babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » The Creation mystery? Solved!

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Creation mystery? Solved!
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 16 January 2006 06:14 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Way back when, there was a big explosion in this part of the universe that blew everything else out of sight.
But there was never any beginning, ever.
I think that is way simpler than anything that scientists or theologians or creatonists invent.
I mean, nobody can prove there was a beginning so why bother making one up?
All the wasted thought and breath and bullets that people have devoted to different answers to the beginning question could be much more productively and joyfully used in this world. Exploring some of the mysterys that are currently happening all around us every day.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 16 January 2006 06:56 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I still hear the question occasionally, what was there before the 'big bang'? The 'big bang' had to come of somewhere.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 16 January 2006 06:59 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I enjoy driving people nuts by asking if the universe has a beginning and an end. I wish I could live long enough to hear the answer to some eternal questions.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 January 2006 07:07 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, why ever wonder about the unknown or the impossible to know? Why ponder anything?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 16 January 2006 07:08 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 16 January 2006 07:13 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What about that US satellite that gathered up comet (cosmic?) dust? A news report last night said captured comet particles will tell us something about the origin of earth or the universe or the cosmos or something... heh, they might open the satellite and all will be vaporised
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 16 January 2006 07:14 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cosmic dust? Sure, most construction projects are dusty.

But what came before the dust?


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 16 January 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lots of cosmic sanding. The planets probably began as cubes and needed their corners eased.
From: ĝ¤°`°¤ĝ,¸_¸,ĝ¤°`°¤ĝ,¸_¸,ĝ¤°°¤ĝ,¸_¸,ĝ¤°°¤ĝ, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 16 January 2006 07:18 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Magoo:
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 16 January 2006 07:22 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
TMN has been showing 'Contact" quite a few times. Neat effects. Does anyone think we'll live long enough to see some of the more astonishing questions of cosmology answered? What do we think that US satellite full of comet dust will reveal? And, what's so special about comet dust in the first place? Lots of dust here in the summer, no one gets excited by it.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 17 January 2006 05:37 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
TMN has been showing 'Contact" quite a few times. Neat effects. Does anyone think we'll live long enough to see some of the more astonishing questions of cosmology answered? What do we think that US satellite full of comet dust will reveal? And, what's so special about comet dust in the first place? Lots of dust here in the summer, no one gets excited by it.

The intersting part of the dust is that it is billions of years old, thus giving us a small picture of what the universe was like a long time ago.

However, it won't tell us how the universe began.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 17 January 2006 07:41 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well if comet dust can be billions of years old, why can't our dust be just as old? Hmmmm?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 17 January 2006 07:58 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are rock outcrops from lava flows in Northern Ontario at least a billion years old. C'mon, my nephew's got a better imagination that that guys.

To infinity and beyond!


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 17 January 2006 08:00 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Does anyone think we'll live long enough to see some of the more astonishing questions of cosmology answered?

Plan to!

But seriously, I'm quite suspicious of attempts to get at (for example) the Higgs boson. I suspect that'll elude the folk at CERN, etc., for faaaar longer than they think it will. Might just be old 'aRoused' slipping into melodrama in his senescence, after all, playing the odds, there'll be no interesting maths and precious little useful engineering work coming out of this relative corpse. With a bit of luck though, I might be able to contribute to a far knottier problem of human societal change-through-time!


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 17 January 2006 08:08 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The hell with cosmic questions, I just hope I live long enough to rescind my BWAGA membership!
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Diane Demorney
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6183

posted 17 January 2006 08:11 PM      Profile for Diane Demorney   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
The hell with cosmic questions, I just hope I live long enough to rescind my BWAGA membership!
Sing it brother! Also, where the hell do my socks go (only one of the pair mind you)? I live alone. But after washday, always one orphaned sock. ::::sigh:::: Now this is a mystery of cosmic proportions.

From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 17 January 2006 10:05 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 17 January 2006 10:11 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've never had a problem with mismatched sox. I'm generally neat and tidy, and hoping someone rescues me from the clutches of BWAGA (haven't paid any dues yet, but apparently I'm a member).
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 17 January 2006 10:31 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 17 January 2006 10:36 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
maestro: I have to remember to RTFL (read the f***ing link).

I probably shouldn't have mentioned my BWAGA arrears. Someone rescue me from this nefarious organization!


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Diane Demorney
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6183

posted 17 January 2006 10:40 PM      Profile for Diane Demorney   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I probably shouldn't have mentioned my BWAGA arrears. Someone rescue me from this nefarious organization!



From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 17 January 2006 10:42 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd *love* to hitch up with a Canadian socialist! tee hee.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 17 January 2006 11:39 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 18 January 2006 12:09 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If I recall correctly from 4th year general relativity, there was no time before the big bang. Or space. The big bang was the expansion of both space and time, not the explosion of matter into empty space and already running time. In fact, it might be that matter and energy are just quantum fluctations that were separated before they could cancel out (loads of virtual particles). You have to do the math to really understand, but handwaving arguments can be made using balloons etc. I'd suggest glancing at something like Hawkings "A Brief History of Time" for a much better description than anything I can give. This stuff (ie current fundamental physics) is much wierder than anything you'll find in science fiction.
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 18 January 2006 12:10 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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?

Our dust is just as old, it's just been interacting with other dust in this little closed system that it doesn't tell us much about what it was like billions of years ago.

