Author
|
Topic: The Creation mystery? Solved!
|
|
|
|
|
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605
|
posted 16 January 2006 07:08 PM
But Brian it's not true. Your taking the easy way out. A nice neat package.The UNiverse is cyclical in nature. If you don't believe me look up Steinhardt and others. GR in Cosmology has to have a whole geometrical framework to work with, not just the gravitational collapse. Oops again. I mean big bang. Why would you imply that people who know more about this, are creationists? [ 16 January 2006: Message edited by: forum observer ]
From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045
|
posted 17 January 2006 10:05 PM
Ah, the sox mystery. Well, there is a DRAGON lives in the interconnectedness of the drains and sewers...this Draconis Regina is gorgeous, she has gauzy wings much like those of a dragonfly but much bigger, of course. Her scales are actually plates of gemstone, rubies, sapphires, emeralds...and are kept bright by her diet, which consists almost entirely of SOX...all colours..all sizes...sox sox sox...Years ago the supernaturals met with all the dragons assembled and said Hey, you lot, let's have a chat, you're wiping out entire herds of beef, entire flocks of sheep, you're munching fields of turnips and other fields of spuds, and the people are getting more and more poverty stricken and skinny and something has to be done. Now some dragons agreed to be reduced in size and can be found today living in woodpiles and under autumn blighted leaves and in gullies and under decomposing logs and even along the shore line of small ponds, and some people call them lizards, and some say skink, and others just say Oh momma, looky here , it's gorgeous, just gorgeous..but Draconis Regina said I am NOT going to be minimalized for any reason whatsoever, so stuff that in your sock. And the supernaturals said SOX , stuff it in our sox, ah no, haughty lady, sox is what YOU will stuff down your big gob instead of sheep and cows and the rumour has it fair virginal maidens as well. And to this day Draconis Regina lives in the interconnectedness and stuffs her gob with socks of all colours and mutters and mumbles and gnashes her great and mighty teeth and says Okay, then, but I'll have the last word you buggers, I'm only taking ONE sock and you can either wear'em mismatched or hop around on one foot or be foolish and save the odd socks in the hope you can almost=match and nobody will notice. WHich works fine in the winter, when we're all in boots but...someone always notices. Hey, did you know youre wearing one navy blue sock and one black one? Ah fuggedaboudit, will ya?? So now you know the what-all about those mismatched sox.
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 17 January 2006 10:31 PM
quote: Originally posted by Boom Boom: Well if comet dust can be billions of years old, why can't our dust be just as old? Hmmmm?
Of course the earth is as old as it is, and thus we can tell many things from examining it.
However, comet dust is even older, and more pristine: From the Stardust website.: quote: What will you find out by taking samples from the comet?Since comets are thought to be the leftover material of the early Solar System, created before the time of the formation of the planets, it is hoped that scientists will find out more about the creation our universe. The planets have been altered by weathering, tectonics and other factors. In contrast, comets are believed to be the most unchanged, pristine bodies in the solar system. This means that their materials are the oldest and most basic available for study. How come the comets don't change? Most comets don't change once they are formed because they are kept in the deep freeze and isolation of space outside our Solar System. Comets come from the Kuiper Belt which is beyond Pluto, far from the Sun, where there is nothing to contaminate them. When comets approach the Sun they heat up and lose some of their material and during their travels, plus, they can potentially pick up foreign materials.
You haven't paid your BWAGA dues!! If I was you I'd be looking over my shoulder 'cause skdadl has a kind of esp that automatically senses any mention of BWAGA anywhere on babble.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013
|
posted 17 January 2006 11:39 PM
In science, if you have a complex theory that explains something and a simple theory that explains something which one do you go for? You go for the simple one. Thats science for you! So, i am not just taking the easy way out, I am taking the scientific way out. Beginning is a concept invented by humans. What ever begins in the world? Things dont begin, they just continue. Life never began. Organic chemistry in the right conditions and in a fairly constant stream of radiation becomes more complex over time. At some stage, complex self replicating thingys were produced and voila, here we are. We arbitarly pick a point on that journey and call it the beginning of life on earth. I think it is a whole lot easier if there was no beginning. Nobody has to engage in the who made God arguements then. Or what was he/she/it doing before the world was made? Perhaps it is way more sound than getting wound up into a knot about Creation. God might still have made the world, (in its playroom, perhaps?) but there was no beginning, ever. forum observer rabble-rouser Babbler # 7605
posted 16 January 2006 07:08 PM But Brian it's not true. Your taking the easy way out. A nice neat package. The UNiverse is cyclical in nature. If you don't believe me look up Steinhardt and others.
From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605
|
posted 19 January 2006 12:07 AM
aroused:far knottier problem of human societal change-through-time An important part of topology is the mathematical theory of knots and braids Interesting perspective on societal changes from a "flat space time" perspective? Are there such things as hyperbolic realizations, as a result of "negative thinking?"
Maybe just "evil people" who have "evil designs" on society?
[ 19 January 2006: Message edited by: forum observer ]
From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957
|
posted 19 January 2006 12:13 AM
quote: Originally posted by Brian White: Expansion into what? (I know that does dis-service to the ideas). There is probably another word in language instead of expansion, then. They should use it. I dont believe that they have finished their math.
Space and time expand, but they're not expanding into anything. Yes, that makes no sense to our common sense, but our common sense is based on what our senses evolved to use ... mid-scale phenomena in mid-scale time periods. The very small (quantum mechanics), the very fast (special relativity), and the very large (general relativity) not only don't meet common sense, they seem downright insane. Its just that they seem to work (which is why you're reading this on a computer based upon them). quote: It fails for the first few moments, doesnt it? So, my theory that there was no beginning is still unproven, but still valid because it is simpler.
