astronomy-chat.net Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main Date: 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 From: Radium Subject: Before the Big Bang? Hi: What happened before the big bang? Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. Regards, Radium   Date: 10 Sep 2006 16:58:02 From: Phoon Hencman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 2006-09-10 12:35:09 -0400, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > said: > Hi: > > What happened before the big bang? > The big foreplay of coarse!   Date: 10 Sep 2006 12:43:56 From: St. John Smythe Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Radium wrote: > What happened before the big bang? > Sadly, its a question that can't be answered... ...which of course won't keep it from being argued about endlessly on Usenet. ;) -- St. John Invest in physics--own a piece of Dirac!   Date: 10 Sep 2006 16:41:10 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote: >Hi: > >What happened before the big bang? > >Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of "before" isn't easily defined. However, if theory and experiment ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the _cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com     Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:24:46 From: Mark Earnest Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com... > On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > >>Hi: >> >>What happened before the big bang? >> >>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of > our universe, It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe! and it began when the universe began, so the concept of > "before" isn't easily defined. Totally warped thinking, to think time did not exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang, wasn't there? What set off the bang! Something in time. However, if theory and experiment > ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the > _cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even > if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it. > > _________________________________________________ > > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com       Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:03:08 From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Dear Mark Earnest: "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:12g9lnpcjvd7f67@corp.supernews.com... > > "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com... >> On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> >> wrote: >> >>>Hi: >>> >>>What happened before the big bang? >>> >>>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet >>>its so interesting. >> >> Something like this question may be answerable. >> Time is a property of our universe, > > It is not! Time marches on independently of the > universe! Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be a property of this Universe. >> and it began when the universe began, so the >> concept of "before" isn't easily defined. > > Totally warped thinking, to think time did not > exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang, wasn't there? No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried on for years. > What set off the bang! > Something in time. Something OF time, yes. David A. Smith         Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:16:34 From: Mark Earnest Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com > wrote in message news:Vd5Ng.2808$nL2.2441@fed1read02... > Dear Mark Earnest: > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:12g9lnpcjvd7f67@corp.supernews.com... >> >> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message >> news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com... >>> On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Hi: >>>> >>>>What happened before the big bang? >>>> >>>>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet >>>>its so interesting. >>> >>> Something like this question may be answerable. >>> Time is a property of our universe, >> >> It is not! Time marches on independently of the >> universe! > > Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be a property of this > Universe. That is like saying water is a property of what we are, when we know water acts completely independent of us, in the way it evaporates and condenses over our oceans. >>> and it began when the universe began, so the >>> concept of "before" isn't easily defined. >> >> Totally warped thinking, to think time did not >> exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang, wasn't there? > > No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried on for years. The running thought is that some primordial atom exploded somehow, and became everything. All matter is hurtling from one central location, proving the explosion. What else could it be? > >> What set off the bang! >> Something in time. > > Something OF time, yes. In time, of time, both the same here.           Date: 11 Sep 2006 21:27:46 From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Dear Mark Earnest: "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:12gc2jc9e60voef@corp.supernews.com... > > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> > wrote in message news:Vd5Ng.2808$nL2.2441@fed1read02... >> Dear Mark Earnest: >> >> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:12g9lnpcjvd7f67@corp.supernews.com... >>> >>> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message >>> news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com... >>>> On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" >>>> <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi: >>>>> >>>>>What happened before the big bang? >>>>> >>>>>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet >>>>>its so interesting. >>>> >>>> Something like this question may be answerable. >>>> Time is a property of our universe, >>> >>> It is not! Time marches on independently of the >>> universe! >> >> Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be >> a property of this Universe. > > That is like saying water is a property of what we > are, when we know water acts completely > independent of us, in the way it evaporates and condenses over > our oceans. No, that is like saying "can you prove this"? Otherwise you are wasting effort on something that cannot ever be measured. >>>> and it began when the universe began, so the >>>> concept of "before" isn't easily defined. >>> >>> Totally warped thinking, to think time did not >>> exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang, >>> wasn't there? >> >> No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried >> on for years. > > The running thought is that some primordial > atom exploded somehow, No. There was no explosion. > and became everything. All matter is hurtling from > one central location, proving the explosion. There is no unique "central location" in the direction we are moving from. There is no unique "central location anywhere we can see. > What else could it be? An inflation of spacetime, from nearly nothing to where we are today. >>> What set off the bang! >>> Something in time. >> >> Something OF time, yes. > > In time, of time, both the same here. No. One presupposes that time is distinct from this Universe. The other assumes that time is a product of the Universe. David A. Smith             Date: 12 Sep 2006 01:16:20 From: Mark Earnest Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com > wrote in message news:%GqNg.2899$nL2.1584@fed1read02... > Dear Mark Earnest: > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:12gc2jc9e60voef@corp.supernews.com... >> >> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in >> message news:Vd5Ng.2808$nL2.2441@fed1read02... >>> Dear Mark Earnest: >>> >>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:12g9lnpcjvd7f67@corp.supernews.com... >>>> >>>> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message >>>> news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com... >>>>> On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hi: >>>>>> >>>>>>What happened before the big bang? >>>>>> >>>>>>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet >>>>>>its so interesting. >>>>> >>>>> Something like this question may be answerable. >>>>> Time is a property of our universe, >>>> >>>> It is not! Time marches on independently of the >>>> universe! >>> >>> Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be >>> a property of this Universe. >> >> That is like saying water is a property of what we >> are, when we know water acts completely >> independent of us, in the way it evaporates and condenses over our >> oceans. > > No, that is like saying "can you prove this"? Otherwise you are wasting > effort on something that cannot ever be measured. For a statement like "time is a property of the universe," to have any meaning, one must understand the universe is by definition all that exists. Time certainly exists. Further, time is linear. Examine any historical timeline. And a line has no beginning, and no end. So time had to continue forever before the Big Bang. > >>>>> and it began when the universe began, so the >>>>> concept of "before" isn't easily defined. >>>> >>>> Totally warped thinking, to think time did not >>>> exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang, >>>> wasn't there? >>> >>> No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried >>> on for years. >> >> The running thought is that some primordial >> atom exploded somehow, > > No. There was no explosion. What other kind of force could cause all galaxies to move away from a central point? It must have been a superpowerful force, to motivate all matter that exists. Only some kind of spectacular detonation seems possible to move matter in such a forceful way. > >> and became everything. All matter is hurtling from >> one central location, proving the explosion. > > There is no unique "central location" in the direction we are moving > from. There is no unique "central location anywhere we can see. I guess I am jumping the gun, then, if the central location hasn't yet been discovered yet. > >> What else could it be? > > An inflation of spacetime, from nearly nothing to where we are today. O.K., then maybe the universe was a cloud of vapor, that just sort of moved out in all directions, becoming everything? That just doesn't sound possible, since we are talking about a wispy expansion as becoming all that exists. >>>> What set off the bang! >>>> Something in time. >>> >>> Something OF time, yes. >> >> In time, of time, both the same here. > > No. One presupposes that time is distinct from this Universe. The other > assumes that time is a product of the Universe. You are saying that the universe could somehow manufacture time? Mark               Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:27:45 From: Mark McIntyre Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:16:20 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote: >Further, time is linear. Examine any historical timeline. >And a line has no beginning, and no end. This is rubbish. Most lines have a beginning and an end*. When was the last time you drew an infinite line? (*With the possible exceptions of the white lines on the Milton Keynes ringroad of course, which form a moebius strip from my experience. ) >So time had to continue forever before the Big Bang. You reason from false facts, so you arrive at a false conclusion, much as pre columbian sailors said "The world is flat, therefore you cannot sail around it. " >> No. There was no explosion. > >What other kind of force could cause all galaxies to move away from a >central point? What galaxies? There /were/ no galaxies at the time. There was a hell of a lot of energy, which needed no assistance to start moving apart really really fast. >It must have been a superpowerful force, to motivate all >matter that exists. Only some kind of spectacular detonation seems possible >to move matter in such a forceful way. *sigh* As a great writer once said, to the uninitiated, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. That is to say just because ones imagination or knowledge cannot concieve of or understand the necessary process, does not mean it does not exist. >> There is no unique "central location" in the direction we are moving >> from. There is no unique "central location anywhere we can see. >I guess I am jumping the gun, then, if the central location hasn't yet been >discovered yet. NO, please RE READ what was said. Everything is expanding away from everything else. There's no centre. >> An inflation of spacetime, from nearly nothing to where we are today. > >O.K., then maybe the universe was a cloud of vapor, that just sort of >moved out in all directions, becoming everything? Its really not possible to explain this with trivial analogies. >That just doesn't sound possible, since we are talking about a wispy >expansion as becoming all that exists. Again, you're essentially saying "I don't understand this mechanism, so it can't exist". >You are saying that the universe could somehow manufacture time? Exactly. In the same sense that a banana manufactures yellowness, or a frog manufactures croakiness. -- Mark McIntyre           Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:17:22 From: Mark McIntyre Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:16:34 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote: > >"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in >message news:Vd5Ng.2808$nL2.2441@fed1read02... >> Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be a property of this >> Universe. > >That is like saying water is a property of what we are, No its not..... >when we know water acts completely independent of us, in the way it evaporates and >condenses over our oceans. ... for precisely this reason. Not to mention the analogy is so broken its laughable. Nevertheless: experimental evidence points to time being a fundamental property of the universe. Theoretical models fit this idea too. There's absolutely no evidence at all for it existing except in the universe. There's no call to invoke such an idea to explain any known phenomena. >> No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried on for years. > >The running thought is that some primordial atom exploded somehow, Running amongst whom? This is /not/ how actual scientists think of the start of the universe. >and >became everything. All matter is hurtling from one central location, >proving >the explosion. What else could it be? Nothing that hurtled from any location, for one thing. In the instant of the creation of the universe, time and space came into being. There was nowhere to hurtle from until then, and notime to do it in. >> Something OF time, yes. > >In time, of time, both the same here. Hmm, that would be in the same sense that "in a crocodile" and "of a crocodile" are the same? Or "in jail" and "of jail"? Have you seen my handbag? It is of the crocodile. He has eaten it. -- Mark McIntyre       Date: 11 Sep 2006 03:28:10 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:24:46 -0500, "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote: >It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe! I'm glad you're so confident of that. Very few physicists (myself included) would agree, however. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com         Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:13:12 From: Mark Earnest Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message news:erl9g2h2kubm2gustsr3g0g6ko1lq3c2dc@4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:24:46 -0500, "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> > wrote: > >>It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe! > > I'm glad you're so confident of that. Very few physicists (myself > included) would agree, however. I'll try to maintain my confidence, then. > > _________________________________________________ > > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com       Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:52:35 From: Mark McIntyre Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:24:46 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote: >> Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of >> our universe, > >It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe! Er, no. > and it began when the universe began, so the concept of >> "before" isn't easily defined. > >Totally warped thinking, to think time did not exist until the Big Bang. >There was a bang, wasn't there? >What set off the bang! >Something in time. You probably want to read up on what the big bang actually would have been. -- Mark McIntyre         Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:18:58 From: Mark Earnest Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net > wrote in message news:2ifbg2pn2gha6jb0ob7d80cd0ta6ue83nk@4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:24:46 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of >>> our universe, >> >>It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe! > > Er, no. > > >> and it began when the universe began, so the concept of >>> "before" isn't easily defined. >> >>Totally warped thinking, to think time did not exist until the Big Bang. >>There was a bang, wasn't there? >>What set off the bang! >>Something in time. > > You probably want to read up on what the big bang actually would have > been. No, I run mostly counter to scientific views. Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after landing a man on the Moon. We should have long ago started traveling to the stars and beyond.           Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:33:49 From: Mark McIntyre Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:18:58 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote: >Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after landing >a man on the Moon. No, that would be money and politics. The US alone spends roughly 300x more on war than on space, and whereas the defense budget grew by 35% since 2001 the space budget has been cut. Attack the right people please. (figures from NASA's budget request to congress, and the White House's website, both docs freely available on the 'net, 1.6Bn and 401Bn respectively so if you don't like em, blow the prez not me). >We should have long ago started traveling to the stars >and beyond. I agree. if you have a spare trillion dollars, sign me up. -- Mark McIntyre             Date: 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 From: Mark Earnest Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net > wrote in message news:e3deg2tktqegoqtlkulj657gv49tue272v@4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:18:58 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after landing >>a man on the Moon. > > No, that would be money and politics. The US alone spends roughly 300x > more on war than on space, and whereas the defense budget grew by 35% > since 2001 the space budget has been cut. Attack the right people > please. No, it is scientists that are keeping us in Earth orbit. They tell us it would take many generations to reach a nearby star, and we blindly believe it. Actually, with current technology...we could get to the nearest star in about 4 weeks. The Space Shuttle could get there if you souped up its engines, in about 4 weeks. It just could not land, unless the Centaurians allowed it to land on one of its desert landing strips. > > (figures from NASA's budget request to congress, and the White House's > website, both docs freely available on the 'net, 1.6Bn and 401Bn > respectively so if you don't like em, blow the prez not me). > >>We should have long ago started traveling to the stars >>and beyond. > > I agree. if you have a spare trillion dollars, sign me up. It would not take trillions of dollars. Just a little ingenuity. And you could go. Space travel is really very simple. A lot simple than our scientists like to make us think.               Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:54:13 From: Llanzlan Klazmon Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote in news:12genuuq2ckf389@corp.supernews.com: > > "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:e3deg2tktqegoqtlkulj657gv49tue272v@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:18:58 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark >> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after >>>landing a man on the Moon. >> >> No, that would be money and politics. The US alone spends roughly 300x >> more on war than on space, and whereas the defense budget grew by 35% >> since 2001 the space budget has been cut. Attack the right people >> please. > > No, it is scientists that are keeping us in Earth orbit. They tell us > it would take many generations to reach a nearby star, and we blindly > believe it. > > Actually, with current technology...we could get to the nearest star in > about 4 weeks. So why aren't you doing it instead of shooting your mouth off about things for which your knowlege appears to be not significantly different to zero. Klazmon. <SNIP >                 Date: 13 Sep 2006 06:40:37 From: Starlord Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Get to the nearest Star in 4 weeks? I'd wonder what he's been smoking on to think that. We don't have anything that can push us even near the SOL muchless open a wormhole and drive threw it. Methings the guys been watching to many sci-fi shows and beliving that they are for real. -- The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord Sidewalk Astronomy www.sidewalkastronomy.info Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net In Garden Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden Blast Off Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/starlords Astro Blog http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/               Date: 13 Sep 2006 23:16:15 From: Mark McIntyre Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote: >Actually, with current technology...we could get to the nearest star in >about 4 weeks. okay, you're officially a kook.... >The Space Shuttle could get there if you souped up its engines, in about 4 >weeks. It just could not land, unless the Centaurians allowed it to land on >one of its desert landing strips. ... smoking herring. >And you could go. Space travel is really very simple. >A lot simple than our scientists like to make us think. Whatever. -- Mark McIntyre                 Date: 13 Sep 2006 21:08:39 From: Mark Earnest Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net > wrote in message news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Actually, with current technology...we could get to the nearest star in >>about 4 weeks. > > okay, you're officially a kook.... People like you are what are keeping us in Earth orbit for 37 years. > >>The Space Shuttle could get there if you souped up its engines, in about 4 >>weeks. It just could not land, unless the Centaurians allowed it to land >>on >>one of its desert landing strips. > > ... smoking herring. > >>And you could go. Space travel is really very simple. >>A lot simple than our scientists like to make us think. > > Whatever. > -- > Mark McIntyre                   Date: 13 Sep 2006 19:56:30 From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Dear Mark Earnest: "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... > > "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , >> "Mark >> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to >>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. >> >> okay, you're officially a kook.... > > People like you are what are keeping us in Earth > orbit for 37 years. People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. David A. Smith                     Date: 13 Sep 2006 22:25:59 From: Mark Earnest Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com > wrote in message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... > Dear Mark Earnest: > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... >> >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. >>> >>> okay, you're officially a kook.... >> >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth >> orbit for 37 years. > > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. > > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so will a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes fast enough. And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.                       