Every atom in your body has been around since solar system congealed, at least. Every sub-particle has been around, for the most part, since shortly after the Big Bang. It will be around forever, or until the heat death of the universe at least. So, we are very old, and just renting our bits 'n pieces for a few years.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 18 January 2006 11:21 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 18 January 2006 12:09 AM
"If I recall correctly from 4th year general relativity, there was no time before the big bang. Or space. The big bang was the expansion of both space and time".
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.
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.


From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 18 January 2006 11:47 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So what drives the expansion Brian?
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 19 January 2006 12:07 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

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 one–the 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
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 20 January 2006 07:52 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And, until these deep thinkers figure it out, perhaps us shallow tinkers should not bother?
Thats what I said! A beginning is a can of worms and there is no proof of any beginning.
You got to find another word for expansion.
A reason for expansion, how about a big explosion? Why are people upset with the idea of no beginning? What difference does it make?
And why do you care? What a waste of thought.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 20 January 2006 08:31 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Personally, the Universe and I had a bit of a falling out a couple of years back, and since then I have become indifferent to it.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464

posted 01 February 2006 05:52 PM      Profile for Blondin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Personally, the Universe and I had a bit of a falling out a couple of years back, and since then I have become indifferent to it.

A wise attitude, I believe, as the available evidence would seem to indicate the universe's total indifference to you & me.


From: North Bay ON | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 02 February 2006 03:16 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ya, why waste time and money? Why waste time thinking? Wow!


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 02 February 2006 06:56 AM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
the universe has no centre and no ending. i still have trouble wrapping my head around that.

a good read is brian green, either his "elegant universe" or "fabric of the cosmos". accessible to a general audience who, like me, struggle with physics and numbers in general.


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 02 February 2006 06:59 AM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
there are already aliens in our atmosphere
From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464

posted 02 February 2006 10:26 AM      Profile for Blondin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by forum observer:
[QB]Ya, why waste time and money? Why waste time thinking? Wow!

That was a joke; a loose reference to Sagan's statement that the universe is neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.


From: North Bay ON | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 02 February 2006 11:56 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
oh I get it now......Tommy quoted without reference then?

I would handle this a little different by sending you back to earlier references for comparative associations, using html. See below.

Brian Greene

Time is far more subtle than our everyday experience would lead us to believe. In many ways, time may simply be a psychological construct for organizing the world. It is a device we scientists have found useful, but it may in fact be a dim approximation of something far more complex."

From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464

posted 02 February 2006 12:11 PM      Profile for Blondin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think maybe Tommy's posting was more likely related to the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. It just sounds like something Zaphod would say.
From: North Bay ON | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 02 February 2006 12:47 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nah, they're going to open up that thingy and shake the dust onto a sterile flat surface and after millions, perhaps billions of dollars are spent and mis-spent, they're going to discover it is exactly the same as the dust which collects on the surfaces of my furniture.

I wish they'd get fixated on dust buggers. And cobwebs. Have you ever seen a "cob"? Or what about the little nouga's who get skinned to make nougahyde furniture? Or are they called "nogs" rather than "nougas"?

I have to tell you there are more things to ponder than some unsettled dust. I've often wondered what ET's mom said when he finally got back home? "How many times have I told you..."...


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 02 February 2006 12:52 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
......with so little to go on....I never really saw the "greater implication" of the reference.

I think we assign much to these quick statements as if we like to throw sarcasm.....while the deeper questions, do indeed occupy minds.

On the surface, reality, is easily taken for granted, while, if you send the eye for a deeper introspectve look, it is not as it always seems?

Should we use them to guide our thinking? Maybe if he was a little more "serious," I would have understood the joke


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      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 02 February 2006 01:27 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Personally, the Universe and I had a bit of a falling out a couple of years back, and since then I have become indifferent to it.

I'm with you and Blondin. Haven't been on speaking terms with the Universe in years; don't expect that to change any time soon.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 02 February 2006 05:34 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 02 February 2006 07:19 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quick point ... speaking of the center of the universe is as meaningless as speaking of the center of the surface of a sphere. So for all intents and purposes you can consider yourself to be the center of the universe ... its as valid (or invalid) as any other 'center'.
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 02 February 2006 10:51 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 08 February 2006 11:00 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nope, i didnt say why waste time and money.
It is ok for specalists to work on it. Every time that scientists discover a new particle, a whole new layer is added to the universe.
And we know that the stars farthest away are accelarating away from us. (WE actually dont know that, we know that they were accelarating away millions of years ago.
The general population wastes a hell of a lot of time thinking about this. And thats probably where religion started. Aand people do go nuts thinking about the beginning. Especially teenagers. Rightly, or wrongly, it is easier without one.
How do they know that it is expanding into nothing? (Not that it makes any difference).
brian
quote:
Originally posted by forum observer:
Ya, why waste time and money? Why waste time thinking? Wow!



From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 08 February 2006 11:16 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What happened before the big bang? The answer is: Nothing. (colour me more confused than before).
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 08 February 2006 11:44 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
What happened before the big bang?

The big dinner.
The big drink.
The big foreplay.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 08 February 2006 11:57 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by RealityBites:
The big dinner.
The big drink.
The big foreplay.

Getting something out of your system, RB?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca