved All You Can Eat Burrito Night, but the details
> > are sketchy...
LOL to that BTW.
> On Jun 16, 12:56 pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I believe it involved All You Can Eat Burrito Night, but the details
> > are sketchy...
> The atheists would say that nothing caused the Big Bang.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
exist?
I'm agnostic myself.
However, I find it just as plausible to say God exists as
The Big Bang just exists.
So I am really on the fence as it were.
--
David Barnett
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 16, 2012, 8:09:11 PM6/16/12
to
On Jun 16, 4:56 pm, David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> In article <5f3c0a6d-8c85-4e11-8779-6f8f2226af99
> @y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
> In article <5f3c0a6d-8c85-4e11-8779-6f8f2226af99
> says...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 12:56 pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I believe it involved All You Can Eat Burrito Night, but the details
> > > are sketchy...
>
> LOL to that BTW.
>
> > The atheists would say that nothing caused the Big Bang.
>
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Then how would the atheists answer: Why did the Big Bang
> exist?
They would have nothing but a prior universe. And that is an absurd
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 12:56 pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I believe it involved All You Can Eat Burrito Night, but the details
> > > are sketchy...
>
> LOL to that BTW.
>
> > The atheists would say that nothing caused the Big Bang.
>
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Then how would the atheists answer: Why did the Big Bang
> exist?
unprovable stance...
Mike Lovell
Jun 16, 2012, 8:14:58 PM6/16/12
to
On 2012-06-16, David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Then how would the atheists answer: Why did the Big Bang
> exist?
>
> I'm agnostic myself.
Agnosticism is just saying that you do not *know* if God exists or
> Then how would the atheists answer: Why did the Big Bang
> exist?
>
> I'm agnostic myself.
doesn't exist. It's not mutually exclusive.
> However, I find it just as plausible to say God exists as
> The Big Bang just exists.
> So I am really on the fence as it were.
what you believe or don't believe.
Unless you believe in God, you're an atheist. Nobody half believes in
God, you either do or you do not.
Not believing however doesn't mean actively denying. It's the position
between "I believe in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist"
In this case, you're an agnostic-atheist, or an agnostic-theist.
--
Jews, Christians & Muslims
The content of your posts will show how much you
really believe God is looking over your shoulder
G=EMC^2
Jun 16, 2012, 10:49:21 PM6/16/12
to
On Jun 15, 8:57 am, "Raymond Daley" <raymond.da...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> "The Starmaker" <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
BB formed out of space energy(fabric) and gravity compressed it into
a ball the size of a neutron. Humankind created Gods in their own
image. Their fear of dying. Those in power created bibles to brain
wash their subjects. Only three hundred years ago I would be put to
death for this post.70 years ago we had Nazi Germany Today we have the
Godfather. TreBert
wrote:
> "The Starmaker" <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
a ball the size of a neutron. Humankind created Gods in their own
image. Their fear of dying. Those in power created bibles to brain
wash their subjects. Only three hundred years ago I would be put to
death for this post.70 years ago we had Nazi Germany Today we have the
Godfather. TreBert
bjacoby
Jun 17, 2012, 12:33:40 AM6/17/12
to
On 6/16/2012 6:22 PM, Tronscend wrote:
>> He Created Himself...
>
> So there was a time when this entity did not exist.
> And this entity is in fact created.
> Good to know.
>
>
> (BTW: the standard answer is that said entitiy has existed for eternity.
> Lets you skip a lot of minor problems, and the problrm of eternal existence
> is so big, so abstract, so . . . metaphysical that nobody bothers.)
Wash my mouth out with soap, but Mitch Raemsch is correct! Ptoooey!
>> He Created Himself...
>
> So there was a time when this entity did not exist.
> And this entity is in fact created.
> Good to know.
>
>
> (BTW: the standard answer is that said entitiy has existed for eternity.
> Lets you skip a lot of minor problems, and the problrm of eternal existence
> is so big, so abstract, so . . . metaphysical that nobody bothers.)
The above fits your primitive human understanding, and you struggle
because you are so stuck in time that you can't imagine "eternity". But
God is everything including ALL laws of physics and that places it
("him") outside of time. Humans in their ignorance call this "eternal"
but it doesn't take much intelligence to see that this concept is quite
different. God does not exist IN time forever (eternal) but rather
exists OUTSIDE the laws of time. You do understand how time works,
right? Oh wait. I forgot, you are primitive humans.
Wayne Throop
Jun 17, 2012, 12:48:37 AM6/17/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: they say the universe is around 4 billions years old 4,000,000,000
no they don't
: they say the universe is around 4 billions years old 4,000,000,000
no they don't
Olrik
Jun 17, 2012, 12:51:52 AM6/17/12
to
Le 2012-06-17 00:33, bjacoby a écrit :
> Oh wait. I forgot, you are primitive humans.
And you are... what???
> Oh wait. I forgot, you are primitive humans.
Tronscend
Jun 17, 2012, 12:57:55 AM6/17/12
to
"bjacoby" <bja...@iwaynet.net> skrev i melding
news:u6dDr.5221$5i7....@newsfe19.iad...
Tronscend
Jun 17, 2012, 12:59:31 AM6/17/12
to
"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:jrjnq3$fkf$3...@dont-email.me...
> Le 2012-06-17 00:33, bjacoby a écrit :
>> Oh wait. I forgot, you are primitive humans.
>
> And you are... what???
>
A Cambrium Flagellate, late for the Shale.
>> Oh wait. I forgot, you are primitive humans.
>
> And you are... what???
>
William December Starr
Jun 17, 2012, 2:03:10 AM6/17/12
to
In article <6a334c79-f67d-4796...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
"micro...@hotmail.com" <micro...@hotmail.com> said:
> David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> microm2...@hotmail.com says...
-- wds
"micro...@hotmail.com" <micro...@hotmail.com> said:
> David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> microm2...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>> The atheists would say that nothing caused the Big Bang.
>>
>>> The atheists would say that nothing caused the Big Bang.
>>
>> Then how would the atheists answer: Why did the Big Bang
>> exist?
>
> They would have nothing but a prior universe. And that is an
> absurd unprovable stance...
Unlike, say, the existence of a deity...
>> exist?
>
> They would have nothing but a prior universe. And that is an
> absurd unprovable stance...
-- wds
The Starmaker
Jun 17, 2012, 2:21:13 AM6/17/12
to
14.6 billion years
14.6000000000000
take out all the zeros
you got a 14 year old kid.
Don't ask me where the kid came from...
Don Kresch
Jun 17, 2012, 8:12:59 AM6/17/12
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:45:05 -0700 (PDT), "micro...@hotmail.com"
<micro...@hotmail.com> scrawled in blood:
Then what caused god? God must have a cause.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
<micro...@hotmail.com> scrawled in blood:
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
TimeTraveler
Jun 17, 2012, 8:46:25 AM6/17/12
to
produce the universe. The scale of this event is unimaginably small.
Let's go from the massively large to this size. The universe is 20
orders of magnitude larger than our galaxy. The galaxy is 20 orders
of magnitude larger than our solar system. The solar system is 20
orders of magnitude larger than our planet. Our planet is 20 orders
of magnitude larger than an atom. An atom is 20 orders of magnitude
larger than a string. (Here be dragons.) The string is 20 orders
of magnitude larger than the event that made our universe. And this is
the reason you can pack the entire universe into a size much smaller
than a partice.
duke
Jun 17, 2012, 3:15:46 PM6/17/12
to
duke, American - American
*****
Warning: alt.atheism.mod is not a moderated newsgroup. It
instead allows selected censorship blocking of non-perferred
content and personal insult based on censor preference.
aa.mod is a voliation of free speech and should be
reported to the Federal Communication Commission.
*****
duke
Jun 17, 2012, 3:16:48 PM6/17/12
to
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 00:22:08 +0200, "Tronscend" <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
><micro...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
>news:9d43efb0-db8d-419a...@oe8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Where did god come from?
>
>> He Created Himself...
>
>So there was a time when this entity did not exist.
>And this entity is in fact created.
>Good to know.
Hell, you say the universe created itself, so why go ballistic by picking on his
>
><micro...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
>news:9d43efb0-db8d-419a...@oe8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Where did god come from?
>
>> He Created Himself...
>
>So there was a time when this entity did not exist.
>And this entity is in fact created.
>Good to know.
answer?
The Starmaker
Jun 18, 2012, 2:16:13 AM6/18/12
to
The Starmaker wrote:
>
> It lacked activity.
it was caused by ...boredom.
>
> It lacked activity.
it was caused by ...boredom.
G=EMC^2
Jun 25, 2012, 1:26:59 PM6/25/12
to
Before the big bang can't be left out. Energy is intrinsic to space.
Gravity is intrinsic to the cosmos. G=EMC^2 TeBert
bjacoby
Jun 25, 2012, 9:45:54 PM6/25/12
to
everyone after it.