The first instant (not moment, since we're talking about the first 10exp-42 secs) is undefined, if that's what you mean by fails. And there are a number of theories which say there was no beginning (Hawkings mentions one in his "Brief History of Time" for instance). However there's nothing inherently simpler about them than saying there was a beginning. And unless your theory successfully predicts what happens next (including the present ... ie predicts new and as yet undiscovered physics) it won't be considered particularly useful (or even science).
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605
|
posted 19 January 2006 12:29 AM
Pictures are always simplier And if you like, Friedmann curvature parameters for a cosmolgical scenario consideration, and why? The general theory of relativity is as yet incomplete insofar as it has been able to apply the general principle of relativity satisfactorily only to grvaitational fields, but not to the total field. We do not yet know with certainty by what mathematical mechanism the total field in space is to be described and what the general invariant laws are to which this total field is subject. One thing, however, seems certain: namely, that the general principal of relativity will prove a necessary and effective tool for the solution of the problem for the total field. Out of My Later Years, Pg 48, Albert Einstein Now they look at these issues in a different way. Strominger:That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had onethe theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation. So don't let simple things stop you from considering a larger framework in which to consider this universe, or assign creationist statements, to things that you do not understand. Rest assured somebody has been thinking about this, and it is not crackpots or unsubstantiate criticial thinkers. They follow rules just like everyone else. [ 19 January 2006: Message edited by: forum observer ]
From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874
|
posted 02 February 2006 01:15 PM
I find the whole relationship between the start of the universe and the theory of relativity quite interesting. The universe starts from the space-time point 0, and moves out from there. Space-time radiates outward from this point creating the universe, with the present being found in the middle of the universe, and the past being found around it. The amusing thing for me, is that, in my own conciousness, I am in the present, and therefore, from my perspective, I am the center of the universe.It's still very confusing however. Here's my grasp on the concept. Of course, then we've got string theory and quantum mechanics, where you have particles operating outside of space-time and in multiple universes and, well, that just fucks me up. Any post-1980 physics majors in the house? quote: Originally posted by forum observer: So what drives the expansion Brian?
Time? Does that make time (or the absence of time) a force? (ARGH! ) You know, as for the whole start of the universe notion, I think that the start of the universe had to have either (and I'm purely guessing) resulted out of the end of another universe (occilating universe theory, I think that was the less plausible one), out of something from another universe or universe of universes (string theory), or out of something from this universe from a point in space-time after space-time point 0 (and I have no idea how that would work). [ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ] [ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874
|
posted 02 February 2006 01:17 PM
quote: Originally posted by Boom Boom: The hell with cosmic questions, I just hope I live long enough to rescind my BWAGA membership!
^ See, theres my problem right there, working too hard on the former and not hard enough on the latter. No "not hard enough" puns please. [ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605
|
posted 02 February 2006 05:34 PM
I am the center of the universe.What! So am I Egoists rejoice
I mean it's true, we all need psychological support, and being "indifferent" is "okay." How often do we apply our thinking to "microcosmic processes" when we deal with the larger then life reality of living? Statistical analysis makes each of "as different" as one can expect. If we look at such proceses that are unpredictable, what's going to come next? Does Uncertainty reign? So having reached a certain point what will emerge? We don't know, yet we would like to know. So there are these people that talk about the interior of backholes(?) quantum gravity. Do you think I can make sense of them? No, it's not really that easy, until they started sharing some of the concepts that force one to reconsider. but for those indifferent.....sleep...sleep sleep.......
From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605
|
posted 02 February 2006 05:58 PM
Murray Gellman:It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, since entanglement is a key feature of the way complexity arises out of simplicity, making our subject worth studying. See, if one did not understand what "fuzzy logic" was, how would they have interpeted what I was saying? No, I am not I robot. How would they have understood that the simple things they assume around them, are the complex, then what/where, they had come from? Matter distinctions always seem easy and are solidfied, but their not really. We just conclude that they are That it is simple?
From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605
|
posted 02 February 2006 10:51 PM
Well in some sense, the surface of the sphere is important in certain ways described below. In "A geometrical one," since you did mention the sphere.Any point source which spreads its influence equally in all directions without a limit to its range will obey the inverse square law. This comes from strictly geometrical considerations. The intensity of the influence at any given radius r is the source strength divided by the area of the sphere. Being strictly geometric in its origin, the inverse square law applies to diverse phenomena.
In consideration of previous post in regards to hyperbolic considerations I thought that significant.By looking for an "axion principle." but what place would supply such considerations. At a certain point there is no geometries and there is no physics. Brian Greene: "Nothing to me would be more poetic; no outcome would be more graceful ... than for us to confirm our theories of the ultramicroscopic makeup of spacetime and matter by turning our giant telescopes skyward and gazing at the stars" There are reasons why such a look would be more advantageous to consider, seeing the display of events happening in context of that geometrical consideration. The energies, are very important, as well as the idea of this cyclical nature. How would you geometrically define it? So would you describe the "circumstances" around it. Use the horizon, to help you define things inside a blackhole. Without this gravitational consideration, and collapse, such expansion processes would be hard to explain. The cyclical processes in our universe.
But this collapse of our universe happened before time began? How is that possible? Something had to exist before time then? Who cares? West Coast Greeny:where you have particles operating outside of space-time Really??? sssnoozing.....snoring....more sleeping [ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: forum observer ]
From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|