Date: 14 Sep 2006 06:56:51 From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? However, the constants of a nature is not a constant at all, a definitely as a matter a fact. -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:12ghiuailm2gmf4@corp.supernews.com... > > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... > > Dear Mark Earnest: > > > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... > >> > >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... > >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to > >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. > >>> > >>> okay, you're officially a kook.... > >> > >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth > >> orbit for 37 years. > > > > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no > > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any > > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has > > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. > > > > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. > > All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of > objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. > > The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter > that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. > > It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so > will > a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes > fast enough. > > And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. > >                         Date: 13 Sep 2006 23:08:34 From: Mark Earnest Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? What works for the goose, works for the gander. "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com > wrote in message news:eeak0m$ihf$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... > > However, the constants of a nature is not a constant at all, a definitely > as > a matter a fact. > > -- > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect > Best Regards! > > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:12ghiuailm2gmf4@corp.supernews.com... >> >> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in >> message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... >> > Dear Mark Earnest: >> > >> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... >> >> >> >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message >> >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... >> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark >> >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to >> >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. >> >>> >> >>> okay, you're officially a kook.... >> >> >> >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth >> >> orbit for 37 years. >> > >> > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have > no >> > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any >> > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either > has >> > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any >> > funding. >> > >> > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. >> >> All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature > of >> objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. >> >> The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must > counter >> that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. >> >> It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so >> will >> a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes >> fast enough. >> >> And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. >> >> > >                           Date: 14 Sep 2006 07:44:27 From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? It is a just a matter of a time! -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:12ghle59s9vpg81@corp.supernews.com... > What works for the goose, works for the gander. > > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message > news:eeak0m$ihf$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... > > > > However, the constants of a nature is not a constant at all, a definitely > > as > > a matter a fact. > > > > -- > > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect > > Best Regards! > > > > > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:12ghiuailm2gmf4@corp.supernews.com... > >> > >> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > >> message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... > >> > Dear Mark Earnest: > >> > > >> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... > >> >> > >> >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > >> >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... > >> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > >> >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to > >> >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. > >> >>> > >> >>> okay, you're officially a kook.... > >> >> > >> >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth > >> >> orbit for 37 years. > >> > > >> > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have > > no > >> > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any > >> > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either > > has > >> > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any > >> > funding. > >> > > >> > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. > >> > >> All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature > > of > >> objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. > >> > >> The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must > > counter > >> that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. > >> > >> It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so > >> will > >> a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes > >> fast enough. > >> > >> And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. > >> > >> > > > > > >                             Date: 14 Sep 2006 00:31:05 From: Mark Earnest Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Thank you, Ahmed. "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com > wrote in message news:eeamq2$j1f$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... > > It is a just a matter of a time! > > -- > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect > Best Regards! > > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:12ghle59s9vpg81@corp.supernews.com... >> What works for the goose, works for the gander. >> >> "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message >> news:eeak0m$ihf$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... >> > >> > However, the constants of a nature is not a constant at all, a > definitely >> > as >> > a matter a fact. >> > >> > -- >> > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect >> > Best Regards! >> > >> > >> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > news:12ghiuailm2gmf4@corp.supernews.com... >> >> >> >> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... >> >> > Dear Mark Earnest: >> >> > >> >> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message >> >> >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... >> >> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark >> >> >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to >> >> >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> okay, you're officially a kook.... >> >> >> >> >> >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth >> >> >> orbit for 37 years. >> >> > >> >> > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you > have >> > no >> >> > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any >> >> > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It >> >> > either >> > has >> >> > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any >> >> > funding. >> >> > >> >> > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. >> >> >> >> All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the > nature >> > of >> >> objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. >> >> >> >> The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must >> > counter >> >> that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. >> >> >> >> It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, > so >> >> will >> >> a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially > goes >> >> fast enough. >> >> >> >> And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > >                         Date: 14 Sep 2006 21:01:14 From: Art Deco Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Ahmed Ouahi, Architect <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com > wrote: >However, the constants of a nature is not a constant at all, a definitely as >a matter a fact. How profound. > >-- >Ahmed Ouahi, Architect >Best Regards! > > >"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:12ghiuailm2gmf4@corp.supernews.com... >> >> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in >> message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... >> > Dear Mark Earnest: >> > >> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... >> >> >> >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message >> >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... >> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark >> >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to >> >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. >> >>> >> >>> okay, you're officially a kook.... >> >> >> >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth >> >> orbit for 37 years. >> > >> > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have >no >> > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any >> > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either >has >> > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. >> > >> > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. >> >> All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature >of >> objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. >> >> The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must >counter >> that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. >> >> It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so >> will >> a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes >> fast enough. >> >> And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. >> >> > > -- COOSN-266-06-39716 Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion", as designated by Brad Guth "Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from attribution problems?" -- Dr. David Tholen                       Date: 13 Sep 2006 21:46:23 From: Art Deco Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote: >"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in >message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... >> Dear Mark Earnest: >> >> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... >>> >>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message >>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark >>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to >>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. >>>> >>>> okay, you're officially a kook.... >>> >>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth >>> orbit for 37 years. >> >> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no >> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any >> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has >> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. >> >> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. > >All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of >objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. > >The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter >that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. > >It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so >will >a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes >fast enough. > >And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. In your dreams, perhaps. -- COOSN-266-06-39716 Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion", as designated by Brad Guth "Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from attribution problems?" -- Dr. David Tholen                         Date: 13 Sep 2006 23:03:12 From: Mark Earnest Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Art Deco" <erfc@netcabal.com > wrote in message news:130920062146230863%erfc@netcabal.com... > Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in >>message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... >>> Dear Mark Earnest: >>> >>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... >>>> >>>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message >>>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... >>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark >>>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to >>>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. >>>>> >>>>> okay, you're officially a kook.... >>>> >>>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth >>>> orbit for 37 years. >>> >>> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have >>> no >>> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any >>> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either >>> has >>> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. >>> >>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. >> >>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature >>of >>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. >> >>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must >>counter >>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. >> >>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so >>will >>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes >>fast enough. >> >>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. > > In your dreams, perhaps. Dreams are where it all starts. Einstein was a dreamer.                         Date: 14 Sep 2006 10:44:46 From: Daedalus Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:46:23 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@netcabal.com > wrote: >Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in >>message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... >>> Dear Mark Earnest: >>> >>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... >>>> >>>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message >>>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... >>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark >>>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to >>>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. >>>>> >>>>> okay, you're officially a kook.... >>>> >>>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth >>>> orbit for 37 years. >>> >>> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no >>> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any >>> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has >>> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. >>> >>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. >> >>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of >>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. >> >>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter >>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. >> >>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so >>will >>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes >>fast enough. >> >>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. > >In your dreams, perhaps. It takes me at least three years to get to Alpha Centauri and I take the Van Allen expressway. Jade                           Date: 14 Sep 2006 20:36:02 From: Art Deco Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Daedalus <jade@netk00ks.org > wrote: >On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:46:23 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@netcabal.com> >wrote: > >>Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in >>>message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... >>>> Dear Mark Earnest: >>>> >>>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... >>>>> >>>>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark >>>>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to >>>>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. >>>>>> >>>>>> okay, you're officially a kook.... >>>>> >>>>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth >>>>> orbit for 37 years. >>>> >>>> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no >>>> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any >>>> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has >>>> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. >>>> >>>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. >>> >>>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of >>>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. >>> >>>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter >>>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. >>> >>>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so >>>will >>>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes >>>fast enough. >>> >>>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. >> >>In your dreams, perhaps. > >It takes me at least three years to get to Alpha Centauri and I take >the Van Allen expressway. I've never tried that -- what is the traffic like? -- COOSN-266-06-39716 Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion", as designated by Brad Guth "Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from attribution problems?" -- Dr. David Tholen                             Date: 14 Sep 2006 22:23:55 From: honestjohn Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Art Deco" <erfc@netcabal.com > wrote in message news:140920062036021730%erfc@netcabal.com... > Daedalus <jade@netk00ks.org> wrote: > > >On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:46:23 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@netcabal.com> > >wrote: > > > >>Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >>>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > >>>message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... > >>>> Dear Mark Earnest: > >>>> > >>>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... > >>>>> > >>>>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > >>>>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... > >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > >>>>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to > >>>>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> okay, you're officially a kook.... > >>>>> > >>>>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth > >>>>> orbit for 37 years. > >>>> > >>>> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no > >>>> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any > >>>> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has > >>>> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. > >>>> > >>>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. > >>> > >>>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of > >>>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. > >>> > >>>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter > >>>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. > >>> > >>>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so > >>>will > >>>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes > >>>fast enough. > >>> > >>>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. > >> > >>In your dreams, perhaps. > > > >It takes me at least three years to get to Alpha Centauri and I take > >the Van Allen expressway. > > I've never tried that -- what is the traffic like? > You would like it, slower traffic gets rammed in the butt. OJ                               Date: 14 Sep 2006 20:40:58 From: mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? > > >>>will > > >>>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially > goes > > >>>fast enough. > > >>> > > >>>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. > > >> > > >>In your dreams, perhaps. > > > > > >It takes me at least three years to get to Alpha Centauri and I take > > >the Van Allen expressway. > > > > I've never tried that -- what is the traffic like? you can travel across the universe in a few seconds according to your own clock if you can accelerate fast enough oxidation (or any other chemical reaction) releases too little energy from the fuel mass to go anywhere near this fast meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite there can only be one or two - the airtight garage has you neo                       Date: 14 Sep 2006 10:52:42 From: Mark McIntyre Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:25:59 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote: > >"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in >>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. > >All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of >objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. What? I mean, WHAT? At this rate, you're going to earn an entry in the "kook of the month" record. >The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter >that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. Planets aren't accelerating. They have (approximately) constant angular velocity. >It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so >will a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes >fast enough. Two possibilities: 1) you're five years old, and have learned some very basic astronomy 2) you're over 13 and ignorant >And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. Apparently Einstein was wrong then. -- Mark McIntyre                         Date: 15 Sep 2006 17:54:04 From: Mark Earnest Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net > wrote in message news:6c9ig2dg9057ulgo7tjdi4f1bo73vbg6l8@4ax.com... > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:25:59 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > >>>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. >> >>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature >>of >>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. > > What? I mean, WHAT? At this rate, you're going to earn an entry in > the "kook of the month" record. > >>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must >>counter >>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. > > Planets aren't accelerating. They have (approximately) constant > angular velocity. The force of gravity from the Sun is one of constant acceleration. If planets don't accelerate, they will fall into the Sun. >>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so >>will a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially >>goes >>fast enough. > > Two possibilities: > 1) you're five years old, and have learned some very basic astronomy > 2) you're over 13 and ignorant > >>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. > > Apparently Einstein was wrong then. > -- > Mark McIntyre     Date: 10 Sep 2006 17:13:58 From: Davoud Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson wrote: > Something like this question may be answerable. I hope so! > Time is a property of > our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of > "before" isn't easily defined. Hmmmm. My reading and listening tell me that it is not known if time began at the BB, or if time existed prior to the BB and the BB was an event that occurred at a certain point in time. Tough question, but perhaps answerable one day. Davoud -- usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com     Date: 10 Sep 2006 17:18:37 From: Eugene Griessel Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote: >On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > >>Hi: >> >>What happened before the big bang? >> >>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > >Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of >our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of >"before" isn't easily defined. However, if theory and experiment >ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the >_cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even >if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it. > Doesn't one invoke the weak anthropic principle round about here? Eugene L Griessel Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.     Date: 11 Sep 2006 10:06:35 From: Mdmeenken Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > schreef in bericht news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com... > On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > >>Hi: >> >>What happened before the big bang? >> >>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of > our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of > "before" isn't easily defined. However, if theory and experiment > ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the > _cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even > if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it. well, if the universe expands and then contract,then BB again,etc, then there was a time before,because by contracting the time might go backwards,yes? IOW,when space is contracting time must contract too,because it's part of spacetime yes,or is it no? just a thought, marten > > _________________________________________________ > > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com       Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:41:15 From: BernardZ Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? In article <45051909$0$2022$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl >, mdmeenken@wanadoo.nl says... > > "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> schreef in bericht > news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com... > > On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > > > >>Hi: > >> > >>What happened before the big bang? > >> > >>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > > Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of > > our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of > > "before" isn't easily defined. However, if theory and experiment > > ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the > > _cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even > > if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it. > > well, > if the universe expands and then contract,then BB again,etc, > then there was a time before,because by contracting the time might go > backwards,yes? > IOW,when space is contracting time must contract too,because it's part of > spacetime > yes,or is it no? > just a thought, Probably not. Spacetime is contracting in a black hole yet time is going forward. > > marten > > > > _________________________________________________ > > > > Chris L Peterson > > Cloudbait Observatory > > http://www.cloudbait.com > > > -- The people that believe that the world is flat are proof that heaps of time, huge amounts of scientific evidence, plenty of eyewitness accounts, numerous experts opinion and mountains of photographs are not enough to convince some people! What is particularly frustrating is that there are many such people on the Usenet. Observations of Bernard - No 104         Date: 11 Sep 2006 15:59:53 From: Mdmeenken Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "BernardZ" <bernardZ@Nospam.com > schreef in bericht news:MPG.1f6fda47ca230e12989b72@news... > In article <45051909$0$2022$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl>, > mdmeenken@wanadoo.nl says... >> >> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> schreef in bericht >> news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com... >> > On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: >> > >> >>Hi: >> >> >> >>What happened before the big bang? >> >> >> >>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. >> > >> > Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of >> > our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of >> > "before" isn't easily defined. However, if theory and experiment >> > ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then >> > the >> > _cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, >> > even >> > if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it. >> >> well, >> if the universe expands and then contract,then BB again,etc, >> then there was a time before,because by contracting the time might go >> backwards,yes? >> IOW,when space is contracting time must contract too,because it's part >> of >> spacetime >> yes,or is it no? >> just a thought, > > Probably not. > > Spacetime is contracting in a black hole yet time is going forward. yes ,that thought of me was indeed probably not a just thought, and indeed if the universe goes into contraction after expanding,eventually it ends up in a enormous black hole,right, and time stands stll there or almost (relatively) but it indeed does'nt go backwards marten > >> >> marten >> > >> > _________________________________________________ >> > >> > Chris L Peterson >> > Cloudbait Observatory >> > http://www.cloudbait.com >> >> >> > > -- > The people that believe that the world is flat are proof that heaps of > time, huge amounts of scientific evidence, plenty of eyewitness > accounts, numerous experts opinion and mountains of photographs are not > enough to convince some people! What is particularly frustrating is > that there are many such people on the Usenet. > > Observations of Bernard - No 104 > >     Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:33:14 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On 11 Sep 2006 14:43:29 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> I'm sorry your imagination is so limited. > >> > >Oh, and yours is not, since you seem to be claiming you > >can imagine such a thing. > > Yes, I can. I have a sort of visualization framework based on analogy > and some math. It's only a model, but for me an effective one. > > >Well, then, let's have it. Explain > >what it is you can imagine, you're so intelligent and all. > >Remember, it has no space in it, it is infinite in extent, and > >you claim there is nothing else in it but our universe. It is > >not empty space because space came out of the BB, as > >you claim. > > Are you talking about a hyperuniverse? I don't particularly believe in > one, although some of the theories are intriguing. But I'll hold off > until more evidence comes in. For now, I am perfectly happy with the > idea that our universe is all there is. There is no "outside", and no > "before". I don't have any real problem visualizing that. > You mean you don't even know what I'm talking about and you stand there arguing against it? > > >What "these things"? I only asked about the Great Void, not > >anything else. If by "human comprehension" you mean you > >can comprehend it, then explain it to us. > > What "Great Void"? Since I don't believe it exists, I have no need to > try and visualize it. I can easily visualize a higher dimensional > manifold that the universe exists in, but there is no evidence that it > has any physical reality. > > > >> And there are many BB theories. > >> > >Well, you doesn't has ta give us many, just name a couple. > > For example, an inflationary versus non-inflationary model. There are > many variations on the BB theory. > No, sorry, the inflationary theory is not a variation on the BBT. In fact, it's not even a theory, just a concept. And what non- inflationary model are you talking about? > > >No no, we're not saying there are no other theories that "go beyond" > >the BB. We are just talking about the BB now. But since you claim > >those others are testable and falsifiable, tell us why you think they > >are, or who told you they are. > > Do your own research. If you really knew anything about this you > wouldn't have to ask the question. There are experiments currently under > way, and some planned for equipment coming online in the next few years > that are capable of either supporting or disproving several multiverse > theories. > So you don't know what you're talking, eh? All that talk is just that, and cheap too.   