Martin Phipps
Jun 26, 2012, 8:25:57 PM6/26/12
to
On Jun 17, 3:59 am, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
value problem. Basically, the problem is that time is measured in
relativity using the constant speed of light: if you measure out one
light year then the time it takes for light to travel that distance is
one year, and so on. And light is a form of electromagnetic radiation
which means that if you want to produce light you need to have postive
and/or negative electric charges and you need to have them
accelerate. The upshot is that there is no way to measure time in an
empty universe so the Big Bang is eesentially the beginning of time.
The question becomes then what happens when we go back farther and
farther in time.
Actually, Steven Hawking addressed this issue over twenty years ago in
A Brief History of Time. The first thing to realize is that entropy
increases with time. Hawking went further to point out that the human
brain is a biological machine that generates heat and increases the
entropy of the universe every time it stores new memories. Of course
we define "the past" as what we remember and "the future" as what we
don't remember and therefore assume hasn't happened yet.
Now what happens then when we go back further in time? The entropy of
the universe decreases. Thing is, what does the universe look like
when the universe is at zero entropy?
Zero entropy is achieved when there is no motion. If the universe has
zero entropy then nothing is happening. This makes sense: you go back
further and further in time until you get to a point in time when
nothing is happening. Then things start happening. This was the Big
Bang.
In statistical physics, the concept of entropy is associated with the
concept of randomness. For example, an open bottle of perfume has
more entropy than a closed bottle because the open bottle allows
perfume to escape the bottle and spread out all over the room. Note
that the fact that entropy increases explains why you always see
perfume escaping from the bottle and not collecting in a bottle. (You
can also view the path of each molecule of perfume as a stocastic
process and realize that the probability of any individual molecule of
perfume returning to the bottle is extremely low.)
The big bang then is like the proverbial genie that you can't put back
into the bottle. Physicists used to wonder if there were enough
matter in the universe to cause gravity to overcome electrostatic
forces and cause the universe to collapse into a "big crunch". Of
course, if that were to happen it would look a lot like time running
backwards.
In a Brief History of Time, Hawking then lost most readers when he
started talking about "imaginary time" being a "forth dimension in
space". Basically, Hawking here was taking nomenclature from general
relativity. General relativity is, as the name suggests, an extension
of special relativity. In special relativity, different frames of
reference were said to be related through "rotations in space-time"
where imaginary time is the fourth dimension in space. In general
relativity, gravitation was modeled as a distortion of space-time.
Hawking's insight was to see the entire universe as an object is space
time and as the boundary in time as a physical boundary in fourth
dimensional space. He then mentally rotated this object and asked if
there was still a well defined beginning. The answer of course is
that there isn't: just as a three-dimensional object does not have a
well defined beginning and end, so would a four dimensional object not
have a beginning or an end.
To paraphrase Hawking then, if the universe has no well defined
beginning of end then why do we need to talk about a creator? "What
if the universe just is?" he said. "What then is the need for a
creator?"
Martin
wrote:
> On Jun 16, 12:56 pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe it involved All You Can Eat Burrito Night, but the details
> > are sketchy...
>
>
> > I believe it involved All You Can Eat Burrito Night, but the details
> > are sketchy...
>
> The atheists would say that nothing caused the Big Bang.
"What caused the Big Bang?" is what in physics we call a boundary
value problem. Basically, the problem is that time is measured in
relativity using the constant speed of light: if you measure out one
light year then the time it takes for light to travel that distance is
one year, and so on. And light is a form of electromagnetic radiation
which means that if you want to produce light you need to have postive
and/or negative electric charges and you need to have them
accelerate. The upshot is that there is no way to measure time in an
empty universe so the Big Bang is eesentially the beginning of time.
The question becomes then what happens when we go back farther and
farther in time.
Actually, Steven Hawking addressed this issue over twenty years ago in
A Brief History of Time. The first thing to realize is that entropy
increases with time. Hawking went further to point out that the human
brain is a biological machine that generates heat and increases the
entropy of the universe every time it stores new memories. Of course
we define "the past" as what we remember and "the future" as what we
don't remember and therefore assume hasn't happened yet.
Now what happens then when we go back further in time? The entropy of
the universe decreases. Thing is, what does the universe look like
when the universe is at zero entropy?
Zero entropy is achieved when there is no motion. If the universe has
zero entropy then nothing is happening. This makes sense: you go back
further and further in time until you get to a point in time when
nothing is happening. Then things start happening. This was the Big
Bang.
In statistical physics, the concept of entropy is associated with the
concept of randomness. For example, an open bottle of perfume has
more entropy than a closed bottle because the open bottle allows
perfume to escape the bottle and spread out all over the room. Note
that the fact that entropy increases explains why you always see
perfume escaping from the bottle and not collecting in a bottle. (You
can also view the path of each molecule of perfume as a stocastic
process and realize that the probability of any individual molecule of
perfume returning to the bottle is extremely low.)
The big bang then is like the proverbial genie that you can't put back
into the bottle. Physicists used to wonder if there were enough
matter in the universe to cause gravity to overcome electrostatic
forces and cause the universe to collapse into a "big crunch". Of
course, if that were to happen it would look a lot like time running
backwards.
In a Brief History of Time, Hawking then lost most readers when he
started talking about "imaginary time" being a "forth dimension in
space". Basically, Hawking here was taking nomenclature from general
relativity. General relativity is, as the name suggests, an extension
of special relativity. In special relativity, different frames of
reference were said to be related through "rotations in space-time"
where imaginary time is the fourth dimension in space. In general
relativity, gravitation was modeled as a distortion of space-time.
Hawking's insight was to see the entire universe as an object is space
time and as the boundary in time as a physical boundary in fourth
dimensional space. He then mentally rotated this object and asked if
there was still a well defined beginning. The answer of course is
that there isn't: just as a three-dimensional object does not have a
well defined beginning and end, so would a four dimensional object not
have a beginning or an end.
To paraphrase Hawking then, if the universe has no well defined
beginning of end then why do we need to talk about a creator? "What
if the universe just is?" he said. "What then is the need for a
creator?"
Martin
Howard Brazee
Jun 26, 2012, 10:57:15 PM6/26/12
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Martin Phipps
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>To paraphrase Hawking then, if the universe has no well defined
>beginning of end then why do we need to talk about a creator? "What
>if the universe just is?" he said. "What then is the need for a
>creator?"
Beyond that, if we talk about a creator, it should be done to actually
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>To paraphrase Hawking then, if the universe has no well defined
>beginning of end then why do we need to talk about a creator? "What
>if the universe just is?" he said. "What then is the need for a
>creator?"
advance understanding. Adding an extra hypothetical layer to the
beginning doesn't add meaning. Might as well add Titans to create
the Gods to create Jehovah to create the universe.
David Barnett
Jun 27, 2012, 5:43:08 PM6/27/12
to
In article <fc56464d-da85-4ce8-9608-428743d7ed64
@e7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>, martin...@yahoo.com
says...
Now I have a headache.
To me, *God is just is* is as plausible as "the universe
just is".
--
David Barnett
@e7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>, martin...@yahoo.com
says...
To me, *God is just is* is as plausible as "the universe
just is".
--
David Barnett
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 5:55:59 PM6/27/12
to
On Jun 27, 2:43 pm, David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> In article <fc56464d-da85-4ce8-9608-428743d7ed64
> @e7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>, martinphip...@yahoo.com
> In article <fc56464d-da85-4ce8-9608-428743d7ed64
Hypersphere universe is better...
Mitchell Raemsch
G=EMC^2
Jun 27, 2012, 6:58:12 PM6/27/12
to
On Jun 27, 5:43 pm, David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> In article <fc56464d-da85-4ce8-9608-428743d7ed64
> @e7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>, martinphip...@yahoo.com
> In article <fc56464d-da85-4ce8-9608-428743d7ed64
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 27, 2012, 7:45:41 PM6/27/12
to
Mitchell Raemsch
thomas p.
Jun 28, 2012, 4:48:01 AM6/28/12
to
"David Barnett" <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> skrev i meddelelsen
news:MPG.2a562977a...@news.bigpond.com...
How can that be? After all we know that the universe is.
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
news:MPG.2a562977a...@news.bigpond.com...
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
David Barnett
Jun 28, 2012, 5:37:12 PM6/28/12
to
In article <4fec1a3e$0$285$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
gud...@yahoo.com says...
So, I think you are saying we know the universe exists,
but there is nothing to show God exists.
Do we really know why the "the universe is"?
Why isn't there just nothing?
I don't know whether God exists or not.
The argument above, if I have it right, says there is no
need for God, but that doesn't prove anything.
--
David Barnett
gud...@yahoo.com says...
but there is nothing to show God exists.
Do we really know why the "the universe is"?
Why isn't there just nothing?
I don't know whether God exists or not.
The argument above, if I have it right, says there is no
need for God, but that doesn't prove anything.
--
David Barnett
HVAC
Jun 28, 2012, 6:35:40 PM6/28/12
to
On 6/28/2012 5:37 PM, David Barnett wrote:
>
>>
>> How can that be? After all we know that the universe is.
>
> So, I think you are saying we know the universe exists,
> but there is nothing to show God exists.
>
> Do we really know why the "the universe is"?
> Why isn't there just nothing?
>
> I don't know whether God exists or not.
> The argument above, if I have it right, says there is no
> need for God, but that doesn't prove anything.
So then why would you just make the idea up?
>
>>
>> How can that be? After all we know that the universe is.
>
> So, I think you are saying we know the universe exists,
> but there is nothing to show God exists.
>
> Do we really know why the "the universe is"?
> Why isn't there just nothing?
>
> I don't know whether God exists or not.
> The argument above, if I have it right, says there is no
> need for God, but that doesn't prove anything.
What forces you into thinking that there may be a god?
Was it your upbringing? Was it something lacking in your childhood?
Didn't mommy and daddy show you enough attention when you were a kid?
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
William December Starr
Jun 28, 2012, 8:18:22 PM6/28/12
to
In article <fc56464d-da85-4ce8...@e7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
universe as an object *in* space time and [DEL]as[/DEL] the boundary
in time as a physical boundary in fourth dimensional space"?
> He then mentally rotated this object and asked if there was still
> a well defined beginning. The answer of course is that there
> isn't: just as a three-dimensional object does not have a well
> defined beginning and end, so would a four dimensional object not
> have a beginning or an end.
-- wds
Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com> said:
> Hawking's insight was to see the entire universe as an object is
> space time and as the boundary in time as a physical boundary in
> fourth dimensional space.
Was that supposed to be "Hawking's insight was to see the entire
> Hawking's insight was to see the entire universe as an object is
> space time and as the boundary in time as a physical boundary in
> fourth dimensional space.
universe as an object *in* space time and [DEL]as[/DEL] the boundary
in time as a physical boundary in fourth dimensional space"?
> He then mentally rotated this object and asked if there was still
> a well defined beginning. The answer of course is that there
> isn't: just as a three-dimensional object does not have a well
> defined beginning and end, so would a four dimensional object not
> have a beginning or an end.
The Starmaker
Jun 28, 2012, 11:32:44 PM6/28/12
to
HVAC wrote:
>
> On 6/28/2012 5:37 PM, David Barnett wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> How can that be? After all we know that the universe is.
> >
> > So, I think you are saying we know the universe exists,
> > but there is nothing to show God exists.
> >
> > Do we really know why the "the universe is"?
> > Why isn't there just nothing?
> >
> > I don't know whether God exists or not.
> > The argument above, if I have it right, says there is no
> > need for God, but that doesn't prove anything.
>
> So then why would you just make the idea up?
> What forces you into thinking that there may be a god?
>
> Was it your upbringing? Was it something lacking in your childhood?
> Didn't mommy and daddy show you enough attention when you were a kid?
>
God is in your DNA. Even Hawking gots God in his DNA...otherwise why does he talk about God all the time,
>
> On 6/28/2012 5:37 PM, David Barnett wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> How can that be? After all we know that the universe is.
> >
> > So, I think you are saying we know the universe exists,
> > but there is nothing to show God exists.
> >
> > Do we really know why the "the universe is"?
> > Why isn't there just nothing?
> >
> > I don't know whether God exists or not.
> > The argument above, if I have it right, says there is no
> > need for God, but that doesn't prove anything.
>
> So then why would you just make the idea up?
> What forces you into thinking that there may be a god?
>
> Was it your upbringing? Was it something lacking in your childhood?
> Didn't mommy and daddy show you enough attention when you were a kid?
>
not because he's an atheist, cause it's in his dna.
Those who don't believe in God simply have a defect in their DNA. There are sick.
Martin Phipps
Jun 29, 2012, 1:08:20 AM6/29/12
to
God isn't in your DNA. He's not hiding under your bed or at the back
of the closet. You won't find him under the sofa or behind the
refrigerator. He is just a figment of your imagination. You need to
grow up.
> Even Hawking gots God in his DNA...otherwise why does he talk about God all the time,
He doesn't. "What if the universe just is?" he said. "What then is
the need for a creator?" His entire one mention of God in A Brief
History of Time was to dismiss the idea as nonsense.
> not because he's an atheist, cause it's in his dna.
>
> Those who don't believe in God simply have a defect in their DNA. There are sick.
Religion is a mental illness and the cure is education. You never got
an education so, therefore, you believe in imaginary entities. I pity
you.
Martin
of the closet. You won't find him under the sofa or behind the
refrigerator. He is just a figment of your imagination. You need to
grow up.
> Even Hawking gots God in his DNA...otherwise why does he talk about God all the time,
the need for a creator?" His entire one mention of God in A Brief
History of Time was to dismiss the idea as nonsense.
> not because he's an atheist, cause it's in his dna.
>
> Those who don't believe in God simply have a defect in their DNA. There are sick.
an education so, therefore, you believe in imaginary entities. I pity
you.
Martin
SkyEyes
Jun 29, 2012, 1:19:47 AM6/29/12
to
On Jun 28, 2:37 pm, David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> In article <4fec1a3e$0$285$edfad...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> gudl...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "David Barnett" <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> skrev i meddelelsen
Because, as they have recently found via mathematics, nothingness is
inherently unstable.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
> In article <4fec1a3e$0$285$edfad...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> gudl...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "David Barnett" <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:MPG.2a562977a...@news.bigpond.com...
> > > In article <fc56464d-da85-4ce8-9608-428743d7ed64
> > > @e7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>, martinphip...@yahoo.com
> > > In article <fc56464d-da85-4ce8-9608-428743d7ed64
inherently unstable.
>
> I don't know whether God exists or not.
> The argument above, if I have it right, says there is no
> need for God, but that doesn't prove anything.
So you want us to what, believe in a god "just in case"?
> I don't know whether God exists or not.
> The argument above, if I have it right, says there is no
> need for God, but that doesn't prove anything.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Poutnik
Jun 29, 2012, 1:27:45 AM6/29/12
to
Martin Phipps posted Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT) to
sci.physics.relativity,
>
> Religion is a mental illness and the cure is education. You never got
> an education so, therefore, you believe in imaginary entities. I pity
> you.
>
Your claim does not fit. Otherwise there would be interesting number
> Religion is a mental illness and the cure is education. You never got
> an education so, therefore, you believe in imaginary entities. I pity
> you.
>
of mentally ill physicists and scientists in general.
--
Poutnik
The Starmaker
Jun 29, 2012, 1:51:38 AM6/29/12
to
Martin Phipps wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 8:32 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > God is in your DNA.
>
> God isn't in your DNA. He's not hiding under your bed or at the back
> of the closet. You won't find him under the sofa or behind the
> refrigerator. He is just a figment of your imagination. You need to
> grow up.
>
> > Even Hawking gots God in his DNA...otherwise why does he talk about God all the time,
>
> He doesn't. "What if the universe just is?" he said. "What then is
> the need for a creator?" His entire one mention of God in A Brief
> History of Time was to dismiss the idea as nonsense.
His latest book: The Grand Design
>
> On Jun 28, 8:32 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > God is in your DNA.
>
> God isn't in your DNA. He's not hiding under your bed or at the back
> of the closet. You won't find him under the sofa or behind the
> refrigerator. He is just a figment of your imagination. You need to
> grow up.
>
> > Even Hawking gots God in his DNA...otherwise why does he talk about God all the time,
>
> He doesn't. "What if the universe just is?" he said. "What then is
> the need for a creator?" His entire one mention of God in A Brief
> History of Time was to dismiss the idea as nonsense.
Who is the Designer? Who is The Grand Designer? God! That is all that is
on Stephen's mind...
thomas p.
Jun 29, 2012, 1:54:44 AM6/29/12
to
"David Barnett" <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> skrev i meddelelsen
news:MPG.2a5779807...@news.bigpond.com...
>
> I don't know whether God exists or not.
> The argument above, if I have it right, says there is no
> need for God, but that doesn't prove anything.
(The universe just is. God just is) are not equally likely, since we know
the universe exists; but we do not know god exists. Why the universe is is
another question altogether.
>
> --
> David Barnett
G=EMC^2
Jun 29, 2012, 9:32:20 AM6/29/12
to
On Jun 29, 1:54 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "David Barnett" <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> skrev i meddelelsennews:MPG.2a5779807...@news.bigpond.com...
Gods give no real answers. Humankind has an id with great fear of
death,and use Gods to ease this fear. Its so very sad. TreBert
> "David Barnett" <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> skrev i meddelelsennews:MPG.2a5779807...@news.bigpond.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <4fec1a3e$0$285$edfad...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> > gudl...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >> "David Barnett" <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> skrev i meddelelsen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <4fec1a3e$0$285$edfad...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> > gudl...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >>news:MPG.2a562977a...@news.bigpond.com...
> >> > In article <fc56464d-da85-4ce8-9608-428743d7ed64
> >> > @e7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>, martinphip...@yahoo.com
> >> > In article <fc56464d-da85-4ce8-9608-428743d7ed64
death,and use Gods to ease this fear. Its so very sad. TreBert
Howard Brazee
Jun 29, 2012, 11:36:54 AM6/29/12
to
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:32:20 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"
<herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gods give no real answers. Humankind has an id with great fear of
>death,and use Gods to ease this fear. Its so very sad. TreBert
Some humans fear death, others don't.
<herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gods give no real answers. Humankind has an id with great fear of
>death,and use Gods to ease this fear. Its so very sad. TreBert
Lots of humans like authority and answers. And lots of people invent
or warp authorities to tell them that they are Right and others are
Wrong. (Anybody who claims to be a Christian, but rejects what Jesus
taught, for instance). I think that is a bigger reason for religion.
It's comforting to believe that one is Right.
Michael Stemper
Jun 29, 2012, 1:19:35 PM6/29/12
to
In article <0e5d11cb-a089-413e...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>, SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:
system was used? What was the mathematical definition of "nothingness",
which isn't a standard mathematical term?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
>On Jun 28, 2:37=A0pm, David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> In article <4fec1a3e$0$285$edfad...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>, gudl...@yahoo.com says...
>> > "David Barnett" <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> skrev i meddelelsen news:MPG.2a562977a...@news.bigpond.com...
>> In article <4fec1a3e$0$285$edfad...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>, gudl...@yahoo.com says...
>> > "David Barnett" <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> skrev i meddelelsen news:MPG.2a562977a...@news.bigpond.com...
>> > > To me, *God is just is* is as plausible as "the universe
>> > > just is".
>>
>> > How can that be? =A0After all we know that the universe is.
>> > > just is".
>>
>>
>> So, I think you are saying we know the universe exists,
>> but there is nothing to show God exists.
>>
>> Do we really know why the "the universe is"?
>> Why isn't there just nothing?
>
>Because, as they have recently found via mathematics, nothingness is
>inherently unstable.
They've found this out mathemtically? Fascinating. Which axiomatic
>> So, I think you are saying we know the universe exists,
>> but there is nothing to show God exists.
>>
>> Do we really know why the "the universe is"?
>> Why isn't there just nothing?
>
>Because, as they have recently found via mathematics, nothingness is
>inherently unstable.
system was used? What was the mathematical definition of "nothingness",
which isn't a standard mathematical term?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
Androcles
Jun 29, 2012, 2:39:49 PM6/29/12
to
"Howard Brazee" wrote in message
news:jmiru7dl4pkuq8hqr...@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:32:20 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"
<herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gods give no real answers. Humankind has an id with great fear of
>death,and use Gods to ease this fear. Its so very sad. TreBert
Some humans fear death, others don't.
Lots of humans like authority and answers. And lots of people invent
or warp authorities to tell them that they are Right and others are
Wrong. (Anybody who claims to be a Christian, but rejects what Jesus
taught, for instance). I think that is a bigger reason for religion.
It's comforting to believe that one is Right.
Fear is an evolutionary attribute that is shared by all animals that
are not yet extinct. If you don't fear the predator then you are eaten
before you reproduce and the species becomes as dead as the dodo
which did not fear man.
I do not fear death itself, it is inevitable, but I'll look before I cross
the
road and stay away from the electrified rail, nor will I jump out of a
perfectly good aeroplane even with a parachute just for the thrill of
courting death. Many years ago I learnt there are good motorcyclists
and dead motorcyclists. As I was not a good motorcyclist I stopped
riding. Whilst fear of death is illogical, it is nevertheless as instinctive
as hunger, sex, or coming in out of the cold.
--Androcles
David Barnett
Jun 29, 2012, 6:27:02 PM6/29/12
to
In article <0e5d11cb-a089-413e-81c8-e35186ad0d01
@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>, skye...@cox.net says...
>
<snip>
>> .
>> The argument above, if I have it right, says there is
>> no need for God, but that doesn't prove anything.
> So you want us to what, believe in a god "just in case"?
I'm not trying to influence anyone, just giving my
thoughts. If I wanted you or anyone else to "believe in a
god 'just in case'", that would mean I believed in a god
just in case, and I don't.
Your question seems to me to be a non-sequitur to my "I
snipped this part in the "follow up".
--
David Barnett
@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>, skye...@cox.net says...
>
<snip>
>> .
>> The argument above, if I have it right, says there is
>> no need for God, but that doesn't prove anything.
> So you want us to what, believe in a god "just in case"?
thoughts. If I wanted you or anyone else to "believe in a
god 'just in case'", that would mean I believed in a god
just in case, and I don't.
Your question seems to me to be a non-sequitur to my "I
don't know whether God exists or not".
I've had to copy & paste for this reply, as my newsreader
snipped this part in the "follow up".
--
David Barnett
David Barnett
Jun 29, 2012, 6:35:33 PM6/29/12
to
In article <jsko36$vm6$6...@dont-email.me>,
mste...@walkabout.empros.com says...
--
David Barnett
mste...@walkabout.empros.com says...
>
> In article <0e5d11cb-a089-413e...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>, SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:
> >On Jun 28, 2:37=A0pm, David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >> In article <4fec1a3e$0$285$edfad...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>, gudl...@yahoo.com says...
> >> > "David Barnett" <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> skrev i meddelelsen news:MPG.2a562977a...@news.bigpond.com...
>
> >> > > To me, *God is just is* is as plausible as "the universe
> >> > > just is".
> >>
> >> > How can that be? =A0After all we know that the universe is.
> >>
> >> So, I think you are saying we know the universe exists,
> >> but there is nothing to show God exists.
> >>
> >> Do we really know why the "the universe is"?
> >> Why isn't there just nothing?
> >
> >Because, as they have recently found via mathematics, nothingness is
> >inherently unstable.
The universe is stable?
> In article <0e5d11cb-a089-413e...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>, SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:
> >On Jun 28, 2:37=A0pm, David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >> In article <4fec1a3e$0$285$edfad...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>, gudl...@yahoo.com says...
> >> > "David Barnett" <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> skrev i meddelelsen news:MPG.2a562977a...@news.bigpond.com...
>
> >> > > To me, *God is just is* is as plausible as "the universe
> >> > > just is".
> >>
> >> > How can that be? =A0After all we know that the universe is.
> >>
> >> So, I think you are saying we know the universe exists,
> >> but there is nothing to show God exists.
> >>
> >> Do we really know why the "the universe is"?
> >> Why isn't there just nothing?
> >
> >Because, as they have recently found via mathematics, nothingness is
> >inherently unstable.
>
> They've found this out mathemtically? Fascinating. Which axiomatic
> system was used? What was the mathematical definition of "nothingness",
> which isn't a standard mathematical term?
I was wondering about that also.
> They've found this out mathemtically? Fascinating. Which axiomatic
> system was used? What was the mathematical definition of "nothingness",
> which isn't a standard mathematical term?
--
David Barnett
ken...@att.net
Jun 29, 2012, 8:11:41 PM6/29/12
to
On Jun 14, 1:26 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> It lacked activity.
Origin of the universe:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
> It lacked activity.
Origin of the universe:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
Howard Brazee
Jun 29, 2012, 8:37:25 PM6/29/12
to
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:
>So you want us to what, believe in a god "just in case"?
How many choices does that give us?
wrote:
>So you want us to what, believe in a god "just in case"?
Howard Brazee
Jun 29, 2012, 8:39:54 PM6/29/12
to
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:39:49 +0100, "Androcles" <ju...@2012.org> wrote:
>>Gods give no real answers. Humankind has an id with great fear of
>>death,and use Gods to ease this fear. Its so very sad. TreBert
>
>Some humans fear death, others don't.
>
>Lots of humans like authority and answers. And lots of people invent
>or warp authorities to tell them that they are Right and others are
>Wrong. (Anybody who claims to be a Christian, but rejects what Jesus
>taught, for instance). I think that is a bigger reason for religion.
>It's comforting to believe that one is Right.
>
>==================================================
>Fear is an evolutionary attribute that is shared by all animals that
>are not yet extinct. If you don't fear the predator then you are eaten
>before you reproduce and the species becomes as dead as the dodo
>which did not fear man.
>I do not fear death itself, it is inevitable, but I'll look before I cross
>the
>road and stay away from the electrified rail, nor will I jump out of a
>perfectly good aeroplane even with a parachute just for the thrill of
>courting death. Many years ago I learnt there are good motorcyclists
>and dead motorcyclists. As I was not a good motorcyclist I stopped
>riding. Whilst fear of death is illogical, it is nevertheless as instinctive
>as hunger, sex, or coming in out of the cold.
>--Androcles
Successful people try to avoid dying. But that's not what believing
>>Gods give no real answers. Humankind has an id with great fear of
>>death,and use Gods to ease this fear. Its so very sad. TreBert
>
>Some humans fear death, others don't.
>
>Lots of humans like authority and answers. And lots of people invent
>or warp authorities to tell them that they are Right and others are
>Wrong. (Anybody who claims to be a Christian, but rejects what Jesus
>taught, for instance). I think that is a bigger reason for religion.
>It's comforting to believe that one is Right.
>
>==================================================
>Fear is an evolutionary attribute that is shared by all animals that
>are not yet extinct. If you don't fear the predator then you are eaten
>before you reproduce and the species becomes as dead as the dodo
>which did not fear man.
>I do not fear death itself, it is inevitable, but I'll look before I cross
>the
>road and stay away from the electrified rail, nor will I jump out of a
>perfectly good aeroplane even with a parachute just for the thrill of
>courting death. Many years ago I learnt there are good motorcyclists
>and dead motorcyclists. As I was not a good motorcyclist I stopped
>riding. Whilst fear of death is illogical, it is nevertheless as instinctive
>as hunger, sex, or coming in out of the cold.
>--Androcles
in an afterlife does. It says dying is actually OK (for you - not
for the other guy who's going to be tortured for not believing the way
you do).
L.Roberts
Jun 29, 2012, 8:51:28 PM6/29/12
to
On Jun 16, 2:45 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 16, 10:19 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > bjacoby wrote:
>
> > > On 6/15/2012 3:39 PM, David Barnett wrote:
> > > > In article<4FDA1EB0.5...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > > > starma...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> > > >> It lacked activity.
>
> > > > I was hoping for a better answer.
> > > > If there was a cause for The Big Bang, why did this cause
> > > > exist?
>
> > > God. Ask any creationist.
>
> > If you're looking for a complete understanding...
>
> > they say the universe is around 4 billions years old
> > 4,000,000,000
>
> > take away all the zeros
>
> > and you got
>
> > a 4 year old baby.
>
> > Isn't he cute?
>
> > The Starmaker
>
> > I hope you're not going to ask me where babies come from...
>
> The better answer for all that exists is God.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
Have you ever stopped to consider that, whereas many people believe
there is a god, not all of them believe that there is a 'God'?
wrote:
> On Jun 16, 10:19 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > bjacoby wrote:
>
> > > On 6/15/2012 3:39 PM, David Barnett wrote:
> > > > In article<4FDA1EB0.5...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > > > starma...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> > > >> It lacked activity.
>
> > > > I was hoping for a better answer.
> > > > If there was a cause for The Big Bang, why did this cause
> > > > exist?
>
> > > God. Ask any creationist.
>
> > If you're looking for a complete understanding...
>
> > they say the universe is around 4 billions years old
> > 4,000,000,000
>
> > take away all the zeros
>
> > and you got
>
> > a 4 year old baby.
>
> > Isn't he cute?
>
> > The Starmaker
>
> > I hope you're not going to ask me where babies come from...
>
> The better answer for all that exists is God.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
Have you ever stopped to consider that, whereas many people believe
there is a god, not all of them believe that there is a 'God'?
SkyEyes
Jun 30, 2012, 4:08:40 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 29, 5:37 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >So you want us to what, believe in a god "just in case"?
>
> How many choices does that give us?
Round about 18,000 at last count.
>
> >So you want us to what, believe in a god "just in case"?
>
> How many choices does that give us?
Devils Advocaat
Jun 30, 2012, 5:35:33 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 30, 9:08 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 5:37 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >So you want us to what, believe in a god "just in case"?
>
> > How many choices does that give us?
>
> Round about 18,000 at last count.
So few to go round.
> On Jun 29, 5:37 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >So you want us to what, believe in a god "just in case"?
>
> > How many choices does that give us?
>
> Round about 18,000 at last count.
Krevo
Jun 30, 2012, 11:09:24 PM6/30/12
to
29.6.2012 1:35, HVAC kirjoitti:
> On 6/28/2012 5:37 PM, David Barnett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How can that be? After all we know that the universe is.
>>
>> So, I think you are saying we know the universe exists,
>> but there is nothing to show God exists.
>>
>> Do we really know why the "the universe is"?
>> Why isn't there just nothing?
>>
>> I don't know whether God exists or not.
>> The argument above, if I have it right, says there is no
>> need for God, but that doesn't prove anything.
>
>
> So then why would you just make the idea up?
> What forces you into thinking that there may be a god?
>
> Was it your upbringing? Was it something lacking in your childhood?
> Didn't mommy and daddy show you enough attention when you were a kid?
>
>
>
>
What cauces? God says and did: Lets become heaven(Volume) and Earth(Mass)?
> On 6/28/2012 5:37 PM, David Barnett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How can that be? After all we know that the universe is.
>>
>> So, I think you are saying we know the universe exists,
>> but there is nothing to show God exists.
>>
>> Do we really know why the "the universe is"?
>> Why isn't there just nothing?
>>
>> I don't know whether God exists or not.
>> The argument above, if I have it right, says there is no
>> need for God, but that doesn't prove anything.
>
>
> So then why would you just make the idea up?
> What forces you into thinking that there may be a god?
>
> Was it your upbringing? Was it something lacking in your childhood?
> Didn't mommy and daddy show you enough attention when you were a kid?
>
>
>
>
It is true, that he also did it, not only says that....
Jeff-Relf.Me
Jun 30, 2012, 11:47:39 PM6/30/12
to
As I've said before...
Infinite density, be it a black hole or the start of the Big Bang,
is a metaphysical concept, not a measured entitiy, not science.
I disagree with ANYONE who disagrees with Einstein.
General Relativity says that, empirically, clocks tick faster and
meter sticks are smaller in less dense regions.
The cosmos is unraveling, thinning out −− gravity is diminishing.
As it thins, empirically, its "volume" expands.
unLike nature, science is finite; it has a horizon, a limit,
to wit: 13.75 giga⋅years ago and 46.5 * 2 giga⋅light⋅years wide.
Gravity is a static, transparent, hard⋅to⋅measure, 4⋅D field;
it isn't granular, you can't track bits of it through time
−− mass/energy, time and space may not be separated.
Intrinsically, nothing is random.
Without ignorance, there can be no (pseudo)randomness.
The future is just as fixed as the past, neither can be changed.
So nature is at once "nothing" ( 4⋅D, changeless and choiceless )
and everything ( excluding nothing ).
⋅⋅⋅⋅
Unless⋅and⋅Until you define the word "god", I can't care
if you belive "he" (some random being) exists or not.
When engaging in theological discussions,
these (linguistic) definitions are useful:
A "god" is a position of power, like a prison warden who
commands respect from (unwilling) inmates.
"Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite¹ and perfect.
She consumes fuel (eXergy) so, virtually, She's "alive²".
[ ¹: Certainly not limited to biblical times/places.
²: All gods are virtual, not real, including "Mother Nature". ]
Quoting:
Wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Exergy#Quality_of_energy_types
« The ratio of "EXERGY" [ energy that can do work ] to energy
in a substance can be considered a measure of ENERGY QUALITY.
Forms of energy such as macroscopic kinetic energy, electrical energy,
and chemical Gibbs free energy are 100% recoverable as work,
and therefore have an exergy equal to their energy.
However, forms of energy such as radiation and thermal energy
can not be converted COMPLETELY to work,
and have exergy content less than their energy content. »
The eXergy of the known Universe is diminishing.
Eventually, it won't be able to perform work, as we measure it;
then, life as we know it will cease to exist.
However, there's always some eXergy left in the cosmos
because, over any length of time, only a portion is consumed.
Whether that's "a lot" or "a little" depends on your perspective.
Other life forms might persist and evolve, but not "humans".
⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅
It took millions of years to create the coal and oil that's
now being used up in a "geological blink of an eye" by 7 billion
humans, breeding exponentionally, each one wanting cars and planes.
Those who live and breed like rabbits, die like rabbits.
Religious people breed and breed, because "it's in God's hands",
until, eventually, war takes care of it. That's what war is for.
"Live faster, die sooner" is our biggest "choice".
For that ( feel⋅good over⋅consumption ), we'll die early, way early.
At least we're enjoying it, and that's what matters most, apparently.
All who breathe are committing "slow suicide" ( so to speak ).
Quoting NIH.GOV:
« Honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) life span
varies from a few weeks to more than 2 years.
This plasticity is largely ⋅controlled⋅by⋅environmental⋅ factors. »
« When workers switch from nest to foraging tasks [ breathing harder ],
[ there's ] a rapid increase in mortality »
« Moreover, during unfavourable periods,
when brood rearing and foraging ceases,
a third worker sub-caste develops ( diutinus or ‘winter’ bees ).
This sub-caste is characterized by
an extreme life span potential of up to 1 year »
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 30, 2012, 11:56:00 PM6/30/12
to
On Jun 14, 10:26 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> It lacked activity.
The first instance of existence contained the time design of
the hypersphere closed universe.
Mitchell Raemsch
> It lacked activity.
The first instance of existence contained the time design of
the hypersphere closed universe.
Mitchell Raemsch
Martin Phipps
Jul 1, 2012, 1:56:12 AM7/1/12
to
1) the author is not associated with a university or research
institute?
2) no measurements nor calculations were performed in support of this
theory?
3) all the equations were taken from first year physics textbooks?
4) the author did not cite anyone other than himself?
Martin
HVAC
Jul 1, 2012, 7:21:25 AM7/1/12
to
On 6/30/2012 11:09 PM, Krevo wrote:
>
>> So then why would you just make the idea up?
>> What forces you into thinking that there may be a god?
>>
>> Was it your upbringing? Was it something lacking in your childhood?
>> Didn't mommy and daddy show you enough attention when you were a kid?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> What cauces? God says and did: Lets become heaven(Volume) and Earth(Mass)?
> It is true, that he also did it, not only says that....
Answer the questions.
>
>> So then why would you just make the idea up?
>> What forces you into thinking that there may be a god?
>>
>> Was it your upbringing? Was it something lacking in your childhood?
>> Didn't mommy and daddy show you enough attention when you were a kid?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> What cauces? God says and did: Lets become heaven(Volume) and Earth(Mass)?
> It is true, that he also did it, not only says that....
G=EMC^2
Jul 1, 2012, 9:45:47 AM7/1/12
to
On Jun 28, 8:18 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <fc56464d-da85-4ce8-9608-428743d7e...@e7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
> In article <fc56464d-da85-4ce8-9608-428743d7e...@e7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > Hawking's insight was to see the entire universe as an object is
> > space time and as the boundary in time as a physical boundary in
> > fourth dimensional space.
>
> Was that supposed to be "Hawking's insight was to see the entire
> universe as an object *in* space time and [DEL]as[/DEL] the boundary
> in time as a physical boundary in fourth dimensional space"?
>
> > He then mentally rotated this object and asked if there was still
> > a well defined beginning. The answer of course is that there
> > isn't: just as a three-dimensional object does not have a well
> > defined beginning and end, so would a four dimensional object not
> > have a beginning or an end.
>
> -- wds
Beginning action force an implosion Treb
>
> > Hawking's insight was to see the entire universe as an object is
> > space time and as the boundary in time as a physical boundary in
> > fourth dimensional space.
>
> Was that supposed to be "Hawking's insight was to see the entire
> universe as an object *in* space time and [DEL]as[/DEL] the boundary
> in time as a physical boundary in fourth dimensional space"?
>
> > He then mentally rotated this object and asked if there was still
> > a well defined beginning. The answer of course is that there
> > isn't: just as a three-dimensional object does not have a well
> > defined beginning and end, so would a four dimensional object not
> > have a beginning or an end.
>
> -- wds
Thomas Heger
Jul 7, 2012, 5:21:35 PM7/7/12
to
Am 14.06.2012 19:26, schrieb The Starmaker:
> It lacked activity.
If 'Big bang theory' is somehow correct, than there is no need to
assume, that big bang is all there is.
Big-bang could be a part of a more complex universe, where the universe
WE observe has started with a bang.
(e.g. There could have been another universe, that has been crunched
into a singularity, what has later exploded.)
Actually I think, that big-bang is kind of optical illusion.
We have a lot of similar phenomena and we have relativity. If relativity
is correct, than we observe something like spacetime from 'within' - as
internal observers. This observation is, what we call universe. But that
is only OUR view - and not the entire story.
The universe, that we can't see, that invisible space, is nevertheless
real and the universe generates occasionally 'bubbles', in one of which
we exist.
Since humans are not THAT clever, we could discuss for eons the
possibility, that there might be something real, that we can't see. And
we could believe a few more centuries in a theory, that has actually
roots in the catholic church and was developed by Jesuit priests.
But that is not necessary, since even such simple means as the Usenet
allows us to discuss these questions and eventually solve them.
> It lacked activity.
If 'Big bang theory' is somehow correct, than there is no need to
assume, that big bang is all there is.
Big-bang could be a part of a more complex universe, where the universe
WE observe has started with a bang.
(e.g. There could have been another universe, that has been crunched
into a singularity, what has later exploded.)
Actually I think, that big-bang is kind of optical illusion.
We have a lot of similar phenomena and we have relativity. If relativity
is correct, than we observe something like spacetime from 'within' - as
internal observers. This observation is, what we call universe. But that
is only OUR view - and not the entire story.
The universe, that we can't see, that invisible space, is nevertheless
real and the universe generates occasionally 'bubbles', in one of which
we exist.
Since humans are not THAT clever, we could discuss for eons the
possibility, that there might be something real, that we can't see. And
we could believe a few more centuries in a theory, that has actually
roots in the catholic church and was developed by Jesuit priests.
But that is not necessary, since even such simple means as the Usenet
allows us to discuss these questions and eventually solve them.
Thomas Heger
Jul 7, 2012, 5:57:04 PM7/7/12
to
Am 27.06.2012 02:25, schrieb Martin Phipps:
> "What caused the Big Bang?" is what in physics we call a boundary
> value problem. Basically, the problem is that time is measured in
> relativity using the constant speed of light: if you measure out one
> light year then the time it takes for light to travel that distance is
> one year, and so on. And light is a form of electromagnetic radiation
> which means that if you want to produce light you need to have postive
> and/or negative electric charges and you need to have them
> accelerate. The upshot is that there is no way to measure time in an
> empty universe so the Big Bang is eesentially the beginning of time.
> The question becomes then what happens when we go back farther and
> farther in time.
>
Well, no!
> "What caused the Big Bang?" is what in physics we call a boundary
> value problem. Basically, the problem is that time is measured in
> relativity using the constant speed of light: if you measure out one
> light year then the time it takes for light to travel that distance is
> one year, and so on. And light is a form of electromagnetic radiation
> which means that if you want to produce light you need to have postive
> and/or negative electric charges and you need to have them
> accelerate. The upshot is that there is no way to measure time in an
> empty universe so the Big Bang is eesentially the beginning of time.
> The question becomes then what happens when we go back farther and
> farther in time.
>
The 'constant speed of light' is 'relative'!
WE measure time and base time and space on OUR understanding of the world.
We cannot know, how absolute time is and space. Actually relativity
tells us, space is not absolute, but what we regard as universe is OUR
vision on a more complex reality.
So we had to find something, that would enable such observations. This
something is, what we actually see (from 'within') and our universe is
our vision upon this 'something'.
> Actually, Steven Hawking addressed this issue over twenty years ago in
> A Brief History of Time. The first thing to realize is that entropy
> increases with time. Hawking went further to point out that the human
> brain is a biological machine that generates heat and increases the
> entropy of the universe every time it stores new memories. Of course
> we define "the past" as what we remember and "the future" as what we
> don't remember and therefore assume hasn't happened yet.
>
is not well understood.
First:
entropy is a term applicable to closed systems.
The entire universe might be closed (possibly not). But our universe is
not, hence we cannot apply the second law of thermodynamics.
Besides this Hawking is wrong with his assumptions about the human
brain. How conciousness really functions is not entirely understood.
> Now what happens then when we go back further in time? The entropy of
> the universe decreases. Thing is, what does the universe look like
> when the universe is at zero entropy?
>
> Zero entropy is achieved when there is no motion. If the universe has
> zero entropy then nothing is happening. This makes sense: you go back
> further and further in time until you get to a point in time when
> nothing is happening. Then things start happening. This was the Big
> Bang.
>
> In statistical physics, the concept of entropy is associated with the
> concept of randomness. For example, an open bottle of perfume has
> more entropy than a closed bottle because the open bottle allows
> perfume to escape the bottle and spread out all over the room. Note
> that the fact that entropy increases explains why you always see
> perfume escaping from the bottle and not collecting in a bottle. (You
> can also view the path of each molecule of perfume as a stocastic
> process and realize that the probability of any individual molecule of
> perfume returning to the bottle is extremely low.)
>
'randomness' is a question of definition and lies in the eyes of the
observer. E.g. if you mix red and green balls, than any combination is
similar unlikely as all red balls on the left and all green on the
right. Only humans find the latter case more mentionable than all the
other ones.
Than we know from experience that 'order comes from chaos'. E.g. rain
comes from wet air. Only a raindrop is more ordered than wet air.
> The big bang then is like the proverbial genie that you can't put back
> into the bottle. Physicists used to wonder if there were enough
> matter in the universe to cause gravity to overcome electrostatic
> forces and cause the universe to collapse into a "big crunch". Of
> course, if that were to happen it would look a lot like time running
> backwards.
>
it as that, since their time would look backwards to us, but not to them.
> In a Brief History of Time, Hawking then lost most readers when he
> started talking about "imaginary time" being a "forth dimension in
> space". Basically, Hawking here was taking nomenclature from general
> relativity. General relativity is, as the name suggests, an extension
> of special relativity. In special relativity, different frames of
> reference were said to be related through "rotations in space-time"
> where imaginary time is the fourth dimension in space. In general
> relativity, gravitation was modeled as a distortion of space-time.
'distortion of spacetime',too.
>
> Hawking's insight was to see the entire universe as an object is space
> time and as the boundary in time as a physical boundary in fourth
> dimensional space. He then mentally rotated this object and asked if
> Hawking's insight was to see the entire universe as an object is space
> time and as the boundary in time as a physical boundary in fourth
> there was still a well defined beginning. The answer of course is
> that there isn't: just as a three-dimensional object does not have a
> well defined beginning and end, so would a four dimensional object not
> have a beginning or an end.
>
Spacetime could be spherical shaped (a hypersphere). But that is a VERY
> that there isn't: just as a three-dimensional object does not have a
> well defined beginning and end, so would a four dimensional object not
> have a beginning or an end.
>
difficult question and nothing to start with.
TH
Martin Phipps
Jul 7, 2012, 9:02:25 PM7/7/12
to
On Jul 7, 2:57 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 27.06.2012 02:25, schrieb Martin Phipps:
>
> > "What caused the Big Bang?" is what in physics we call a boundary
> > value problem. Basically, the problem is that time is measured in
> > relativity using the constant speed of light: if you measure out one
> > light year then the time it takes for light to travel that distance is
> > one year, and so on. And light is a form of electromagnetic radiation
> > which means that if you want to produce light you need to have postive
> > and/or negative electric charges and you need to have them
> > accelerate. The upshot is that there is no way to measure time in an
> > empty universe so the Big Bang is eesentially the beginning of time.
> > The question becomes then what happens when we go back farther and
> > farther in time.
>
> Well, no!
>
> The 'constant speed of light' is 'relative'!
> WE measure time and base time and space on OUR understanding of the world.
>
> We cannot know, how absolute time is and space. Actually relativity
> tells us, space is not absolute, but what we regard as universe is OUR
> vision on a more complex reality.
Yes, time and space are both relative but the speed of light is
> Am 27.06.2012 02:25, schrieb Martin Phipps:
>
> > "What caused the Big Bang?" is what in physics we call a boundary
> > value problem. Basically, the problem is that time is measured in
> > relativity using the constant speed of light: if you measure out one
> > light year then the time it takes for light to travel that distance is
> > one year, and so on. And light is a form of electromagnetic radiation
> > which means that if you want to produce light you need to have postive
> > and/or negative electric charges and you need to have them
> > accelerate. The upshot is that there is no way to measure time in an
> > empty universe so the Big Bang is eesentially the beginning of time.
> > The question becomes then what happens when we go back farther and
> > farther in time.
>
> Well, no!
>
> The 'constant speed of light' is 'relative'!
> WE measure time and base time and space on OUR understanding of the world.
>
> We cannot know, how absolute time is and space. Actually relativity
> tells us, space is not absolute, but what we regard as universe is OUR
> vision on a more complex reality.
constant. A light year is defined as the length that light travels in
one year. It can be similarly said that light that has traveled, say,
ten light years to get to Earth has been traveling ten years from our
point of view.
> > Actually, Steven Hawking addressed this issue over twenty years ago in
> > A Brief History of Time. The first thing to realize is that entropy
> > increases with time. Hawking went further to point out that the human
> > brain is a biological machine that generates heat and increases the
> > entropy of the universe every time it stores new memories. Of course
> > we define "the past" as what we remember and "the future" as what we
> > don't remember and therefore assume hasn't happened yet.
>
> Thermodynamics is a difficult subject and especially this term 'entropy'
> is not well understood.
>
> First:
> entropy is a term applicable to closed systems.
>
> The entire universe might be closed (possibly not). But our universe is
> not, hence we cannot apply the second law of thermodynamics.
I think you have the terms "universe" and "galaxy" confused.
> Besides this Hawking is wrong with his assumptions about the human
> brain. How conciousness really functions is not entirely understood.
is a physical process. This is all we need to know.
> > Now what happens then when we go back further in time? The entropy of
> > the universe decreases. Thing is, what does the universe look like
> > when the universe is at zero entropy?
>
> > Zero entropy is achieved when there is no motion. If the universe has
> > zero entropy then nothing is happening. This makes sense: you go back
> > further and further in time until you get to a point in time when
> > nothing is happening. Then things start happening. This was the Big
> > Bang.
>
> > In statistical physics, the concept of entropy is associated with the
> > concept of randomness. For example, an open bottle of perfume has
> > more entropy than a closed bottle because the open bottle allows
> > perfume to escape the bottle and spread out all over the room. Note
> > that the fact that entropy increases explains why you always see
> > perfume escaping from the bottle and not collecting in a bottle. (You
> > can also view the path of each molecule of perfume as a stocastic
> > process and realize that the probability of any individual molecule of
> > perfume returning to the bottle is extremely low.)
>
> I disagree with your understanding of entropy.
>
> 'randomness' is a question of definition and lies in the eyes of the
> observer. E.g. if you mix red and green balls, than any combination is
> similar unlikely as all red balls on the left and all green on the
> right. Only humans find the latter case more mentionable than all the
> other ones.
in research we will run statistics on data looking for patterns. If
no patterns exist then the data is said to be random.
> Than we know from experience that 'order comes from chaos'. E.g. rain
> comes from wet air. Only a raindrop is more ordered than wet air.
comes from chaos" the entropy of the universe as a whole increases.
This is, of course, impossible to prove for all cases but
experimentally we will notice that all physical processes give off
heat and the heat adds to the overall entropy of the universe.
> > The big bang then is like the proverbial genie that you can't put back
> > into the bottle. Physicists used to wonder if there were enough
> > matter in the universe to cause gravity to overcome electrostatic
> > forces and cause the universe to collapse into a "big crunch". Of
> > course, if that were to happen it would look a lot like time running
> > backwards.
>
> No. If time would run backwards, the 'backwardians' would not experience
> it as that, since their time would look backwards to us, but not to them.
remember "the future" and think it was the past and believe the
universe was collapsing.
> > In a Brief History of Time, Hawking then lost most readers when he
> > started talking about "imaginary time" being a "forth dimension in
> > space". Basically, Hawking here was taking nomenclature from general
> > relativity. General relativity is, as the name suggests, an extension
> > of special relativity. In special relativity, different frames of
> > reference were said to be related through "rotations in space-time"
> > where imaginary time is the fourth dimension in space. In general
> > relativity, gravitation was modeled as a distortion of space-time.
>
> Well, that was not such a bad idea. Actually I think, that matter is a
> 'distortion of spacetime',too.
big boost recently...
> > Hawking's insight was to see the entire universe as an object is space
> > time and as the boundary in time as a physical boundary in fourth
> > dimensional space. He then mentally rotated this object and asked if
> > there was still a well defined beginning. The answer of course is
> > that there isn't: just as a three-dimensional object does not have a
> > well defined beginning and end, so would a four dimensional object not
> > have a beginning or an end.
>
> Spacetime could be spherical shaped (a hypersphere). But that is a VERY
> difficult question and nothing to start with.
object" he is being a bit creative with topography: you can map
infinity onto a single point. For example, in polar co-ordinates if
the south pole were defined as zero and the equator 1 then the north
pole would then be infinity. This mapping actually makes a lot of
sense: things happened very quickly, literally in small fractions of a
second, after the big bang. A lot of what we observe could be a
result of how we measure time. It's a brilliant theory.
Martin
Don Bruder
Jul 7, 2012, 9:56:58 PM7/7/12
to
In article
<c211303f-3fd5-496c...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Light in vacuum travels at the classic "186 thousand two
hundred-and-I-forget" miles per second that's so often referenced. Light
in some medium other than vacuum travels measurably slower than light in
a vacuum. Exactly how much slower depends on exactly which medium it's
passing through. And just to add to the confusion, recent scientific
work has demonstrated that light can be slowed down, or even literally
stopped "dead in its tracks" (for short periods of time, at least - I'm
not up on the precise details and limitations involved) under the right
conditions, then released to continue on its way - either at its
"natural speed", or at some arbitrarily chosen speed within the
limitations of the - Uh... let's call it "controlling gear" - that's
doing the slowing/stopping/releasing.
So when you get right down to it, nowdays, the distance meant by someone
saying "a light year" could be quite literally half an inch, a couple of
miles, or the classic "approximately 6 million million miles" that most
people have in mind.
--
Email shown is deceased. If you would like to contact me by email, please
post something that makes it obvious in this or another group you see me
posting in with a "how to contact you" address, and I'll get back to you.
<c211303f-3fd5-496c...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2:57 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
> > Am 27.06.2012 02:25, schrieb Martin Phipps:
> >
> > > "What caused the Big Bang?" is what in physics we call a boundary
> > > value problem. Basically, the problem is that time is measured in
> > > relativity using the constant speed of light: if you measure out one
> > > light year then the time it takes for light to travel that distance is
> > > one year, and so on. And light is a form of electromagnetic radiation
> > > which means that if you want to produce light you need to have postive
> > > and/or negative electric charges and you need to have them
> > > accelerate. The upshot is that there is no way to measure time in an
> > > empty universe so the Big Bang is eesentially the beginning of time.
> > > The question becomes then what happens when we go back farther and
> > > farther in time.
> >
> > Well, no!
> >
> > The 'constant speed of light' is 'relative'!
> > WE measure time and base time and space on OUR understanding of the world.
> >
> > We cannot know, how absolute time is and space. Actually relativity
> > tells us, space is not absolute, but what we regard as universe is OUR
> > vision on a more complex reality.
>
> Yes, time and space are both relative but the speed of light is
> constant.
Except that it isn't...
> On Jul 7, 2:57 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
> > Am 27.06.2012 02:25, schrieb Martin Phipps:
> >
> > > "What caused the Big Bang?" is what in physics we call a boundary
> > > value problem. Basically, the problem is that time is measured in
> > > relativity using the constant speed of light: if you measure out one
> > > light year then the time it takes for light to travel that distance is
> > > one year, and so on. And light is a form of electromagnetic radiation
> > > which means that if you want to produce light you need to have postive
> > > and/or negative electric charges and you need to have them
> > > accelerate. The upshot is that there is no way to measure time in an
> > > empty universe so the Big Bang is eesentially the beginning of time.
> > > The question becomes then what happens when we go back farther and
> > > farther in time.
> >
> > Well, no!
> >
> > The 'constant speed of light' is 'relative'!
> > WE measure time and base time and space on OUR understanding of the world.
> >
> > We cannot know, how absolute time is and space. Actually relativity
> > tells us, space is not absolute, but what we regard as universe is OUR
> > vision on a more complex reality.
>
> Yes, time and space are both relative but the speed of light is
> constant.
Light in vacuum travels at the classic "186 thousand two
hundred-and-I-forget" miles per second that's so often referenced. Light
in some medium other than vacuum travels measurably slower than light in
a vacuum. Exactly how much slower depends on exactly which medium it's
passing through. And just to add to the confusion, recent scientific
work has demonstrated that light can be slowed down, or even literally
stopped "dead in its tracks" (for short periods of time, at least - I'm
not up on the precise details and limitations involved) under the right
conditions, then released to continue on its way - either at its
"natural speed", or at some arbitrarily chosen speed within the
limitations of the - Uh... let's call it "controlling gear" - that's
doing the slowing/stopping/releasing.
So when you get right down to it, nowdays, the distance meant by someone
saying "a light year" could be quite literally half an inch, a couple of
miles, or the classic "approximately 6 million million miles" that most
people have in mind.
--
Email shown is deceased. If you would like to contact me by email, please
post something that makes it obvious in this or another group you see me
posting in with a "how to contact you" address, and I'll get back to you.
ajay sharma
Jul 7, 2012, 10:51:59 PM7/7/12
to star...@ix.netcom.com
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:56:08 PM UTC+5:30, The Starmaker wrote:
> It lacked activity.
Big Bang formed Universe, who formed Big Bang ?
Ajay Sharma
Fundamental Physics Society His Mercy Enclave Post Box 107 GPO Shimla
171001 HP India
www.AjayOnLine.us
Abstract
The understanding of the formation of universe is tedious and speculative process as no direct experimental evidences are present. The big bang theory assumes that automatically primeval or singular atom (state of volume tending to zero and infinitely large density) existed as such in space of atomic dimensions. The physical laws did not exist at time of big bang, as the time started after Planck’s time i.e. 5.39×10^-44 s after big bang . In pre-singular theory mass is not regarded as 1055 kg existed automatically, but attempt is made to explain how primeval atom is formed? The pre-singular theory assumes that universe started its life from zeroans i.e. particles of zero masses. The waves of zeroans automatically and spontaneously moved with infinitely large velocities. It is logical deduction. According to E=mc^2 the mass 1055 kg must have come from energy 9×10^71 J, but how this energy is created? Thus it is postulated that wave(s) of energy accumulated itself as infinitesimally small of energy(ies). Thus newly created waves of energy converted into mass(es), according to equation E =k mass annihilated = k ∆m , k is coefficient of proportionality . The particles of mass so produced were in super active state, thus a part of mass converted to gravitational energy and other energies. Consequently the various particles condensed and led to formation of singular atom. Due to conversion of mass to energy in primeval atom size of the atom decreased. When size became smaller than optimum size, the explosion known as big bang took place. Thus it is not assumed that mass of universe 1055 kg existed as such , but it created from zeroans and central equation is E= k ∆m.
for complete paper email ajay...@gmail.com
> It lacked activity.
Big Bang formed Universe, who formed Big Bang ?
Ajay Sharma
Fundamental Physics Society His Mercy Enclave Post Box 107 GPO Shimla
171001 HP India
www.AjayOnLine.us
Abstract
The understanding of the formation of universe is tedious and speculative process as no direct experimental evidences are present. The big bang theory assumes that automatically primeval or singular atom (state of volume tending to zero and infinitely large density) existed as such in space of atomic dimensions. The physical laws did not exist at time of big bang, as the time started after Planck’s time i.e. 5.39×10^-44 s after big bang . In pre-singular theory mass is not regarded as 1055 kg existed automatically, but attempt is made to explain how primeval atom is formed? The pre-singular theory assumes that universe started its life from zeroans i.e. particles of zero masses. The waves of zeroans automatically and spontaneously moved with infinitely large velocities. It is logical deduction. According to E=mc^2 the mass 1055 kg must have come from energy 9×10^71 J, but how this energy is created? Thus it is postulated that wave(s) of energy accumulated itself as infinitesimally small of energy(ies). Thus newly created waves of energy converted into mass(es), according to equation E =k mass annihilated = k ∆m , k is coefficient of proportionality . The particles of mass so produced were in super active state, thus a part of mass converted to gravitational energy and other energies. Consequently the various particles condensed and led to formation of singular atom. Due to conversion of mass to energy in primeval atom size of the atom decreased. When size became smaller than optimum size, the explosion known as big bang took place. Thus it is not assumed that mass of universe 1055 kg existed as such , but it created from zeroans and central equation is E= k ∆m.
for complete paper email ajay...@gmail.com
ajay sharma
Jul 7, 2012, 10:55:21 PM7/7/12
to star...@ix.netcom.com
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:56:08 PM UTC+5:30, The Starmaker wrote:
> It lacked activity.
sddddddddddddddddd
> It lacked activity.
ajay sharma
Jul 7, 2012, 10:57:49 PM7/7/12
to star...@ix.netcom.com
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:56:08 PM UTC+5:30, The Starmaker wrote:
> It lacked activity.
> It lacked activity.
Olrik
Jul 7, 2012, 11:54:55 PM7/7/12
to
Le 2012-07-07 21:56, Don Bruder a écrit :
> In article
> <c211303f-3fd5-496c...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> In article
> <c211303f-3fd5-496c...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 7, 2:57Â pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 27.06.2012 02:25, schrieb Martin Phipps:
>>>
>>>> "What caused the Big Bang?" is what in physics we call a boundary
>>>> value problem. Â Basically, the problem is that time is measured in
>>> Am 27.06.2012 02:25, schrieb Martin Phipps:
>>>
>>>> "What caused the Big Bang?" is what in physics we call a boundary
>>>> relativity using the constant speed of light: if you measure out one
>>>> light year then the time it takes for light to travel that distance is
>>>> one year, and so on. Â And light is a form of electromagnetic radiation
>>>> light year then the time it takes for light to travel that distance is
>>>> which means that if you want to produce light you need to have postive
>>>> and/or negative electric charges and you need to have them
>>>> accelerate. Â The upshot is that there is no way to measure time in an
>>>> and/or negative electric charges and you need to have them
>>>> empty universe so the Big Bang is eesentially the beginning of time.
>>>> The question becomes then what happens when we go back farther and
>>>> farther in time.
>>>
>>> Well, no!
>>>
>>> The 'constant speed of light' is 'relative'!
>>> WE measure time and base time and space on OUR understanding of the world.
>>>
>>> We cannot know, how absolute time is and space. Actually relativity
>>> tells us, space is not absolute, but what we regard as universe is OUR
>>> vision on a more complex reality.
>>
>> Yes, time and space are both relative but the speed of light is
>> constant.
>
> Except that it isn't...
> Light in vacuum travels at the classic "186 thousand two
> hundred-and-I-forget" miles per second that's so often referenced.
That's what's usually meant when talking about the speed of light.
>>>> The question becomes then what happens when we go back farther and
>>>> farther in time.
>>>
>>> Well, no!
>>>
>>> The 'constant speed of light' is 'relative'!
>>> WE measure time and base time and space on OUR understanding of the world.
>>>
>>> We cannot know, how absolute time is and space. Actually relativity
>>> tells us, space is not absolute, but what we regard as universe is OUR
>>> vision on a more complex reality.
>>
>> Yes, time and space are both relative but the speed of light is
>> constant.
>
> Except that it isn't...
> Light in vacuum travels at the classic "186 thousand two
> hundred-and-I-forget" miles per second that's so often referenced.
Martin Phipps
Jul 8, 2012, 4:05:47 AM7/8/12
to
On Jul 8, 9:56 am, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article
> <c211303f-3fd5-496c-809c-79f8673f2...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
That's because the light interacts with the matter and gets absorbed
and re-emitted in predictable ways.
Martin
> In article
> <c211303f-3fd5-496c-809c-79f8673f2...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
and re-emitted in predictable ways.
Martin
G=EMC^2
Jul 8, 2012, 8:06:43 AM7/8/12
to
Martin Phipps
Jul 8, 2012, 8:22:31 PM7/8/12
to
seem to understand what my point was.
Martin
0 new messages