Date: 11 Sep 2006 03:30:35 From: Sam Wormley Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Radium wrote: > Hi: > > What happened before the big bang? > > Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > > Regards, > > Radium > See: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22What+happened+before+the+big+bang%3F%22   Date: 10 Sep 2006 18:48:53 From: Joe S. Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote in message news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Hi: > > What happened before the big bang? > > Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > > Regards, > > Radium > Well, it all started with a really big turtle holding the earth on his back . . .   Date: 10 Sep 2006 15:29:51 From: Radium Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Davoud wrote: > Chris L Peterson wrote: > > > Something like this question may be answerable. > > I hope so! > > > Time is a property of > > our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of > > "before" isn't easily defined. > > Hmmmm. My reading and listening tell me that it is not known if time > began at the BB, or if time existed prior to the BB and the BB was an > event that occurred at a certain point in time. Tough question, but > perhaps answerable one day. For some reason [that I can't figure out myself], I believe that time did exist before the BB and that BB was as you say "an event that occurred at a certain point in time". AFAIK, the BB was the most major event known to science, however it does not mean that BB was the start of time. It just so happens that we [scientists] haven't discovered anything prior to the big bang. > > Davoud > > -- > usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com     Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:59:10 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 10 Sep 2006 15:29:51 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote: >AFAIK, the BB was the most major event known to science, however it >does not mean that BB was the start of time. > >It just so happens that we [scientists] haven't discovered anything >prior to the big bang. That's not true. Everything we know about physics breaks down very close to the BB, including time. Time is generally seen as a component of our universe just as the spatial dimensions are. It really makes no sense to consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than it makes sense to consider space as having existed. As sentient inhabitants of _this_ universe, our intuition is shaped by its laws, and we have a hard time separating causality and time. But there is no reason there has to be a "before" the BB in any sense that we can grasp non-mathematically. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com   Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:55:09 From: kenseto Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote in message news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Hi: > > What happened before the big bang? The answer to your question is in the paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto > > Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > > Regards, > > Radium >     Date: 10 Sep 2006 23:08:35 From: Sam Wormley Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? kenseto wrote: > "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message > news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >> Hi: >> >> What happened before the big bang? > > The answer to your question is in the paper entitled "The Origin of the > Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" in my website: > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm > > Ken Seto Seto's immortal fumbles http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be Seto is a registered crank at crank dot net http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+site%3Awww.crank.net       Date: 11 Sep 2006 01:19:26 From: kenseto Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in message news:TV0Ng.181184$1i1.65350@attbi_s72... > kenseto wrote: > > "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message > > news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > >> Hi: > >> > >> What happened before the big bang? > > > > The answer to your question is in the paper entitled "The Origin of the > > Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" in my website: > > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm > > > > Ken Seto > > Seto's immortal fumbles > http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be > > Seto is a registered crank at crank dot net > http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+site%3Awww.crank.net Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. Definition for a runt of the SR experts: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto   Date: 10 Sep 2006 20:19:31 From: Mark F. Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? God said let there be light. that is one option. "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote in message news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Hi: > > What happened before the big bang? > > Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > > Regards, > > Radium >     Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:18:54 From: Sorcerer Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Mark F." <res049nn@gte.net > wrote in message news:nr_Mg.1708$xr.15@trnddc03...   Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:58:21 From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? So we do not know what the world was like back then Either way it does not seem very conducive to life But there must have been something that suited life Otherwise we would not be here -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote in message news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Hi: > > What happened before the big bang? > > Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > > Regards, > > Radium >     Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:12:09 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com > wrote in message news:ee1nak$b57$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... > > So we do not know what the world was like back then > Either way it does not seem very conducive to life For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang, all the matter in the universe was in the form of hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in fact not even any form of solid matter. > But there must have been something that suited life > Otherwise we would not be here Think again. George       Date: 11 Sep 2006 00:50:11 From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? However, what you said, was a just a technically speaking, whether, it allows to turn around a possible similarity betweem a biolology matter and the universe itself, whether, as for instance, any biochemical process and extremelly any environmental conditions, as for instance, along their combinations, which would determine any reactions as any overreaction along the universe. Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere, along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, at least to try to figure, that it has had been, along that matter, a definitely allowed to diminish the sun by a just to make it a farther as to allow the creations to get, more or less, an appropriate sunlight, for appropriate life as to allow a most of anything to be a visible, a definitely as a matter a fact. P.S- along some cases, the thinking delay the perception! -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Think About That! "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:ee1ued$rmt$2@news.freedom2surf.net... > > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message > news:ee1nak$b57$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... > > > > So we do not know what the world was like back then > > Either way it does not seem very conducive to life > > For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang, > all the matter in the universe was in the form of > hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present > surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in > fact not even any form of solid matter. > > > But there must have been something that suited life > > Otherwise we would not be here > > Think again. > > George > >   Date: 10 Sep 2006 18:35:15 From: Sco Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there was energy. "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote in message news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Hi: > > What happened before the big bang? > > Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > > Regards, > > Radium >     Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:09:40 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Sco" <Sco@Eng.com > wrote in message news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there was > energy. In most models, the gravitational potential energy is equal and opposite to the matter and other forms hence the prior total was zero. George       Date: 11 Sep 2006 01:01:05 From: Uno Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter. "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:ee1uec$rmt$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > > "Sco" <Sco@Eng.com> wrote in message > news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >> From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there was >> energy. > > In most models, the gravitational potential > energy is equal and opposite to the matter > and other forms hence the prior total was > zero. > > George > >         Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:21:56 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:ee1uec$rmt$1@news.freedom2surf.net... >> >> "Sco" <Sco@Eng.com> wrote in message >> news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>> From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there >>> was energy. >> >> In most models, the gravitational potential >> energy is equal and opposite to the matter >> and other forms hence the prior total was >> zero. "Uno" <Uno@max.com > wrote in message news:lz2Ng.147$GR.35@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter. Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in magnitude to the total energy contained in both matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the gravitational energy is negative, the total is zero. George           Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:44:05 From: Bri Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate the Big Bang. "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:ee1uec$rmt$1@news.freedom2surf.net... >>> >>> "Sco" <Sco@Eng.com> wrote in message >>> news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>>> From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there >>>> was energy. >>> >>> In most models, the gravitational potential >>> energy is equal and opposite to the matter >>> and other forms hence the prior total was >>> zero. > > "Uno" <Uno@max.com> wrote in message > news:lz2Ng.147$GR.35@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter. > > Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in > magnitude to the total energy contained in both > matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic > energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the > gravitational energy is negative, the total is > zero. > > George > >             Date: 12 Sep 2006 07:09:43 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net... >> >>> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:ee1uec$rmt$1@news.freedom2surf.net... >>>> >>>> "Sco" <Sco@Eng.com> wrote in message >>>> news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>>>> From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there >>>>> was energy. >>>> >>>> In most models, the gravitational potential >>>> energy is equal and opposite to the matter >>>> and other forms hence the prior total was >>>> zero. >> >> "Uno" <Uno@max.com> wrote in message >> news:lz2Ng.147$GR.35@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >>> Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter. >> >> Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in >> magnitude to the total energy contained in both >> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic >> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the >> gravitational energy is negative, the total is >> zero. "Bri" <Bri@Eng.com > wrote in message news:pWqNg.460$TV3.152@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate the Big Bang. Quite correct but it explains why there isn't a need for infinite energy to create the infinite amount of matter in the universe, the total is zero overall. What I say above is a prediction of many of the relevant competing models. George               Date: 12 Sep 2006 18:40:19 From: Bri Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? How do you calculate amount of exposive energy to initiate A-Bomb bang? "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:ee6rm8$vh6$1@news.freedom2surf.net... >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net... >>> >>>> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:ee1uec$rmt$1@news.freedom2surf.net... >>>>> >>>>> "Sco" <Sco@Eng.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>>>>> From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there >>>>>> was energy. >>>>> >>>>> In most models, the gravitational potential >>>>> energy is equal and opposite to the matter >>>>> and other forms hence the prior total was >>>>> zero. >>> >>> "Uno" <Uno@max.com> wrote in message >>> news:lz2Ng.147$GR.35@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >>>> Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter. >>> >>> Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in >>> magnitude to the total energy contained in both >>> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic >>> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the >>> gravitational energy is negative, the total is >>> zero. > > "Bri" <Bri@Eng.com> wrote in message > news:pWqNg.460$TV3.152@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... >> Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate the Big Bang. > > Quite correct but it explains why there isn't a > need for infinite energy to create the infinite > amount of matter in the universe, the total is > zero overall. What I say above is a prediction > of many of the relevant competing models. > > George > > >                 Date: 13 Sep 2006 09:41:18 From: Richard Tobin Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? In article <naDNg.871$IA.806@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com >, Bri <Bri@Eng.com > wrote: >How do you calculate amount of exposive energy to initiate A-Bomb bang? I don't know how this is supposed to be relevant to the big bang, but you don't really need any explosive energy for a uranium A-Bomb. You just need to bring the pieces together fast enough. This can be done with some kind of gun, so I suppose you might regard that as "explosive", but the speed required is only of the order of 1km/s. -- Richard               Date: 13 Sep 2006 22:46:16 From: Max Keon Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:ee6rm8$vh6$1@news.freedom2surf.net... >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net... >>> >>> "Uno" <Uno@max.com> wrote in message >>> news:lz2Ng.147$GR.35@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >>>> Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter. >>> >>> Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in >>> magnitude to the total energy contained in both >>> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic >>> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the >>> gravitational energy is negative, the total is >>> zero. > "Bri" <Bri@Eng.com> wrote in message > news:pWqNg.460$TV3.152@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... >> Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate the Big Bang. > Quite correct but it explains why there isn't a > need for infinite energy to create the infinite > amount of matter in the universe, the total is > zero overall. What I say above is a prediction > of many of the relevant competing models. What you are proposing is a zero origin universe that exploded with a big bang. Why do you think that would happen? Doesn't it seem more likely that the complete lack of interaction within the nothingness could only begin its evolution over a virtual eternity? Why a massive explosion? And when the big bang began, why on earth did it stop banging? After all, infinity is boundless, and 13 billion light years is a long way short of infinity, isn't it. Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began to emerge from the nothingness, over an eternity. Relativity was born, and a point could then be identified anywhere in an endless dimension. But there was certainly no bang. http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/the1-1a.html ----- Max Keon                 Date: 13 Sep 2006 06:47:38 From: Starlord Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Only the Being Eternity could answer that. -- The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord Sidewalk Astronomy www.sidewalkastronomy.info Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net In Garden Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden Blast Off Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/starlords Astro Blog http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/ "Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au > wrote in message news:4507fd99$0$5110$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... >                 Date: 19 Sep 2006 08:59:44 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Greg Crinklaw wrote: > tomgee wrote: > > You don't hope that either. You don't give a damn about > > anyone but yourself, not even for those who might agree > > with you. You have the gall to use the term "open-minded" > > when you refuse to open your mind to my ideas. > > He did open hos mind to them and found them quite lacking--as any > thinking educated person would. > But not as any open-minded person would. He simply voiced his unsupported opinion. He made no logical arguments to the contrary, as I did. You may think "...any thinking educated person would" indeed be open-minded and show that by his logical arguments, but he made no such arguments, he only gave his opinion of what he thought of my ideas and nothing more. He can make no logical arguments because there are none to make. He can only regurgitate the illogical fantasies he has been made to swallow in order to "earn" his position and social status. Your claim, therefore, that he is a thinking educated person is false. He is an educated parrot, nothing more, sorry.                 Date: 19 Sep 2006 07:41:00 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On 17 Sep 2006 15:58:36 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >So you just talk with nothing to back it up? At least try to > >show that your ideas and beliefs are not blind parrot-talk > >but the result of careful analysis of what you have studied. > > My job here isn't to defend GR; there are thousands of observations and > papers that do that better than I can. There is no burden on standard, > well accepted theories to defend themselves against new ideas; it is > those with the new ideas who must solidly demonstrate- using the methods > of science- why their ideas are better. > > My objection is people who post unscientific material and try to pass it > off as science. There is a name for that: pseudoscience, and it doesn't > belong on any of the groups you are posting to. > That's false. What I post are ideas, and they do certainly belong to all those groups someone else has us posting to. You fight against new ideas because they are a threat to your professional existence. They can expose how inadequate you are as a learned physicist. You are the anti-physicist, a Borg-like entity consisting of many physicists who parrot the status quo so as to preserve their social positions. > > I have enough experience > with those who present pseudoscience > No you don't. > > to know that there's no hope of > curing _you_ of your delusions, > Delusions can be easily cured by providing arguments to the contrary. You have none, so you parrot the idiocy of the anti-physicist. Who do you think you're fooling? You're only revealing your incapacity for reasonable thought and logical debate. So keep on truckin', you're doing a good job. > >but since these are sci newsgroups, I > feel some responsibility to at least point out the failure of such ideas > to meet minimum scientific standards. > You feel no such responsibility any more than Janet Reno ever felt for the eighty or so innocent lives for whom she claimed to take responsibility. You're just saying that to justify your inability to respond to my ideas with logic and common sense. That shows the strength of my ideas as well as the foolishness of yours. > > Hopefully, that will prove useful > to lurkers who may not fully understand what science is, but who are > still open minded enough to learn. > You don't hope that either. You don't give a damn about anyone but yourself, not even for those who might agree with you. You have the gall to use the term "open-minded" when you refuse to open your mind to my ideas.                   Date: 19 Sep 2006 09:16:41 From: Greg Crinklaw Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > You don't hope that either. You don't give a damn about > anyone but yourself, not even for those who might agree > with you. You have the gall to use the term "open-minded" > when you refuse to open your mind to my ideas. He did open hos mind to them and found them quite lacking--as any thinking educated person would. -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html To reply take out your eye                 Date: 19 Sep 2006 19:52:40 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? PD wrote: > tomgee wrote: > > PD wrote: > > > tomgee wrote: > > > > Greg Crinklaw wrote: > > > > > tomgee wrote: > > > > > > You don't hope that either. You don't give a damn about > > > > > > anyone but yourself, not even for those who might agree > > > > > > with you. You have the gall to use the term "open-minded" > > > > > > when you refuse to open your mind to my ideas. > > > > > > > > > > He did open hos mind to them and found them quite lacking--as any > > > > > thinking educated person would. > > > > > > > > > But not as any open-minded person would. He simply voiced > > > > his unsupported opinion. He made no logical arguments to > > > > the contrary, as I did. You may think "...any thinking educated > > > > person would" indeed be open-minded and show that by his > > > > logical arguments, but he made no such arguments, he only > > > > gave his opinion of what he thought of my ideas and nothing > > > > more. He can make no logical arguments because there are > > > > none to make. He can only regurgitate the illogical fantasies > > > > he has been made to swallow in order to "earn" his position > > > > and social status. Your claim, therefore, that he is a thinking > > > > educated person is false. He is an educated parrot, nothing > > > > more, sorry. > > > > > > You seem to think that "any open-minded person" would view physics the > > > way you do, TomGee -- as a debate club. You seem to think that "any > > > open-minded person" has to do more than tell someone that they're > > > wrong, and in fact you seem to think that "any open-minded person" will > > > do more than explain exactly where they are wrong -- you seem to think > > > that "any open-minded minded person" will argue endlessly to *convince* > > > someone where they are wrong. > > > > > Comes once again the King Stooge of sci.fi.Relativity, once > > again arguing against something I did not say, but still writing > > prose bereft of physics, only unsupported opinion. He's > > banking on his belief that many more like him are here reading > > all this, and he can win his arguments with their support and > > without a single logical argument to support his fantasies. Is > > he right? > > If you will look at your own post in response to Greg Crinklaw, you > will note that you had nothing to say about physics, only on someone > else's style of argument, and in fact your unsupported opinion about > why he would respond that way. I only responded to you the same manner > that you responded to someone else, since that seems to be what you > want to talk about. > You had nothing to respond to me about, as I was responding in kind to Crinklaw. My opinion was fully supported by his refusal or inability to discuss physics, same as you do in our discussions, and also by the logic of my claims wrt his inability to say anything other than what you have said in parroting the party line. > > > > Here is a phsyicist-teacher who believes his students are > > stupid and it is his responsibility to brainwash them to believe > > exactly as he does. > > Nonsense. > No, not nonsense. That is what you have said in previous posts. > > However, I do teach them *why* we believe what we do, and if > they want to believe something else, then I teach them what they'll > have to do to support what they do believe. > Oh? So you claim to have changed your stripes now that you understand how bad you sound when you argue that students come to you with wrong ideas and you see to it they learn the ideas you believe to be right? You have reworded your argument the complete opposite of what you said at first, but I believe your stripes are more than hair-deep, and saying that you have changed does not make it so. > > Now, there are those who > say both "I'll believe something other than what you believe" AND > "furthermore, I don't have to do what you say I do to support what I > believe". In those cases, they are clearly not interested in doing > science, and I will consult them to not waste their time spending > tuition on more science courses. > You make that decision based on a very short while of knowing those students, and if they refuse to kowtow to you for whatever their reasons, you decide who comes and who goes. That is why you are so dangerous, you hand out lives and take them away at your discretion, and based on your responses that show how utterly subjective your mind works, you are not only the King Stooge but the anti-Physicist. > > > He believes his duty is to make them > > parrots of physics, to carry on the tradition of stupid science > > that has existed since day one in the midst of human brilliance. > > Ah. So give me ONE example of a brilliant physicist who was not trained > by other physicists and who did not follow the scientific method. > (Please, please, PLEASE tell me you are the first.) > Well, thanks, but I am not a physicist, just a brilliant layperson. You are a physicist in name only, lacking even the dark luster of a burned-out star.                 Date: 19 Sep 2006 14:03:28 From: cantilever Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? PD wrote: > tomgee wrote: > > Greg Crinklaw wrote: > > > tomgee wrote: > > > > You don't hope that either. You don't give a damn about > > > > anyone but yourself, not even for those who might agree > > > > with you. You have the gall to use the term "open-minded" > > > > when you refuse to open your mind to my ideas. > > > > > > He did open hos mind to them and found them quite lacking--as any > > > thinking educated person would. > > > > > But not as any open-minded person would. He simply voiced > > his unsupported opinion. He made no logical arguments to > > the contrary, as I did. You may think "...any thinking educated > > person would" indeed be open-minded and show that by his > > logical arguments, but he made no such arguments, he only > > gave his opinion of what he thought of my ideas and nothing > > more. He can make no logical arguments because there are > > none to make. He can only regurgitate the illogical fantasies > > he has been made to swallow in order to "earn" his position > > and social status. Your claim, therefore, that he is a thinking > > educated person is false. He is an educated parrot, nothing > > more, sorry. > > You seem to think that "any open-minded person" would view physics the > way you do, TomGee -- as a debate club. You seem to think that "any > open-minded person" has to do more than tell someone that they're > wrong, and in fact you seem to think that "any open-minded person" will > do more than explain exactly where they are wrong -- you seem to think > that "any open-minded minded person" will argue endlessly to *convince* > someone where they are wrong. You seem to think that reiterating > something that has been experimentally demonstrated to be correct is > simply parroting, that that calling it parroting somehow invalidates > its correctness. You seem to think that the mark of a good theory is > not whether it can be used to make useful predictions in practice, but > that it make intuitive sense -- and more specifically, intuitive sense > to *you*. > > PD experiments cannot be parroted, nor "empirical" each time you measure, you affect an observation in completly different ways                 Date: 19 Sep 2006 12:19:20 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > PD wrote: > > tomgee wrote: > > > Greg Crinklaw wrote: > > > > tomgee wrote: > > > > > You don't hope that either. You don't give a damn about > > > > > anyone but yourself, not even for those who might agree > > > > > with you. You have the gall to use the term "open-minded" > > > > > when you refuse to open your mind to my ideas. > > > > > > > > He did open hos mind to them and found them quite lacking--as any > > > > thinking educated person would. > > > > > > > But not as any open-minded person would. He simply voiced > > > his unsupported opinion. He made no logical arguments to > > > the contrary, as I did. You may think "...any thinking educated > > > person would" indeed be open-minded and show that by his > > > logical arguments, but he made no such arguments, he only > > > gave his opinion of what he thought of my ideas and nothing > > > more. He can make no logical arguments because there are > > > none to make. He can only regurgitate the illogical fantasies > > > he has been made to swallow in order to "earn" his position > > > and social status. Your claim, therefore, that he is a thinking > > > educated person is false. He is an educated parrot, nothing > > > more, sorry. > > > > You seem to think that "any open-minded person" would view physics the > > way you do, TomGee -- as a debate club. You seem to think that "any > > open-minded person" has to do more than tell someone that they're > > wrong, and in fact you seem to think that "any open-minded person" will > > do more than explain exactly where they are wrong -- you seem to think > > that "any open-minded minded person" will argue endlessly to *convince* > > someone where they are wrong. > > > Comes once again the King Stooge of sci.fi.Relativity, once > again arguing against something I did not say, but still writing > prose bereft of physics, only unsupported opinion. He's > banking on his belief that many more like him are here reading > all this, and he can win his arguments with their support and > without a single logical argument to support his fantasies. Is > he right? If you will look at your own post in response to Greg Crinklaw, you will note that you had nothing to say about physics, only on someone else's style of argument, and in fact your unsupported opinion about why he would respond that way. I only responded to you the same manner that you responded to someone else, since that seems to be what you want to talk about. > > Here is a phsyicist-teacher who believes his students are > stupid and it is his responsibility to brainwash them to believe > exactly as he does. Nonsense. However, I do teach them *why* we believe what we do, and if they want to believe something else, then I teach them what they'll have to do to support what they do believe. Now, there are those who say both "I'll believe something other than what you believe" AND "furthermore, I don't have to do what you say I do to support what I believe". In those cases, they are clearly not interested in doing science, and I will consult them to not waste their time spending tuition on more science courses. > He believes his duty is to make them > parrots of physics, to carry on the tradition of stupid science > that has existed since day one in the midst of human brilliance. Ah. So give me ONE example of a brilliant physicist who was not trained by other physicists and who did not follow the scientific method. (Please, please, PLEASE tell me you are the first.) PD                 Date: 19 Sep 2006 11:23:08 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? PD wrote: > tomgee wrote: > > Greg Crinklaw wrote: > > > tomgee wrote: > > > > You don't hope that either. You don't give a damn about > > > > anyone but yourself, not even for those who might agree > > > > with you. You have the gall to use the term "open-minded" > > > > when you refuse to open your mind to my ideas. > > > > > > He did open hos mind to them and found them quite lacking--as any > > > thinking educated person would. > > > > > But not as any open-minded person would. He simply voiced > > his unsupported opinion. He made no logical arguments to > > the contrary, as I did. You may think "...any thinking educated > > person would" indeed be open-minded and show that by his > > logical arguments, but he made no such arguments, he only > > gave his opinion of what he thought of my ideas and nothing > > more. He can make no logical arguments because there are > > none to make. He can only regurgitate the illogical fantasies > > he has been made to swallow in order to "earn" his position > > and social status. Your claim, therefore, that he is a thinking > > educated person is false. He is an educated parrot, nothing > > more, sorry. > > You seem to think that "any open-minded person" would view physics the > way you do, TomGee -- as a debate club. You seem to think that "any > open-minded person" has to do more than tell someone that they're > wrong, and in fact you seem to think that "any open-minded person" will > do more than explain exactly where they are wrong -- you seem to think > that "any open-minded minded person" will argue endlessly to *convince* > someone where they are wrong. > Comes once again the King Stooge of sci.fi.Relativity, once again arguing against something I did not say, but still writing prose bereft of physics, only unsupported opinion. He's banking on his belief that many more like him are here reading all this, and he can win his arguments with their support and without a single logical argument to support his fantasies. Is he right? Here is a phsyicist-teacher who believes his students are stupid and it is his responsibility to brainwash them to believe exactly as he does. He believes his duty is to make them parrots of physics, to carry on the tradition of stupid science that has existed since day one in the midst of human brilliance.                 Date: 19 Sep 2006 10:15:09 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > Greg Crinklaw wrote: > > tomgee wrote: > > > You don't hope that either. You don't give a damn about > > > anyone but yourself, not even for those who might agree > > > with you. You have the gall to use the term "open-minded" > > > when you refuse to open your mind to my ideas. > > > > He did open hos mind to them and found them quite lacking--as any > > thinking educated person would. > > > But not as any open-minded person would. He simply voiced > his unsupported opinion. He made no logical arguments to > the contrary, as I did. You may think "...any thinking educated > person would" indeed be open-minded and show that by his > logical arguments, but he made no such arguments, he only > gave his opinion of what he thought of my ideas and nothing > more. He can make no logical arguments because there are > none to make. He can only regurgitate the illogical fantasies > he has been made to swallow in order to "earn" his position > and social status. Your claim, therefore, that he is a thinking > educated person is false. He is an educated parrot, nothing > more, sorry. You seem to think that "any open-minded person" would view physics the way you do, TomGee -- as a debate club. You seem to think that "any open-minded person" has to do more than tell someone that they're wrong, and in fact you seem to think that "any open-minded person" will do more than explain exactly where they are wrong -- you seem to think that "any open-minded minded person" will argue endlessly to *convince* someone where they are wrong. You seem to think that reiterating something that has been experimentally demonstrated to be correct is simply parroting, that that calling it parroting somehow invalidates its correctness. You seem to think that the mark of a good theory is not whether it can be used to make useful predictions in practice, but that it make intuitive sense -- and more specifically, intuitive sense to *you*. PD             Date: 17 Sep 2006 15:58:36 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On 17 Sep 2006 10:03:16 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >But GR is an extension of classical physics! Except that where the > >old physics can be confirmed over and over, GR has had only one > >success where the old physics can not have been expected to go > >simply because it could not have solved every mystery and left > >nothing for us to wonder about! > > GR has had many more than one success! Observations of all sorts support > GR, and can't be explained by pre-GR physics. > Certainly it has many tenets to the theory, but what observations are you talking about that can't be explained by classical physics? Classical physics was limited by its lack of technology and information that has grown much since then, so it is to be expected that new findings could not have been explained by the old physics. Many have bought into GR heart and soul, even though AE stated at the first that it did not overthrow the old physics. I prefer gravitation to curved space, myself, and those of you who don't have jumped the gun on pure faith that AE could do no wrong, even though he admitted some of the wrong he did. > > >The rest of GR is an alternative explanation for gravitation, as AE > >hisself stated, and does not and cannot overthrow classical physics. > > As you say, GR is an extension of classical physics. A refinement. > Nobody would expect it to "overthrow classical physics". > No, that's false. Some who post here claim it has done just that. > > >I find GR to be AE's second biggest blunder.. > > No doubt, he's spinning in his grave with concern! > No. I think he realized his best work was SR, and things went downward from there. To be fair, much of what is credited to him is just exaggeration by his adorers, who tend to ascribe much more to him than what he did or said. That says much more about them than it does about Einstein. > > >> Like GR, the various BB theories are well supported (confirmed, not > >> proven) by observation. > >> > >No, they're not, unless you claim to have seen space come out of it. > > You are obviously out of touch with modern cosmology, and of the > remarkable extent to which the BB theories mesh with observation. > So you just talk with nothing to back it up? At least try to show that your ideas and beliefs are not blind parrot-talk but the result of careful analysis of what you have studied.               Date: 17 Sep 2006 23:23:15 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 17 Sep 2006 15:58:36 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com > wrote: >So you just talk with nothing to back it up? At least try to >show that your ideas and beliefs are not blind parrot-talk >but the result of careful analysis of what you have studied. My job here isn't to defend GR; there are thousands of observations and papers that do that better than I can. There is no burden on standard, well accepted theories to defend themselves against new ideas; it is those with the new ideas who must solidly demonstrate- using the methods of science- why their ideas are better. My objection is people who post unscientific material and try to pass it off as science. There is a name for that: pseudoscience, and it doesn't belong on any of the groups you are posting to. I have enough experience with those who present pseudoscience to know that there's no hope of curing _you_ of your delusions, but since these are sci newsgroups, I feel some responsibility to at least point out the failure of such ideas to meet minimum scientific standards. Hopefully, that will prove useful to lurkers who may not fully understand what science is, but who are still open minded enough to learn. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com             Date: 17 Sep 2006 15:38:17 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On 17 Sep 2006 10:03:16 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >But GR is an extension of classical physics! Except that where the > >old physics can be confirmed over and over, GR has had only one > >success where the old physics can not have been expected to go > >simply because it could not have solved every mystery and left > >nothing for us to wonder about! > > GR has had many more than one success! Observations of all sorts support > GR, and can't be explained by pre-GR physics. > > > >The rest of GR is an alternative explanation for gravitation, as AE > >hisself stated, and does not and cannot overthrow classical physics. > > As you say, GR is an extension of classical physics. A refinement. > Nobody would expect it to "overthrow classical physics". > > > >I find GR to be AE's second biggest blunder.. > > No doubt, he's spinning in his grave with concern! > > > >> Like GR, the various BB theories are well supported (confirmed, not > >> proven) by observation. > >> > >No, they're not, unless you claim to have seen space come out of it. > > You are obviously out of touch with modern cosmology, and of the > remarkable extent to which the BB theories mesh with observation. Out of touch must be a euphemism. TomGee here is a rather spectacular case in this newsgroup. He has self-published his own "essay" about what make sense to him. (He is the Tyro Press that published this work.) Unfortunately, he has no idea what science is or how it works, he has confused physics with a debate club, and he thinks that as long as he has the physical capacity to open his mouth and say something (even though it may be even stupider than the last thing he said) then he is continuing to succeed in his quest to unmask naked emperors. Even more unfortunately, he has no sense of shame, and so he continues post nonsense. PD > > _________________________________________________ > > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com       Date: 17 Sep 2006 10:03:16 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On 17 Sep 2006 08:36:38 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >GR is an uncofirmed theory, so the BBT can > >not be an empirical model of such... > > What is an "unconfirmed theory"? No theory can be proven, only > disproven. > True, but if I had said it was an unproven theory, you would have said the same thing, sans the question. Note that "unconfirmed" simply means all of its predictions have yet to be confirmed. GR has yet to be confirmed in its entirety before it can be considered a fact of reality. Some theories, like SR, are easier to confirm as they pretty much stick closer to reality than others. I cannot help but note here that GR offers an Alternative Explanation to the conclusions long held before its invention, which is precisely what my model does. He did that with math and logic, not experimental research. I did that with logic only, no math (since that has already been done), and by incorporating findings unknown in AE's time. Those of you who will not take my model seriously are only condemning yourselves into a closed-mind existence. You cannot overthrow my logic, so you resort to non-acceptance of my ideas for subjective reasons. > > GR is a theory which is heavily supported by a wide range of > independent evidence, but like any theory it is unprovable. It would be > fair to say that observational evidence confirms GR (which is not the > same as proving it). > But GR is an extension of classical physics! Except that where the old physics can be confirmed over and over, GR has had only one success where the old physics can not have been expected to go simply because it could not have solved every mystery and left nothing for us to wonder about! > The rest of GR is an alternative explanation for gravitation, as AE hisself stated, and does not and cannot overthrow classical physics. I find GR to be AE's second biggest blunder (chronologically, at least), in his invention of curved space and the s-t continuum. His curved space concept can not be empirically confirmed and my model explains that the prediction of frame-dragging can be explained by my model even more logically than does GR. > > > The BBT > >can only be the same, an unconfirmed theory. > > Like GR, the various BB theories are well supported (confirmed, not > proven) by observation. > No, they're not, unless you claim to have seen space come out of it.         Date: 17 Sep 2006 22:24:10 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 17 Sep 2006 10:03:16 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com > wrote: >But GR is an extension of classical physics! Except that where the >old physics can be confirmed over and over, GR has had only one >success where the old physics can not have been expected to go >simply because it could not have solved every mystery and left >nothing for us to wonder about! GR has had many more than one success! Observations of all sorts support GR, and can't be explained by pre-GR physics. >The rest of GR is an alternative explanation for gravitation, as AE >hisself stated, and does not and cannot overthrow classical physics. As you say, GR is an extension of classical physics. A refinement. Nobody would expect it to "overthrow classical physics". >I find GR to be AE's second biggest blunder.. No doubt, he's spinning in his grave with concern! >> Like GR, the various BB theories are well supported (confirmed, not >> proven) by observation. >> >No, they're not, unless you claim to have seen space come out of it. You are obviously out of touch with modern cosmology, and of the remarkable extent to which the BB theories mesh with observation. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com     Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:15:42 From: Brian Tung Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Sco wrote: > From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there was > energy. Somewhat counter-intuitively, energy is not well-defined for space-times that aren't asymptotically flat--a condition not satisfied by the Big Bang. Therefore, conservation of energy cannot be applied consistently to the Big Bang. -- Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu > The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html   Date: 10 Sep 2006 20:20:36 From: EDJO Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Hello, Radium! You wrote on 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700: R > What happened before the big bang? R > Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. Simple...: Exactly the same what happened after the big bang. The only thing is: WE cannot experience it. It's called: eternity... R > Regards, With best regards, EDJO.   Date: 11 Sep 2006 10:12:16 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > Chris L Peterson wrote: > > On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet, > > >unless you know about something that has been discovered as such. > > >> > > >> Everything we know about physics breaks down very close > > >> to the BB, including time. > > >> > > >Okay, but that is after, not before. > > >> > > >> Time is generally seen as a component of our > > >> universe just as the spatial dimensions are. > > >> > > >Yes, you're right. > > >> > > >> It really makes no sense to > > >> consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than > > >> it makes sense to consider space as having existed. > > >> > > >On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really > > >makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe. > > > > > >It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere > > >and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time > > >would exist as well. > > > > These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There > > is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe. > > > I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think > it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists > here, than for another universe to exist without time. > > > > Right > > now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time > > were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that > > indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the > > universe). > > > No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know > of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it > compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine > can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter, > yes, but just how do you compress space? That's precisely what the Einstein field equations tell you -- what the relationship is between the curvature of space and time and the mass & energy in that space. The two go hand in hand. The more mass and energy, then the more tightly curved the space is. The asymptote of that process is a singularity, both in terms of the density of mass and energy, and in terms of the curvature of spacetime. > And how much > space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space > to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are > not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a > thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded > to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!). > > The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of > the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the > awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel. > > I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed > before the BB nor exists external to our universe. That's because your reading is quite limited. > If you have, > as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK, > that contends abs. space exists outside the universe. > > > > The fact that this is hard for us to grasp non-mathematically > > is not an argument against it. > > > It's not hard for me. I can spot naked emperors miles away. > > > > Some theories seek to explain the cause of the BB. > > > Not true, AFAIK. There may be many stories dealing with > the subject, but they would be no more than concepts born > of imagination and nurtured as commercial enterprises. > > > > While these may be > > valid theories in the sense that they are testable and falsifiable, they > > are also very weakly supported at the moment- more in the mode of > > mathematical games than anything else. > > > You claim to be a physicist and you think they are testable and > falsifiable? That is impossible, friend, unless you know > something about that no one else knows. > > > > I'm not aware of any that require > > time to have existed before the BB, or even that there was a "before" in > > the sense I think it is being discussed here. There is no need for a > > hyperuniverse in which ours formed to contain dimensions that we would > > recognize as either spatial or temporal (that doesn't mean it couldn't, > > just that there is no basis for assuming such). > > > > Assuming things in this realm of physics simply because it seems natural > > is very bad reasoning. > > > It's better than assuming it can only happen here and nowhere else! > And note that I was not saying it seems "natural", I said it is > intuition > that follows logically from what already exists or has occurred. It > is more reasonable to believe that since our universe exists, others > could also exist, than to say "Our universe exists, but no others > exist".   Date: 11 Sep 2006 09:27:47 From: Richard Adams Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Radium wrote: > Hi: > > What happened before the big bang? > > Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > > Regards, > > Radium My a favourite theory is that the prior universe had collapsed in upon itself, like a big ol' black hole and then exploded. This is a cyclical thing.     Date: 12 Sep 2006 01:09:17 From: Henry Haapalainen Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net > kirjoitti viestissä:1157992067.394995.69030@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Radium wrote: >> Hi: >> >> What happened before the big bang? >> >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Radium > > My a favourite theory is that the prior universe had collapsed in upon > itself, like a big ol' black hole and then exploded. This is a > cyclical thing. That is a good one, and it means that BB is a start of a galaxy, not start of the universe. Henry Haapalainen     Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:57:30 From: Mdmeenken Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net > schreef in bericht news:1157992067.394995.69030@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Radium wrote: >> Hi: >> >> What happened before the big bang? >> >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Radium > > My a favourite theory is that the prior universe had collapsed in upon > itself, like a big ol' black hole and then exploded. This is a > cyclical thing. may be!!! >   Date: 11 Sep 2006 09:20:06 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet, > >unless you know about something that has been discovered as such. > >> > >> Everything we know about physics breaks down very close > >> to the BB, including time. > >> > >Okay, but that is after, not before. > >> > >> Time is generally seen as a component of our > >> universe just as the spatial dimensions are. > >> > >Yes, you're right. > >> > >> It really makes no sense to > >> consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than > >> it makes sense to consider space as having existed. > >> > >On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really > >makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe. > > > >It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere > >and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time > >would exist as well. > > These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There > is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe. > I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists here, than for another universe to exist without time. > > Right > now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time > were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that > indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the > universe). > No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter, yes, but just how do you compress space? And how much space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!). The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel. I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed before the BB nor exists external to our universe. If you have, as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK, that contends abs. space exists outside the universe. > > The fact that this is hard for us to grasp non-mathematically > is not an argument against it. > It's not hard for me. I can spot naked emperors miles away. > > Some theories seek to explain the cause of the BB. > Not true, AFAIK. There may be many stories dealing with the subject, but they would be no more than concepts born of imagination and nurtured as commercial enterprises. > > While these may be > valid theories in the sense that they are testable and falsifiable, they > are also very weakly supported at the moment- more in the mode of > mathematical games than anything else. > You claim to be a physicist and you think they are testable and falsifiable? That is impossible, friend, unless you know something about that no one else knows. > > I'm not aware of any that require > time to have existed before the BB, or even that there was a "before" in > the sense I think it is being discussed here. There is no need for a > hyperuniverse in which ours formed to contain dimensions that we would > recognize as either spatial or temporal (that doesn't mean it couldn't, > just that there is no basis for assuming such). > > Assuming things in this realm of physics simply because it seems natural > is very bad reasoning. > It's better than assuming it can only happen here and nowhere else! And note that I was not saying it seems "natural", I said it is intuition that follows logically from what already exists or has occurred. It is more reasonable to believe that since our universe exists, others could also exist, than to say "Our universe exists, but no others exist".     Date: 11 Sep 2006 16:57:01 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 11 Sep 2006 09:20:06 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com > wrote: >No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know >of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it >compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine >can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter, >yes, but just how do you compress space? And how much >space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space >to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are >not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a >thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded >to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!). I'm sorry your imagination is so limited. The simple fact is that these things aren't beyond human comprehension, and for those who have spent some time studying cosmology, they aren't as hard to imagine as you suppose. And there are many BB theories. >You claim to be a physicist and you think they are testable and >falsifiable? That is impossible, friend, unless you know >something about that no one else knows. I know what makes a theory, and I'm hardly the only one! And there are theories that go beyond the BB (branes, for example) that can be tested by observation and that can be falsified. That makes them valid theories. Any theory that doesn't meet that criteria, however, is just so much mental masturbation. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com     Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:04:44 From: Brian Tung Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > > Right > > now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time > > were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that > > indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the > > universe). > > > No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know > of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it > compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine > can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter, > yes, but just how do you compress space? And how much > space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space > to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are > not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a > thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded > to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!). We probably cannot visualize it, but we can investigate the Big Bang mathematically, which has the advantage of being both more precise and less constrained by human imagination. For instance, humans generally cannot visualize/imagine a curved 2-manifold without it being embedded in 3-space, but it has been known at least since the time of Poincare (maybe a bit earlier) that there exist consistent geometries in which no embedding is necessary. In other words, you might be able to (in principle) measure the angles of a triangle on an apparently flat surface, and find that they don't add up to 180 degrees, thus demonstrating that the surface is curved in a metric sense, even though there's no third dimension for it to curve "into." Similarly, you can have a 4-manifold of space-time without it being embedded in some external space. That means that one can talk about the Big Bang without having to place it into a larger context. The Big Bang is then essentially a boundary condition; it can be validated by seeing if what we observe can be extrapolated back in (our thread of) time to that boundary, without worrying about what, if anything, set up the boundary conditions. There are, nonetheless, some theories about broader contexts in which our universe might be embedded. These are not really all *that* recent; I think Andrei Linde began proposing one maybe 15 years or so ago? Such theories make predictions about the possible ranges of physical "constants" (put in quotes because in these theories, they have a distribution function rather than a fixed value); if our observations showed that the constants held values outside of the ranges permitted by these theories, they would be falsified. Thus far, they have not been, but that should not give us that much confidence in them, because the ranges are not small. > The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of > the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the > awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel. No. They are questioned, but the questions are posed mathematically, so that they aren't hazy by virtue of the ambiguous English (or any other human) language. Some of your questions are, as I have noted, not strictly required by a theory of the Big Bang proper. > I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed > before the BB nor exists external to our universe. If you have, > as you so claim, quote it for us. It is not that they explicitly claim that space didn't exist before the Big Bang, or that it doesn't exist external to our universe, or both. More accurately, the conventional theories are silent on that matter. They do not *require* space or time to exist outside our universe, but they do not preclude it, either. It is not their primary concern; they are concerned more with how space and time evolve, and with pushing the boundary of our understanding back toward the Big Bang. > My theory is the only one, AFAIK, > that contends abs. space exists outside the universe. Properly speaking, you have an idea, not a theory. It is not unique; consider Linde's chaotic inflationary theory. There is also an oscillating theory that has some problems with it. Nonetheless, the theory exists. Note also that we can *say* the oscillating theory has some problems with it. That means that it makes predictions that can be falsified by observations. That makes it different from nearly all ideas posed by amateur cosmologists. Common sense is a reasonable way to arrive at hypotheses, but it is not useful for divining what is actually so. If it were, we would never have accepted quantum mechanics. Anyone who says that QM makes intuitive sense doesn't know enough about it. But QM tells us that observations based on a given set of initial conditions will have a predictable probability distribution, and when we make those observations, lo and behold, the results fit that distribution. That is why we have confidence in QM, despite its counter-intuitiveness. That predictive power is what is required of any scientific hypothesis, and the various "multiversal" theories have some of that, albeit weakly thus far. -- Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu > The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html   Date: 11 Sep 2006 08:46:45 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > George Dishman wrote: > > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > news:ee1ued$rmt$2@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message > > > > news:ee1nak$b57$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... > > > > > > > > > > So we do not know what the world was like back then > > > > > Either way it does not seem very conducive to life > > > > > > > > For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang, > > > > all the matter in the universe was in the form of > > > > hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present > > > > surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in > > > > fact not even any form of solid matter. > > > > > SNIP > > > > > > Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere, > > > along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, ... > > > > No, at the temperatures during that period, molecules > > could not exist. In fact even neutral atoms could not > > exist. There could be no biochemical processes and > > no chemical reactions. > > > Therefore, aren't you saying there was no matter then? No, all matter was created within the first second but it was in the form of sub-atomic particles for the first few minutes. The elements formed over a few hours as neutron were captured by protons but it was then in the form of plasma at millions of degrees, similar to the core of the Sun. The mix was about 76% hydrogen and 24% helium with a tiny amount of lithum. It was about 378,000 years later that the plasma cooled enough for electrons to become associated with atoms. The charts here show the timescale and temperatures during nucleosynthesis: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html The creation of matter is called baryogenesis but we know very little about how that occurred. Incidentally I suspect the later messages from "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" may be generated programmatically, their structure is similar to some other AI robots that have been set up to post here recently. George     Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:24:38 From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? However, as what I am seeing so far, you are a definitely full of a hate and a jealousy to anyone, means a simply, that a mind misery of yours, has had already terminated you, whether, it would still in you, and also, that you are a full of an useless energy, which is expressed, along that hate as along an emptiness of your own mind, all along. -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Now- Think Again! "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:1157989605.291715.179810@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > tomgee wrote: > > George Dishman wrote: > > > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > news:ee1ued$rmt$2@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > > > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:ee1nak$b57$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... > > > > > > > > > > > > So we do not know what the world was like back then > > > > > > Either way it does not seem very conducive to life > > > > > > > > > > For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang, > > > > > all the matter in the universe was in the form of > > > > > hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present > > > > > surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in > > > > > fact not even any form of solid matter. > > > > > > > SNIP > > > > > > > > Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere, > > > > along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, ... > > > > > > No, at the temperatures during that period, molecules > > > could not exist. In fact even neutral atoms could not > > > exist. There could be no biochemical processes and > > > no chemical reactions. > > > > > Therefore, aren't you saying there was no matter then? > > No, all matter was created within the first second > but it was in the form of sub-atomic particles for > the first few minutes. The elements formed over a > few hours as neutron were captured by protons but > it was then in the form of plasma at millions of > degrees, similar to the core of the Sun. The mix > was about 76% hydrogen and 24% helium with a tiny > amount of lithum. > > It was about 378,000 years later that the plasma > cooled enough for electrons to become associated > with atoms. > > The charts here show the timescale and > temperatures during nucleosynthesis: > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html > > The creation of matter is called baryogenesis but > we know very little about how that occurred. > > Incidentally I suspect the later messages from > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" may be generated > programmatically, their structure is similar to > some other AI robots that have been set up to > post here recently. > > George >     Date: 11 Sep 2006 10:02:26 From: Pat O'Connell Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? George Dishman wrote: > tomgee wrote: >> George Dishman wrote: >> > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> > > news:ee1ued$rmt$2@news.freedom2surf.net... >> > > > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message >> > > > news:ee1nak$b57$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... >> > > > > >> > > > > So we do not know what the world was like back then >> > > > > Either way it does not seem very conducive to life >> > > > >> > > > For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang, >> > > > all the matter in the universe was in the form of >> > > > hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present >> > > > surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in >> > > > fact not even any form of solid matter. >> > > > >> SNIP >> > > >> > > Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere, >> > > along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, ... >> > >> > No, at the temperatures during that period, molecules >> > could not exist. In fact even neutral atoms could not >> > exist. There could be no biochemical processes and >> > no chemical reactions. >> > >> Therefore, aren't you saying there was no matter then? > > No, all matter was created within the first second > but it was in the form of sub-atomic particles for > the first few minutes. The elements formed over a > few hours as neutron were captured by protons but > it was then in the form of plasma at millions of > degrees, similar to the core of the Sun. The mix > was about 76% hydrogen and 24% helium with a tiny > amount of lithum. > > It was about 378,000 years later that the plasma > cooled enough for electrons to become associated > with atoms. > > The charts here show the timescale and > temperatures during nucleosynthesis: > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html > > The creation of matter is called baryogenesis but > we know very little about how that occurred. > > Incidentally I suspect the later messages from > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" may be generated > programmatically, their structure is similar to > some other AI robots that have been set up to > post here recently. You mean like Min? -- Pat O'Connell [note munged EMail address] Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but vandals...       Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:29:13 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Pat O'Connell" <gypkap@comcast.net > wrote in message news:JZudnaZxlJ8PFZjYnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@comcast.com... > George Dishman wrote: ... >> Incidentally I suspect the later messages from >> "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" may be generated >> programmatically, their structure is similar to >> some other AI robots that have been set up to >> post here recently. > > You mean like Min? Last time I saw anything from him, the grammar was reasonable, it was the content that was crap. There have recently been some replies to my posts (and possibly others) which with a bit of digging were made up from phrases snipped from other posters' replies to me. The first "Ouahi" reply was OK but subsequent ones seem to be constructed of random phrases. My guess is it is another attempt at the Turing Test. Usenet is a perfect medium for these programs. George         Date: 11 Sep 2006 21:57:58 From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mr Manipulable! Only and only the thing, you would never and ever, guess, is what is your level along the fear further would be, because, already as a systematically, your behaviors is exactly, the same as under any drine of a socialism, simply as that, the absolute reason, that your kind are an infinite matter, a definitely as a matter a fact! However, in an either case, you are in an absolute as an urgent need of a professional help, the way, that they -under that kind of a drine- are doing to all your kind, a definitely as a matter a fact! -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Simply As That! "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:ee4983$7vq$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > > "Pat O'Connell" <gypkap@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:JZudnaZxlJ8PFZjYnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > George Dishman wrote: > ... > >> Incidentally I suspect the later messages from > >> "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" may be generated > >> programmatically, their structure is similar to > >> some other AI robots that have been set up to > >> post here recently. > > > > You mean like Min? > > Last time I saw anything from him, the grammar was > reasonable, it was the content that was crap. There > have recently been some replies to my posts (and > possibly others) which with a bit of digging were > made up from phrases snipped from other posters' > replies to me. The first "Ouahi" reply was OK but > subsequent ones seem to be constructed of random > phrases. My guess is it is another attempt at the > Turing Test. Usenet is a perfect medium for these > programs. > > George > >           Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:55:42 From: Shawn Curry Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote: > Mr Manipulable! > > Only and only the thing, you would never and ever, guess, is what is your > level along the fear further would be, because, already as a systematically, > your behaviors is exactly, the same as under any drine of a socialism, > simply as that, the absolute reason, that your kind are an infinite matter, > a definitely as a matter a fact! > > However, in an either case, you are in an absolute as an urgent need of a > professional help, the way, that they -under that kind of a drine- are > doing to all your kind, a definitely as a matter a fact! > > -- > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect > Simply As That! George, This is a real person, not an automated AI test. You can tell, a computer would have been smart enough to know not to top-post. Shawn > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:ee4983$7vq$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > >>"Pat O'Connell" <gypkap@comcast.net> wrote in message >>news:JZudnaZxlJ8PFZjYnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >>>George Dishman wrote: >> >>... >> >>>>Incidentally I suspect the later messages from >>>>"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" may be generated >>>>programmatically, their structure is similar to >>>>some other AI robots that have been set up to >>>>post here recently. >>> >>>You mean like Min? >> >>Last time I saw anything from him, the grammar was >>reasonable, it was the content that was crap. There >>have recently been some replies to my posts (and >>possibly others) which with a bit of digging were >>made up from phrases snipped from other posters' >>replies to me. The first "Ouahi" reply was OK but >>subsequent ones seem to be constructed of random >>phrases. My guess is it is another attempt at the >>Turing Test. Usenet is a perfect medium for these >>programs. >> >>George >> >> > > >   Date: 11 Sep 2006 06:35:30 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? George Dishman wrote: > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:ee1ued$rmt$2@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message > > > news:ee1nak$b57$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... > > > > > > > > So we do not know what the world was like back then > > > > Either way it does not seem very conducive to life > > > > > > For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang, > > > all the matter in the universe was in the form of > > > hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present > > > surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in > > > fact not even any form of solid matter. > > > SNIP > > > > Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere, > > along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, ... > > No, at the temperatures during that period, molecules > could not exist. In fact even neutral atoms could not > exist. There could be no biochemical processes and > no chemical reactions. > Therefore, aren't you saying there was no matter then?   Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:36:53 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mark F. wrote: > God said let there be light. > that is one option. > In Philosophy, yes. In physics, it is not an option, not even a theory - only a concept, an unsupported opinion.   Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:27:07 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mark Earnest wrote: > "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com... > > On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > > > >>Hi: > >> > >>What happened before the big bang? > >> > >>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > > Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of > > our universe, > > It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe! > Sorry, but he's right. See my first post to him.   Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On 10 Sep 2006 15:29:51 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > > >AFAIK, the BB was the most major event known to science, however it > >does not mean that BB was the start of time. > > > >It just so happens that we [scientists] haven't discovered anything > >prior to the big bang. > > That's not true. > No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet, unless you know about something that has been discovered as such. > > Everything we know about physics breaks down very close > to the BB, including time. > Okay, but that is after, not before. > > Time is generally seen as a component of our > universe just as the spatial dimensions are. > Yes, you're right. > > It really makes no sense to > consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than > it makes sense to consider space as having existed. > On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe. It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time would exist as well.     Date: 11 Sep 2006 14:16:36 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com > wrote: >No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet, >unless you know about something that has been discovered as such. >> >> Everything we know about physics breaks down very close >> to the BB, including time. >> >Okay, but that is after, not before. >> >> Time is generally seen as a component of our >> universe just as the spatial dimensions are. >> >Yes, you're right. >> >> It really makes no sense to >> consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than >> it makes sense to consider space as having existed. >> >On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really >makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe. > >It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere >and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time >would exist as well. These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe. Right now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the universe). The fact that this is hard for us to grasp non-mathematically is not an argument against it. Some theories seek to explain the cause of the BB. While these may be valid theories in the sense that they are testable and falsifiable, they are also very weakly supported at the moment- more in the mode of mathematical games than anything else. I'm not aware of any that require time to have existed before the BB, or even that there was a "before" in the sense I think it is being discussed here. There is no need for a hyperuniverse in which ours formed to contain dimensions that we would recognize as either spatial or temporal (that doesn't mean it couldn't, just that there is no basis for assuming such). Assuming things in this realm of physics simply because it seems natural is very bad reasoning. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com   Date: 11 Sep 2006 04:31:15 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Radium wrote: > Davoud wrote: > > Chris L Peterson wrote: > > > > > Something like this question may be answerable. > > > > I hope so! > > > > > Time is a property of > > > our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of > > > "before" isn't easily defined. > > > > > Hmmmm. My reading and listening tell me that it is not known if time > > began at the BB, or if time existed prior to the BB and the BB was an > > event that occurred at a certain point in time. Tough question, but > > perhaps answerable one day. > > For some reason [that I can't figure out myself], I believe that time > did exist before the BB and that BB was as you say "an event that > occurred at a certain point in time". > The reason is intuitive, as opposed to the counterintuitive claim that time began with our universe. Trust your common sense, and read my posts to Chris and Davoud. > > AFAIK, the BB was the most major event known to science, however it > does not mean that BB was the start of time. > > It just so happens that we [scientists] haven't discovered anything > prior to the big bang. > I agree. An explosion evolves, requiring the passage of time.     Date: 11 Sep 2006 10:43:06 From: Shawn Curry Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > The reason is intuitive, as opposed to the counterintuitive claim that > time began with our universe. Trust your common sense, and read > my posts to Chris and Davoud. Tom, most of the world gave up intuitive science around 1880. Get with the program. Shawn     Date: 11 Sep 2006 09:41:49 From: Pat O'Connell Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > Radium wrote: >> Davoud wrote: >> > Chris L Peterson wrote: >> > >> > > Something like this question may be answerable. >> > >> > I hope so! >> > >> > > Time is a property of >> > > our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of >> > > "before" isn't easily defined. >> > >> >> > Hmmmm. My reading and listening tell me that it is not known if time >> > began at the BB, or if time existed prior to the BB and the BB was an >> > event that occurred at a certain point in time. Tough question, but >> > perhaps answerable one day. >> >> For some reason [that I can't figure out myself], I believe that time >> did exist before the BB and that BB was as you say "an event that >> occurred at a certain point in time". >> > The reason is intuitive, as opposed to the counterintuitive claim that > time began with our universe. Trust your common sense, and read > my posts to Chris and Davoud. Much of what physics has discovered about the nature of our universe is counterintuitive, including relativity, which obviously is correct or atomic weapons, nuclear reactors, and star wouldn't work. The same is true for quantum mechanics. Prof. Michio Kaku's book "Parallel Worlds" is a fairly decent/readable explanation for non-physicists of the history of physics and cosmology, including why multiverses can, and probably do, exist. The book was copyrighted in 2005, and changes to our knowledge of cosmology have happened since that book was written. -- Pat O'Connell [note munged EMail address] Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but vandals...   Date: 11 Sep 2006 04:22:20 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Davoud wrote: > Chris L Peterson wrote: > > > Something like this question may be answerable. > > I hope so! > > > Time is a property of > > our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of > > "before" isn't easily defined. > > Hmmmm. My reading and listening tell me that it is not known if time > began at the BB, or if time existed prior to the BB and the BB was an > event that occurred at a certain point in time. Tough question, but > perhaps answerable one day. > > Davoud > Astute observations on your part! See my post to Chris. - Tomgee > -- > usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com   Date: 11 Sep 2006 04:19:00 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > > >Hi: > > > >What happened before the big bang? > > > >Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of > our universe, and it began when the universe began, > No. We don't know that it did. You are correct that time is a property of the universe, but as such, it is a dimension no different than the other 3 dimensions that define physical quantities of objects. Where there are no objects, the four dimensions cannot apply (except, of course, in our minds). The physical quantity defined by the time dimension applies to "events", which are defined as single points in space and time. However, since in reality it can only apply to objects, we can say that the 4 dimensions are properties of our universe that apply only to discrete objects. The inference to be drawn here is that space does not age. If so, then space could have existed before the BB, as absolute space, completely empty and timeless. The BBT has space emptying out from it to define our universe, there having been nothing, not space nor anything else, previous to the BB. Of course, in that scenario, the BB evolved from one stage to another in a process that ended in the BB. It makes no sense to say that process occurred where there was no space or anything else. The common explanation is that the BB occurred in a so-called Great Void, an endless expanse of what? - Nothingness, theysay. That is all nonsense, of course. There is no Great Void any more than there is a Great Pumpkin. My model of the universe proposes that there is only absolute space, as far as we can imagine, and that the contents of the BB emptied out into abs. space to the extent that it defines even now the ever-expanding edges of our universe. In my model, the contents were the primordial soup of negative mass that we call dark matter today. I.e., it had neg. mass that was imbued with the energy of the explosion, which propelled it far out into abs. space. Since it had no energy of its own, being neg. mass, it was and still is invisible (to us), and sooner or later it must stop moving when the impetus of the explosion wears off. More importantly, the time dimension did not apply to it, and it expanded in such a manner as can explain the concept requiring the Inflationary Period, while providing an alternative explanation for the concept. > > so the concept of > "before" isn't easily defined. However, if theory and experiment > ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the > _cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even > if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it. > "Before" is indeed easily defined in the BBT by its supposition of an explosion. It is silly for physicists to give weight to the idea of multiverses while disdaining the necessity for a "before". Just because we cannot ever know for sure what brought the BB about, we cannot assume there was no "before" to it. Explosions don't happen without a "before". IMO, if we must make an assumption here, it should be instead that for sure there was a "before", if we accept the BB concept even if we don't buy it in its entirety, we just cannot ever know what it was.     Date: 11 Sep 2006 12:24:53 From: AllYou! Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1157973540.681152.259680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > Chris L Peterson wrote: >> On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Hi: >> > >> >What happened before the big bang? >> > >> >Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so >> >interesting. >> >> Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property >> of >> our universe, and it began when the universe began, >> > No. We don't know that it did. You are correct that time is > a property of the universe, but as such, it is a dimension no > different than the other 3 dimensions that define physical > quantities of objects. Where there are no objects, the four > dimensions cannot apply (except, of course, in our minds). How does a dimension "pass" as you say it does? How would you express that in terms of a rate? > The physical quantity defined by the time dimension applies > to "events", which are defined as single points in space and > time. However, since in reality it can only apply to objects, > we can say that the 4 dimensions are properties of our > universe that apply only to discrete objects. The inference > to be drawn here is that space does not age. > > If so, then space could have existed before the BB, as > absolute space, completely empty and timeless. The BBT > has space emptying out from it to define our universe, Where does the BBT say that? > there > having been nothing, not space nor anything else, previous > to the BB. Of course, in that scenario, the BB evolved from > one stage to another in a process that ended in the BB. It > makes no sense to say that process occurred where there > was no space or anything else. The common explanation > is that the BB occurred in a so-called Great Void, an endless > expanse of what? - Nothingness, theysay. How does the Great Void differ from space? > That is all nonsense, of course. As is everything else you write.   Date: 11 Sep 2006 03:06:02 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:ee1ued$rmt$2@news.freedom2surf.net... > > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message > > news:ee1nak$b57$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... > > > > > > So we do not know what the world was like back then > > > Either way it does not seem very conducive to life > > > > For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang, > > all the matter in the universe was in the form of > > hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present > > surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in > > fact not even any form of solid matter. > > > > > But there must have been something that suited life > > > Otherwise we would not be here > > > > Think again. Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote: > However, what you said, was a just a technically speaking, whether, it > allows to turn around a possible similarity betweem a biolology matter and > the universe itself, whether, as for instance, any biochemical process and > extremelly any environmental conditions, as for instance, along their > combinations, which would determine any reactions as any overreaction along > the universe. > > Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere, > along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, ... No, at the temperatures during that period, molecules could not exist. In fact even neutral atoms could not exist. There could be no biochemical processes and no chemical reactions. > ... at least to try to > figure, that it has had been, along that matter, a definitely allowed to > diminish the sun by a just to make it a farther as to allow the creations to > get, more or less, an appropriate sunlight, for appropriate life as to allow > a most of anything to be a visible, a definitely as a matter a fact. > > P.S- along some cases, the thinking delay the perception! p.s. I think you need to practice your English!     Date: 11 Sep 2006 15:36:03 From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Therefore, mostly what you would need to practice you, especially, it would be something called to Know, because, only and only the thing, that, has had not been existing in that time, it is the English among other languages. -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Think About That! "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:1157969162.324263.129240@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:ee1ued$rmt$2@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message > > > news:ee1nak$b57$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... > > > > > > > > So we do not know what the world was like back then > > > > Either way it does not seem very conducive to life > > > > > > For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang, > > > all the matter in the universe was in the form of > > > hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present > > > surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in > > > fact not even any form of solid matter. > > > > > > > But there must have been something that suited life > > > > Otherwise we would not be here > > > > > > Think again. > > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote: > > However, what you said, was a just a technically speaking, whether, it > > allows to turn around a possible similarity betweem a biolology matter and > > the universe itself, whether, as for instance, any biochemical process and > > extremelly any environmental conditions, as for instance, along their > > combinations, which would determine any reactions as any overreaction along > > the universe. > > > > Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere, > > along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, ... > > No, at the temperatures during that period, molecules > could not exist. In fact even neutral atoms could not > exist. There could be no biochemical processes and > no chemical reactions. > > > ... at least to try to > > figure, that it has had been, along that matter, a definitely allowed to > > diminish the sun by a just to make it a farther as to allow the creations to > > get, more or less, an appropriate sunlight, for appropriate life as to allow > > a most of anything to be a visible, a definitely as a matter a fact. > > > > P.S- along some cases, the thinking delay the perception! > > p.s. I think you need to practice your English! >   Date: 11 Sep 2006 21:21:20 From: Weatherlawyer@gmail.com Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > > >What happened before the big bang? > > > >Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. Define interesting. > Something like this question may be answerable. How similar will the question have to be? Slighly less interesting? Even more so? Even more slightly less interesting?   Date: 11 Sep 2006 15:18:30 From: Richard Adams Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mdmeenken wrote: > "Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net> schreef in bericht > news:1157992067.394995.69030@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > Radium wrote: > >> Hi: > >> > >> What happened before the big bang? > >> > >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > >> > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Radium > > > > My a favourite theory is that the prior universe had collapsed in upon > > itself, like a big ol' black hole and then exploded. This is a > > cyclical thing. > > may be!!! Of course, the really big question is... where is all this happening?   Date: 11 Sep 2006 14:58:26 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? PD wrote: > tomgee wrote: > > Chris L Peterson wrote: > > > On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > >No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet, > > > >unless you know about something that has been discovered as such. > > > >> > > > >> Everything we know about physics breaks down very close > > > >> to the BB, including time. > > > >> > > > >Okay, but that is after, not before. > > > >> > > > >> Time is generally seen as a component of our > > > >> universe just as the spatial dimensions are. > > > >> > > > >Yes, you're right. > > > >> > > > >> It really makes no sense to > > > >> consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than > > > >> it makes sense to consider space as having existed. > > > >> > > > >On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really > > > >makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe. > > > > > > > >It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere > > > >and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time > > > >would exist as well. > > > > > > These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There > > > is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe. > > > > > I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think > > it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists > > here, than for another universe to exist without time. > > > > > > Right > > > now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time > > > were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that > > > indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the > > > universe). > > > > > No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know > > of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it > > compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine > > can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter, > > yes, but just how do you compress space? > > That's precisely what the Einstein field equations tell you -- what the > relationship is between the curvature of space and time and the mass & > energy in that space. The two go hand in hand. The more mass and > energy, then the more tightly curved the space is. The asymptote of > that process is a singularity, both in terms of the density of mass and > energy, and in terms of the curvature of spacetime. > You are basing your convictions on math constructs, knowing full well math can prove anything? How dumb is that, PD? > > > And how much > > space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space > > to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are > > not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a > > thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded > > to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!). > > > > The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of > > the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the > > awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel. > > > > I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed > > before the BB nor exists external to our universe. > > That's because your reading is quite limited. > If you have, as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK, that contends abs. space exists outside the universe.     Date: 11 Sep 2006 18:12:44 From: St. John Smythe Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote to PD wrote: > My theory is the only one, AFAIK, > that contends abs. space exists outside the universe. What is that abs. space contained in, then? -- St. John Pecor's Health-Food Principle: Never eat rutabaga on any day of the week that has a "y" in it.   Date: 11 Sep 2006 14:43:29 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On 11 Sep 2006 09:20:06 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know > >of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it > >compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine > >can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter, > >yes, but just how do you compress space? And how much > >space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space > >to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are > >not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a > >thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded > >to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!). > > I'm sorry your imagination is so limited. > Oh, and yours is not, since you seem to be claiming you can imagine such a thing. Apparently you believe in the Great Pumpkin, too, eh? Well, then, let's have it. Explain what it is you can imagine, you're so intelligent and all. Remember, it has no space in it, it is infinite in extent, and you claim there is nothing else in it but our universe. It is not empty space because space came out of the BB, as you claim. I don't believe you will answer, because you can't. That is where your unlimited imagination has led you, into fairytale land, where anything you want is possible. But even there, it cannot exist because for anything to exist in our imaginations requires our being able to explain what it is we are imagining. Just saying you are imagining it is not enough to show you are imagining it, because talk is cheap. What do you see in your mind's eye? What does it look like? What are some of its visual characteristics? > > The simple fact is that these > things aren't beyond human comprehension, > What "these things"? I only asked about the Great Void, not anything else. If by "human comprehension" you mean you can comprehend it, then explain it to us. > > and for those who have spent > some time studying cosmology, they aren't as hard to imagine as you > suppose. > Yes, it is. In fact, it is impossible. > > And there are many BB theories. > Well, you doesn't has ta give us many, just name a couple. > > >You claim to be a physicist and you think they are testable and > >falsifiable? That is impossible, friend, unless you know > >something about that no one else knows. > > I know what makes a theory, and I'm hardly the only one! And there are > theories that go beyond the BB (branes, for example) that can be tested > by observation and that can be falsified. That makes them valid > theories. Any theory that doesn't meet that criteria, however, is just > so much mental masturbation. > No no, we're not saying there are no other theories that "go beyond" the BB. We are just talking about the BB now. But since you claim those others are testable and falsifiable, tell us why you think they are, or who told you they are.     Date: 11 Sep 2006 22:01:59 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 11 Sep 2006 14:43:29 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com > wrote: >> I'm sorry your imagination is so limited. >> >Oh, and yours is not, since you seem to be claiming you >can imagine such a thing. Yes, I can. I have a sort of visualization framework based on analogy and some math. It's only a model, but for me an effective one. >Well, then, let's have it. Explain >what it is you can imagine, you're so intelligent and all. >Remember, it has no space in it, it is infinite in extent, and >you claim there is nothing else in it but our universe. It is >not empty space because space came out of the BB, as >you claim. Are you talking about a hyperuniverse? I don't particularly believe in one, although some of the theories are intriguing. But I'll hold off until more evidence comes in. For now, I am perfectly happy with the idea that our universe is all there is. There is no "outside", and no "before". I don't have any real problem visualizing that. >What "these things"? I only asked about the Great Void, not >anything else. If by "human comprehension" you mean you >can comprehend it, then explain it to us. What "Great Void"? Since I don't believe it exists, I have no need to try and visualize it. I can easily visualize a higher dimensional manifold that the universe exists in, but there is no evidence that it has any physical reality. >> And there are many BB theories. >> >Well, you doesn't has ta give us many, just name a couple. For example, an inflationary versus non-inflationary model. There are many variations on the BB theory. >No no, we're not saying there are no other theories that "go beyond" >the BB. We are just talking about the BB now. But since you claim >those others are testable and falsifiable, tell us why you think they >are, or who told you they are. Do your own research. If you really knew anything about this you wouldn't have to ask the question. There are experiments currently under way, and some planned for equipment coming online in the next few years that are capable of either supporting or disproving several multiverse theories. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com   Date: 11 Sep 2006 22:00:51 From: Ioannis Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote in message news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > Hi: > > What happened before the big bang? > > Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. Troll-o-Meter: ----------------- >     Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:50:11 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Ioannis" <morpheus@olympus.mons > wrote in message news:1158001258.528482@athprx04... > "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message > news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >> >> Hi: >> >> What happened before the big bang? >> >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > Troll-o-Meter: > > -----------------> >   Date: 11 Sep 2006 18:57:51 From: Biljo White Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote: > Hi: > > What happened before the big bang? There was a nice dinner, with wine and a flambe dessert.     Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:56:30 From: Shawn Curry Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Biljo White wrote: > "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > >>Hi: >> >>What happened before the big bang? > > > There was a nice dinner, with wine and a flambe dessert. Some Barry White on the stereo...       Date: 11 Sep 2006 21:51:13 From: Pat O'Connell Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Shawn Curry wrote: > Biljo White wrote: >> "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: >> >>>Hi: >>> >>>What happened before the big bang? >> >> >> There was a nice dinner, with wine and a flambe dessert. > > Some Barry White on the stereo... No doubt at Callahan's Crosstime Saloon. -- Pat O'Connell [note munged EMail address] Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but vandals...   Date: 11 Sep 2006 18:53:10 From: Thomas Mickle Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote in message news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Hi: > > What happened before the big bang? > Energy..lots and lots of pure essential energy.     Date: 13 Sep 2006 00:59:14 From: Wally Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Thomas Mickle wrote: > "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message > news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > Hi: > > > > What happened before the big bang? > > > > Energy..lots and lots of pure essential energy. Crystalline! Then fire air earth and water and of course, epicycles. History repeats itself.   Date: 11 Sep 2006 10:57:54 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? George Dishman wrote: > tomgee wrote: > > George Dishman wrote: > > > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > news:ee1ued$rmt$2@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > > > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:ee1nak$b57$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... > > > > > > > > > > > > So we do not know what the world was like back then > > > > > > Either way it does not seem very conducive to life > > > > > > > > > > For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang, > > > > > all the matter in the universe was in the form of > > > > > hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present > > > > > surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in > > > > > fact not even any form of solid matter. > > > > > > > SNIP > > > > > > > > Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere, > > > > along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, ... > > > > > > No, at the temperatures during that period, molecules > > > could not exist. In fact even neutral atoms could not > > > exist. There could be no biochemical processes and > > > no chemical reactions. > > > > > Therefore, aren't you saying there was no matter then? > > No, all matter was created within the first second > but it was in the form of sub-atomic particles for > the first few minutes. The elements formed over a > few hours as neutron were captured by protons but > it was then in the form of plasma at millions of > degrees, similar to the core of the Sun. The mix > was about 76% hydrogen and 24% helium with a tiny > amount of lithum. > > It was about 378,000 years later that the plasma > cooled enough for electrons to become associated > with atoms. > > The charts here show the timescale and > temperatures during nucleosynthesis: > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html > > The creation of matter is called baryogenesis but > we know very little about how that occurred. > My version of the BBT would have no Inflationary Period (I.P.) to it as it is not needed because to me, it is more reasonable to assume that all the contents of the BB had plenty of time to be spread out into the universe in as homogeneous a manner as they are today, than to believe in the I.P. concept. During the initial part of the BB, the contents of the singularity were being pushed out of it at a time when matter did not exist. Then, the process was occurring external to the time dimension, so it was happening without the passage of time. By our standards, it took at least the amount of time needed to distribute the non-matter contents homogeneously out of the 14 or so billion years of the existence of the universe. IOW, it took no time at all to do that, and so no I.P. is needed to explain how the contents of the BB were so well distributed by the time the universe cooled enough for the contents to begin to coalesce into matter particles. The same for the ultra-rare monopole, wherever the poor thing went to.... > > Incidentally I suspect the later messages from > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" may be generated > programmatically, their structure is similar to > some other AI robots that have been set up to > post here recently. > He did at first note that his English was not good, so it could just be that. If it is a bot, it's a very good one, I think.     Date: 11 Sep 2006 21:58:00 From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mr English! English!?... Does it belongs to your mother, whether, what about yours, or you do a just see an Arab, with an extremelly great visions than ever you could get in your existence, no matter what you would try, because, it is a very simple, Arabs, they have had learned you everything, and shows to all of you, what the life is all about, no matter the way, you are a definitely trying to turn the human minds, along your stupidity. However, do you see, in the meantime, how and the way, that the things are so simple, to skip any psychological problem!? -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Think About That! "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1157997474.224477.171050@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: > > tomgee wrote: > > > George Dishman wrote: > > > > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > > news:ee1ued$rmt$2@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > > > > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message > > > > > > news:ee1nak$b57$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So we do not know what the world was like back then > > > > > > > Either way it does not seem very conducive to life > > > > > > > > > > > > For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang, > > > > > > all the matter in the universe was in the form of > > > > > > hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present > > > > > > surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in > > > > > > fact not even any form of solid matter. > > > > > > > > > SNIP > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere, > > > > > along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, ... > > > > > > > > No, at the temperatures during that period, molecules > > > > could not exist. In fact even neutral atoms could not > > > > exist. There could be no biochemical processes and > > > > no chemical reactions. > > > > > > > Therefore, aren't you saying there was no matter then? > > > > No, all matter was created within the first second > > but it was in the form of sub-atomic particles for > > the first few minutes. The elements formed over a > > few hours as neutron were captured by protons but > > it was then in the form of plasma at millions of > > degrees, similar to the core of the Sun. The mix > > was about 76% hydrogen and 24% helium with a tiny > > amount of lithum. > > > > It was about 378,000 years later that the plasma > > cooled enough for electrons to become associated > > with atoms. > > > > The charts here show the timescale and > > temperatures during nucleosynthesis: > > > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html > > > > The creation of matter is called baryogenesis but > > we know very little about how that occurred. > > > My version of the BBT would have no Inflationary > Period (I.P.) to it as it is not needed because to me, it is > more reasonable to assume that all the contents of the > BB had plenty of time to be spread out into the universe > in as homogeneous a manner as they are today, than to > believe in the I.P. concept. > > During the initial part of the BB, the contents of the > singularity were being pushed out of it at a time when > matter did not exist. Then, the process was occurring > external to the time dimension, so it was happening > without the passage of time. By our standards, it took > at least the amount of time needed to distribute the > non-matter contents homogeneously out of the 14 or > so billion years of the existence of the universe. > > IOW, it took no time at all to do that, and so no I.P. is > needed to explain how the contents of the BB were so > well distributed by the time the universe cooled enough > for the contents to begin to coalesce into matter > particles. The same for the ultra-rare monopole, > wherever the poor thing went to.... > > > > Incidentally I suspect the later messages from > > "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" may be generated > > programmatically, their structure is similar to > > some other AI robots that have been set up to > > post here recently. > > > He did at first note that his English was not good, so it > could just be that. If it is a bot, it's a very good one, I > think. >       Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:46:55 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com > wrote in message news:ee4bms$lst$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi... > Mr English! > > English!?... Does it belongs to your mother, whether, what about yours, > or > you do a just see an Arab, ... Whether you are an Arab or not is not of the slightest concern to me, if you are curious about astronomy or cosmology then we share that interest and I will be _delighted_ to discuss those subjects with you. > ... with an extremelly great visions than ever you > could get in your existence, no matter what you would try, because, it is > a > very simple, Arabs, they have had learned you everything, and shows to all > of you, what the life is all about, no matter the way, you are a > definitely > trying to turn the human minds, along your stupidity. > > However, do you see, in the meantime, how and the way, that the things are > so simple, to skip any psychological problem!? If you want to discuss astronomy, cosmology or nucleogenesis (or abiogenesis as it is relevant to this thread) then I will be happy to do so. As it is there is nothing on any of those topics or anything else of relevance to this astronomy group in what you have written above. George   Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:45:09 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mark Earnest wrote: > "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:2ifbg2pn2gha6jb0ob7d80cd0ta6ue83nk@4ax.com... > > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:24:46 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > > Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>> Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of > >>> our universe, > >> > >>It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe! > > > > Er, no. > > > > > >> and it began when the universe began, so the concept of > >>> "before" isn't easily defined. > >> > >>Totally warped thinking, to think time did not exist until the Big Bang. > >>There was a bang, wasn't there? > >>What set off the bang! > >>Something in time. > > > > You probably want to read up on what the big bang actually would have > > been. > > No, I run mostly counter to scientific views. > Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after landing > a man on the Moon. We should have long ago started traveling to the stars > and beyond. You are certainly welcome to work toward that solution. Along the way, you will encounter the logistical problem (which I'm sure you can solve) of just carrying enough fuel to get to the nearest planet (Mars) rather than the Moon. The devil is in the details, and working through the details is where the work and the glory is. PD   Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:42:25 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mark Earnest wrote: > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > message news:%GqNg.2899$nL2.1584@fed1read02... > > Dear Mark Earnest: > > > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:12gc2jc9e60voef@corp.supernews.com... > >> > >> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > >> message news:Vd5Ng.2808$nL2.2441@fed1read02... > >>> Dear Mark Earnest: > >>> > >>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >>> news:12g9lnpcjvd7f67@corp.supernews.com... > >>>> > >>>> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message > >>>> news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com... > >>>>> On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>Hi: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>What happened before the big bang? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet > >>>>>>its so interesting. > >>>>> > >>>>> Something like this question may be answerable. > >>>>> Time is a property of our universe, > >>>> > >>>> It is not! Time marches on independently of the > >>>> universe! > >>> > >>> Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be > >>> a property of this Universe. > >> > >> That is like saying water is a property of what we > >> are, when we know water acts completely > >> independent of us, in the way it evaporates and condenses over our > >> oceans. > > > > No, that is like saying "can you prove this"? Otherwise you are wasting > > effort on something that cannot ever be measured. > > For a statement like "time is a property of the universe," to have any > meaning, > one must understand the universe is by definition all that exists. > Time certainly exists. > > Further, time is linear. Examine any historical timeline. > And a line has no beginning, and no end. And the Earth is flat, with no boundaries. Walk in any direction. Do you ever come to the edge? > > So time had to continue forever before the Big Bang. No. That's the whole point. Tracing back, we find that time had to have a *start*. > > > > >>>>> and it began when the universe began, so the > >>>>> concept of "before" isn't easily defined. > >>>> > >>>> Totally warped thinking, to think time did not > >>>> exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang, > >>>> wasn't there? > >>> > >>> No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried > >>> on for years. > >> > >> The running thought is that some primordial > >> atom exploded somehow, > > > > No. There was no explosion. > > What other kind of force could cause all galaxies to move away from a > central point? It must have been a superpowerful force, to motivate all > matter that exists. Only some kind of spectacular detonation seems possible > to move matter in such a forceful way. No. It was not a force. It was not an explosion. > > > > >> and became everything. All matter is hurtling from > >> one central location, proving the explosion. > > > > There is no unique "central location" in the direction we are moving > > from. There is no unique "central location anywhere we can see. > > I guess I am jumping the gun, then, if the central location hasn't yet been > discovered yet. Read again. There IS NO central location. Not just one that hasn't been found yet. There isn't one. > > > > >> What else could it be? > > > > An inflation of spacetime, from nearly nothing to where we are today. > > O.K., then maybe the universe was a cloud of vapor, that just sort of > moved out in all directions, becoming everything? No. > > That just doesn't sound possible, since we are talking about a wispy > expansion as becoming all that exists. > > >>>> What set off the bang! > >>>> Something in time. > >>> > >>> Something OF time, yes. > >> > >> In time, of time, both the same here. > > > > No. One presupposes that time is distinct from this Universe. The other > > assumes that time is a product of the Universe. > > You are saying that the universe could somehow manufacture time? Yes. The universe is much, MUCH stranger than you ever imagined. That's what makes it interesting. > > Mark   Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:38:45 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? St. John Smythe wrote: > tomgee wrote to PD wrote: > > My theory is the only one, AFAIK, > > that contends abs. space exists outside the universe. > > What is that abs. space contained in, then? > How could anyone imagine that? Wait about ten million years and we may evolve enough to imagine something like that.   Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:38:09 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mark Earnest wrote: > "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com... > > On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote: > > > >>Hi: > >> > >>What happened before the big bang? > >> > >>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > > Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of > > our universe, > > It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe! > > > > and it began when the universe began, so the concept of > > "before" isn't easily defined. > > Totally warped thinking, to think time did not exist until the Big Bang. > There was a bang, wasn't there? Actually, no. That's the problem with taking a popular term and letting it feed your concept of what it must mean. Better to find out what the concept really means and then see how the popular term came about. > What set off the bang! > Something in time. No. > > > > However, if theory and experiment > > ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the > > _cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even > > if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it. > > > > _________________________________________________ > > > > Chris L Peterson > > Cloudbait Observatory > > http://www.cloudbait.com   Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:35:02 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > PD wrote: > > tomgee wrote: > > > Chris L Peterson wrote: > > > > On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet, > > > > >unless you know about something that has been discovered as such. > > > > >> > > > > >> Everything we know about physics breaks down very close > > > > >> to the BB, including time. > > > > >> > > > > >Okay, but that is after, not before. > > > > >> > > > > >> Time is generally seen as a component of our > > > > >> universe just as the spatial dimensions are. > > > > >> > > > > >Yes, you're right. > > > > >> > > > > >> It really makes no sense to > > > > >> consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than > > > > >> it makes sense to consider space as having existed. > > > > >> > > > > >On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really > > > > >makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe. > > > > > > > > > >It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere > > > > >and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time > > > > >would exist as well. > > > > > > > > These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There > > > > is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe. > > > > > > > I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think > > > it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists > > > here, than for another universe to exist without time. > > > > > > > > Right > > > > now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time > > > > were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that > > > > indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the > > > > universe). > > > > > > > No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know > > > of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it > > > compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine > > > can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter, > > > yes, but just how do you compress space? > > > > That's precisely what the Einstein field equations tell you -- what the > > relationship is between the curvature of space and time and the mass & > > energy in that space. The two go hand in hand. The more mass and > > energy, then the more tightly curved the space is. The asymptote of > > that process is a singularity, both in terms of the density of mass and > > energy, and in terms of the curvature of spacetime. > > > You are basing your convictions on math constructs, knowing full > well math can prove anything? How dumb is that, PD? Math can't prove anything, TomGee. Prove that elephants are made of glass, using math. This math construct is tested by making unique predictions (made by no other theory) that can be compared to experimental results. When that comparison is made, it appears that nature really works the way that math construct says, and this gives us confidence to apply it further. > > > > > And how much > > > space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space > > > to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are > > > not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a > > > thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded > > > to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!). > > > > > > The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of > > > the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the > > > awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel. > > > > > > I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed > > > before the BB nor exists external to our universe. > > > > That's because your reading is quite limited. > > > If you have, > as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK, > that contends abs. space exists outside the universe. There's no reason for me to quote it to you. However, I'd be more than happy to provide a reading reference or five that you can look up. One of them might even be a Scientific American article from the 1950's -- your favorite. PD   Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:25:17 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Brian Tung wrote: > tomgee wrote: > > > Right > > > now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time > > > were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and t= hat > > > indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the > > > universe). > > > > > No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know > > of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it > > compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine > > can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter, > > yes, but just how do you compress space? And how much > > space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space > > to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are > > not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a > > thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded > > to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!). > > We probably cannot visualize it, but we can investigate the Big Bang > mathematically, which has the advantage of being both more precise and > less constrained by human imagination. > Brian, I appreciate your input, but I did not refer to the BB as that which we cannot imagine. I referred only to the Great Void, which is the name given to what the contents of the BB came out into. > > For instance, humans generally > cannot visualize/imagine a curved 2-manifold without it being embedded > in 3-space, but it has been known at least since the time of Poincare > (maybe a bit earlier) that there exist consistent geometries in which no > embedding is necessary. > > In other words, you might be able to (in principle) measure the angles > of a triangle on an apparently flat surface, and find that they don't > add up to 180 degrees, thus demonstrating that the surface is curved in > a metric sense, even though there's no third dimension for it to curve > "into." > > Similarly, you can have a 4-manifold of space-time without it being > embedded in some external space. That means that one can talk about the > Big Bang without having to place it into a larger context. The Big Bang > is then essentially a boundary condition; it can be validated by seeing > if what we observe can be extrapolated back in (our thread of) time to > that boundary, without worrying about what, if anything, set up the > boundary conditions. > I do not disagree with all that. > > There are, nonetheless, some theories about broader contexts in which > our universe might be embedded. These are not really all *that* recent; > I think Andrei Linde began proposing one maybe 15 years or so ago? Such > theories make predictions about the possible ranges of physical > "constants" (put in quotes because in these theories, they have a > distribution function rather than a fixed value); if our observations > showed that the constants held values outside of the ranges permitted by > these theories, they would be falsified. Thus far, they have not been, > but that should not give us that much confidence in them, because the > ranges are not small. > I understand that, but my point was not about multiverses, but about the argument that it is more reasonable to not think about something we can never know about for sure, as opposed to thinking that if our exists, why not others? > > > The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of > > the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the > > awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel. > > No. They are questioned, but the questions are posed mathematically, > so that they aren't hazy by virtue of the ambiguous English (or any > other human) language. > But language cannot be avoided anymore than math can be avoided. The belief that math is more precise than prose speaks to the limitations of those who use the two methods, not to the limitations of the two. Both math and language have built-in limitations of their own, and when compounded by human failing, the results cannot be guaranteed. If, as you say, the questions are asked mathematically, the answers shown by current ideas like, "don't bother with what was before the BB because we can never know", shows the limitations of learning imposed on students. Language cannot be faulted anymore than math, as they are the tools we use for learning, and even if they were perfect, humans are not. Given that they are not perfect, and neither are we, it's a wonder we ever learn anything, but we do. > > Some of your questions are, as I have noted, not > strictly required by a theory of the Big Bang proper. > I would have appreciated your pointing those out to me, because if I am wrong about something, I need to know about it. Bear in mind, however, that you assumed above that I was referring to something I was not, as I pointed out, and some of those that you refer to may not be required simply because I did not mean them to be so. > > > I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed > > before the BB nor exists external to our universe. If you have, > > as you so claim, quote it for us. > > It is not that they explicitly claim that space didn't exist before the > Big Bang, or that it doesn't exist external to our universe, or both. > More accurately, the conventional theories are silent on that matter. > Yes, I agree. I say those things in that way to try to get someone to tell me about some that do, if they exist. In that way, I can review the ideas in comparison to mine and determine if I am wrong or if I need more research on a particular subject. It is a relief to hear they are silent about that. I think Hawking gave me the term "Great Void" in one of his arguments, but I may have gotten it from elsewhere. > > They do not *require* space or time to exist outside our universe, but > they do not preclude it, either. It is not their primary concern; they > are concerned more with how space and time evolve, and with pushing the > boundary of our understanding back toward the Big Bang. > Yes, I agree, that is why I felt I had to argue about that with our learned physicist from Cloudbait who is pushing the conformist view. > > > My theory is the only one, AFAIK, > > that contends abs. space exists outside the universe. > > Properly speaking, you have an idea, not a theory. > Again, I agree. I have a number of ideas, however, which are directly related in sequence or by consequence, all which may be grounded in Theoretical Physics except that I have avoided use of all math. I have an essay that started with reasonable explanations about time, which led to more ideas about space, and then to explanations about other phenomena including the dual nature of light. What I am discussing here is only a small part of it. > > It is not unique; > consider Linde's chaotic inflationary theory. There is also an > oscillating theory that has some problems with it. Nonetheless, the > theory exists. > I am not familiar with those, but how are they theories while my idea is not? And Gamow's students' I.P. idea is also not a theory, but only a concept. More importantly, why is my idea that replaces the others not a unique one, if there is no other like it? > > Note also that we can *say* the oscillating theory has some problems > with it. That means that it makes predictions that can be falsified by > observations. > No, you are extending the specific meaning of theory falsifiability. All theories follow the scientific method to explain phenomena. By definition, they present ideas from which statements are deduced and tested by observation. Their predictions can be confirmed or not confirmed, but it is the ideas that are tested by various methods: "Methods of testing (falsifying) hypotheses include Dialectic, Logic, Probability, and Statistics." Microsoft =AE Encarta =AE Reference Library 2005. =A9 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. > > That makes it different from nearly all ideas posed by > amateur cosmologists. > I must disagree. > > Common sense is a reasonable way to arrive at > hypotheses, but it is not useful for divining what is actually so. > I agree. > > If > it were, we would never have accepted quantum mechanics. Anyone who > says that QM makes intuitive sense doesn't know enough about it. But QM > tells us that observations based on a given set of initial conditions > will have a predictable probability distribution, and when we make those > observations, lo and behold, the results fit that distribution. That is > why we have confidence in QM, despite its counter-intuitiveness. That > predictive power is what is required of any scientific hypothesis, and > the various "multiversal" theories have some of that, albeit weakly thus > far. > I agree that "predictive power" is an easy to confirm or not confirm a theory's value to science, but I have also agreed that mine is not a theory with predictions other than that current explanations of certain phenomena are of much less value to us than are those my ideas provide for the particular phenomena to which they refer. It seems to me that there needs to be a niche in physics where all such explanations can be tested and ranked in order of the best acceptable explanations. The Naked Emperor fairytale explans what I mean by that: The state of affairs in the tale were such that the fraud perpetrated onto the common folk by the emperor and his henchmen could not be publicly decried for fear of punishment, and it took a naive child to expose it. My essay identifies several cases where I find the explanations from physicists distressing, in that they show a lack of objectivity, common sense, and logic. and for which my essay offers alternative explanations. My explanations are incorporated in my posts here, but they seem to be only fodder for flamers who refuse to listen to new ideas. I can only hope they are not truly representative of the state of the science today. > > -- > Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu> > The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ > Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ > The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ > My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html     Date: 12 Sep 2006 12:38:45 From: Brian Tung Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > Brian, I appreciate your input, but I did not refer to the BB as that > which we cannot imagine. I referred only to the Great Void, which > is the name given to what the contents of the BB came out into. It doesn't need to come out into anything. That's why the fact that Big Bang theories don't generally address anything like your Great Void isn't a liability. The theories are still self-consistent. Still, some of the broader theories do address it, and make some predictions about the universe(s) that result. > I understand that, but my point was not about multiverses, but about > the argument that it is more reasonable to not think about something > we can never know about for sure, as opposed to thinking that if our > exists, why not others? I don't see how you can be sure that we can never know about anything. Auguste Comte thought we would never know anything about what the stars were made of, and he was proved wrong two years after his death. So I think it's worthwhile thinking about these things, and seeing if there is in fact a way to observe some of the effects, even now, 14 billion years after the Big Bang. > But language cannot be avoided anymore than math can be > avoided. The belief that math is more precise than prose > speaks to the limitations of those who use the two methods, > not to the limitations of the two. Both math and language have > built-in limitations of their own, and when compounded by human > failing, the results cannot be guaranteed. Saying that both English and mathematics are limited (which I agree with) doesn't mean that they're both *equally* limited (which I don't). There's a reason why theories are formulated in mathematics whenever possible. It allows us to make specific predictions, which can then be observed to hold or to be invalidated. One can do that with English, of course, but such formulations are much longer, and end up being essentially translations of the mathematics into English, rather than some new perspective. Moreover, one can assign conventional meanings to specific mathematical symbols, which one can't do reliably with English. The ambiguity of language makes it harder to discuss things without concerns of unspoken subjective impressions leaking in. That is why I don't find hardly any amateur cosmologist ideas compelling in the least. They aren't precise enough to be convincing. If I can't show one to be wrong--if they can't point out a plausible observation that would compel them to give their idea up--then I'll never be able to have confidence that it's right. It's hardly surprising that you disagree; I find that most amateur cosmologists don't like the role of falsifiability in scientific work. But in the end, it really doesn't matter if they don't like it. -- Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu > The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html       Date: 13 Sep 2006 00:46:36 From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? However, along an infinite amount of a time, certainly or a several billions of a years ago, some thing more clear has had became already to appear, especially, wherever the seas started to appear. Therefore, already a kind of a visible structures began to appear, whether, they passed through their a chemical usual routines, a cyanobacteria become very clearely to manifest as along that manifestation which it has had makes to appear, an extremelly micro particles of a kind of a dust and also the sand, which they has had been made to bound together, to form a clearly a strange but a solid structures called the stromatolites. However, those stromatolites came along a various shapes ans sizes, whether, sometimes, they do sarted to appear so enormous kind of a vegetation, and sometimes, like an other kind of a mattresses, whether also, sometimes, they came also as a miltitude of a forms like a columns, rising above the surfaces of the water, sometimes very higher. However, along all their manifestations, they was a definitely an extreme kind of a living rocks, whether, this it has had represented the start of the so called world, along all kind of a micro organisms, along which the nature has had started to born, and this is what is all about, a definitely as a matter a fact. -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards!   Date: 12 Sep 2006 21:34:10 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mark Earnest wrote: > "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:e3deg2tktqegoqtlkulj657gv49tue272v@4ax.com... > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:18:58 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > > Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after landing > >>a man on the Moon. > > > > No, that would be money and politics. The US alone spends roughly 300x > > more on war than on space, and whereas the defense budget grew by 35% > > since 2001 the space budget has been cut. Attack the right people > > please. > > No, it is scientists that are keeping us in Earth orbit. They tell us it > would take many generations to reach a nearby star, and we blindly believe > it. > > Actually, with current technology...we could get to the nearest star in > about 4 weeks. Ah... (Do you hear the cry of a loon?) And do you have a calculation for this, or is it something you read in Weekly World News? We can't even get to Jupiter in four weeks with current technology. > > The Space Shuttle could get there if you souped up its engines, in about 4 > weeks. It just could not land, unless the Centaurians allowed it to land on > one of its desert landing strips. > > > > > > (figures from NASA's budget request to congress, and the White House's > > website, both docs freely available on the 'net, 1.6Bn and 401Bn > > respectively so if you don't like em, blow the prez not me). > > > >>We should have long ago started traveling to the stars > >>and beyond. > > > > I agree. if you have a spare trillion dollars, sign me up. > > It would not take trillions of dollars. Just a little ingenuity. > > And you could go. Space travel is really very simple. > A lot simple than our scientists like to make us think. And I gather you have a scheme. PD   Date: 12 Sep 2006 18:39:45 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Brian Tung wrote: > Sco wrote: > > From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there was > > energy. > > Somewhat counter-intuitively, energy is not well-defined for space-times > that aren't asymptotically flat--a condition not satisfied by the Big > Bang. Therefore, conservation of energy cannot be applied consistently > to the Big Bang. > My model has the BB contents as negative mass, therefore the problem of energy conservation is resolved, except perhaps in the actual cause of the BB explosion, which must have had the energy to eject the neg. mass, unless it was a case of magnetic repulsion, which could be the key to how dark matter acts on the galaxies. If it was a case of magnetic repulsion, there may not have been an actual explosion, just a sudden transformation of charge states without the BB boom. If matter was being compressed in a singularity, how would it react to such compression? Why should it come out as an undefined "primordial soup" having no real matter (RM) in it? If neg. mass was being compressed to such an extent, would it not also give the same result, a transformation of some sort? How was dark matter (DM) created, and why? Some say the relatively small amount of DM has a mysterious "antigravity force" to it that, combined with DM, adds up to more than 90 percent of the matter in the universe. Others define such a force as DM energy that imposes a gravitational force on galaxies, causing them to behave in ways that are counterintuitive. No one, AFAIK, has elaborated on the processes required for such explanations, so we're mostly in the dark for now. My model proposes that the contents of the BB were the DM we don't see today. The first obstacle to that idea is the cbr. How could DM leave such radiation if DM is neg. mass and thus has no energy to it? My model has an answer to that: Real matter, i.e., matter having positive mass, was created from interactions of the energy from the BB, from the energy of impetus from the BB, or from both. It is the energy from that RM that constitutes the cbr, shown by the varying densities of DM in different areas. The second obstacle is in the heat produced by the BB. If the BB occurred from magnetic energy repulsion, that would mean RM existed then and came out of the BB along with DM. Since the amount that came out was very little in comparison, there would have been relatively little heat production in the process, I would guess. That means the matter particles that formed the elements could have come out at the BB instead of having formed later. Again, no I.P. would be needed then. The biggest obstacle, however, is in the cause of the compression process. As I've asked before, what would cause a universe-wide compression of RM and/or DM? If the U. does roll back on itself eventually, that could explain some of what came "before".     Date: 13 Sep 2006 04:14:28 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 12 Sep 2006 18:39:45 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com > wrote: >My model... In order to be acceptable, your model needs to come with the following information: -What observations support it? -What predictions does it make that we could observe, and how would we go about those observations? -What could we observe that would prove your model wrong? Without those (at the very least), your theory isn't worth the time to read, because it is unscientific. But maybe philosophers would be interested- they have different standards in such matters. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com   Date: 12 Sep 2006 15:14:34 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > PD wrote: > > tomgee wrote: > > > PD wrote: > > > > tomgee wrote: > > > > > Chris L Peterson wrote: > > > > > > On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet, > > > > > > >unless you know about something that has been discovered as such. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Everything we know about physics breaks down very close > > > > > > >> to the BB, including time. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >Okay, but that is after, not before. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Time is generally seen as a component of our > > > > > > >> universe just as the spatial dimensions are. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >Yes, you're right. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> It really makes no sense to > > > > > > >> consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than > > > > > > >> it makes sense to consider space as having existed. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really > > > > > > >makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere > > > > > > >and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time > > > > > > >would exist as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There > > > > > > is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think > > > > > it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists > > > > > here, than for another universe to exist without time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Right > > > > > > now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time > > > > > > were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that > > > > > > indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the > > > > > > universe). > > > > > > > > > > > No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know > > > > > of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it > > > > > compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine > > > > > can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter, > > > > > yes, but just how do you compress space? > > > > > > > > That's precisely what the Einstein field equations tell you -- what the > > > > relationship is between the curvature of space and time and the mass & > > > > energy in that space. The two go hand in hand. The more mass and > > > > energy, then the more tightly curved the space is. The asymptote of > > > > that process is a singularity, both in terms of the density of mass and > > > > energy, and in terms of the curvature of spacetime. > > > > > > > You are basing your convictions on math constructs, knowing full > > > well math can prove anything? How dumb is that, PD? > > > > Math can't prove anything, TomGee. Prove that elephants are made of > > glass, using math. > > > Elephants made of glass are not anything, since there are millions > in warehouses and gift stores. Math can prove anything such as a > static universe, and that is something. Really? Prove a static universe with math, TomGee. Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? > You missed the whole point, > PD, on purpose, or from ignorance, or miscomprehension? Are > you therefore claiming math is not limited wrt reality? We've gone > over this before, and you had no comeback for that before, so you > lost that argument. Are you now resurrecting it in the hope that you > can be found to have been correct all along, or are you just too hard- > headed to face simple facts? > > > > This math construct is tested by making unique predictions (made by no > > other theory) that can be compared to experimental results. When that > > comparison is made, it appears that nature really works the way that > > math construct says, and this gives us confidence to apply it further. > > > If you refer to his field equations, I am not questioning their > validity > as a math construct. You seem to think that "math construct" is a > bad word, but it isn't. They are equations and calculations that are > helpful tools for us. So much so that some users come to believe > they represent reality. If that were so, we would have little need for > discourse and debate. Actually, discourse and debate has little role in matters like this, TomGee. Confrontation with experiment is valuable. Debate and discourse is remarkably cheap, which is why you like to indulge in it. If you wanted a debate club, why do you post here? > > However, math does not offer explanations for its results, it leaves > that up to us to make. We apply them to reality, and therein is where > we often err. When put upon to better explain our conclusions, we > more often than not fall back on the ol' saying "figures don't lie". On the contrary, the math carries with it explanation. The math is worthless without an understanding of what the math represents, and the results of the math help make understanding concrete. It's not uncommon for those who have never understood the language of math to say that it is all gobbledygook and doesn't really mean anything, and that if you really want to say something you should say it in English. > > > > > > > > > And how much > > > > > space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space > > > > > to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are > > > > > not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a > > > > > thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded > > > > > to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!). > > > > > > > > > > The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of > > > > > the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the > > > > > awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel. > > > > > > > > > > I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed > > > > > before the BB nor exists external to our universe. > > > > > > > > That's because your reading is quite limited. > > > > > > > If you have, > > > as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK, > > > that contends abs. space exists outside the universe. > > > > There's no reason for me to quote it to you. However, I'd be more than > > happy to provide a reading reference or five that you can look up. One > > of them might even be a Scientific American article from the 1950's -- > > your favorite. > > > Yes, there is a reason. If you don't quote it, it means you're lying, plain > and simple. It won't be your first time, either, will it? You are notorious > for making wild statements that you cannot support. Don't be silly, Tom. If I don't quote it to you, it means that a) someone else has already taken great trouble to write it down and publish it in *copyrighted* form, and it would be improper to violate that copyright b) it could well take several pages of text to explain it properly, which is not an enjoyable thing to do on Usenet c) I'm not about to indulge your laziness for your convenience, even if you bait, and it's in fact better if you're encouraged to get off your fat ass and look it up. Now, I'm happy to provide you with *detailed* instructions on exactly where to look it up, but I simply refuse to go the extra step and type it all out for you here. That's not unreasonable, is it? Even for someone as profoundly lazy as you. PD   Date: 12 Sep 2006 10:54:29 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? PD wrote: > tomgee wrote: > > PD wrote: > > > tomgee wrote: > > > > Chris L Peterson wrote: > > > > > On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet, > > > > > >unless you know about something that has been discovered as such. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Everything we know about physics breaks down very close > > > > > >> to the BB, including time. > > > > > >> > > > > > >Okay, but that is after, not before. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Time is generally seen as a component of our > > > > > >> universe just as the spatial dimensions are. > > > > > >> > > > > > >Yes, you're right. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It really makes no sense to > > > > > >> consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than > > > > > >> it makes sense to consider space as having existed. > > > > > >> > > > > > >On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really > > > > > >makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe. > > > > > > > > > > > >It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere > > > > > >and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time > > > > > >would exist as well. > > > > > > > > > > These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There > > > > > is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe. > > > > > > > > > I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think > > > > it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists > > > > here, than for another universe to exist without time. > > > > > > > > > > Right > > > > > now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time > > > > > were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that > > > > > indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the > > > > > universe). > > > > > > > > > No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know > > > > of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it > > > > compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine > > > > can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter, > > > > yes, but just how do you compress space? > > > > > > That's precisely what the Einstein field equations tell you -- what the > > > relationship is between the curvature of space and time and the mass & > > > energy in that space. The two go hand in hand. The more mass and > > > energy, then the more tightly curved the space is. The asymptote of > > > that process is a singularity, both in terms of the density of mass and > > > energy, and in terms of the curvature of spacetime. > > > > > You are basing your convictions on math constructs, knowing full > > well math can prove anything? How dumb is that, PD? > > Math can't prove anything, TomGee. Prove that elephants are made of > glass, using math. > Elephants made of glass are not anything, since there are millions in warehouses and gift stores. Math can prove anything such as a static universe, and that is something. You missed the whole point, PD, on purpose, or from ignorance, or miscomprehension? Are you therefore claiming math is not limited wrt reality? We've gone over this before, and you had no comeback for that before, so you lost that argument. Are you now resurrecting it in the hope that you can be found to have been correct all along, or are you just too hard- headed to face simple facts? > > This math construct is tested by making unique predictions (made by no > other theory) that can be compared to experimental results. When that > comparison is made, it appears that nature really works the way that > math construct says, and this gives us confidence to apply it further. > If you refer to his field equations, I am not questioning their validity as a math construct. You seem to think that "math construct" is a bad word, but it isn't. They are equations and calculations that are helpful tools for us. So much so that some users come to believe they represent reality. If that were so, we would have little need for discourse and debate. However, math does not offer explanations for its results, it leaves that up to us to make. We apply them to reality, and therein is where we often err. When put upon to better explain our conclusions, we more often than not fall back on the ol' saying "figures don't lie". > > > > > > > And how much > > > > space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space > > > > to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are > > > > not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a > > > > thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded > > > > to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!). > > > > > > > > The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of > > > > the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the > > > > awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel. > > > > > > > > I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed > > > > before the BB nor exists external to our universe. > > > > > > That's because your reading is quite limited. > > > > > If you have, > > as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK, > > that contends abs. space exists outside the universe. > > There's no reason for me to quote it to you. However, I'd be more than > happy to provide a reading reference or five that you can look up. One > of them might even be a Scientific American article from the 1950's -- > your favorite. > Yes, there is a reason. If you don't quote it, it means you're lying, plain and simple. It won't be your first time, either, will it? You are notorious for making wild statements that you cannot support.   Date: 13 Sep 2006 07:43:04 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Max Keon wrote: > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:ee6rm8$vh6$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > >> news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > >>> > >>> "Uno" <Uno@max.com> wrote in message > >>> news:lz2Ng.147$GR.35@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > >>>> Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter. > >>> > >>> Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in > >>> magnitude to the total energy contained in both > >>> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic > >>> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the > >>> gravitational energy is negative, the total is > >>> zero. > > > "Bri" <Bri@Eng.com> wrote in message > > news:pWqNg.460$TV3.152@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > >> Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate the Big Bang. > > > Quite correct but it explains why there isn't a > > need for infinite energy to create the infinite > > amount of matter in the universe, the total is > > zero overall. What I say above is a prediction > > of many of the relevant competing models. > > What you are proposing is a zero origin universe that exploded with > a big bang. What I am describing is standard GR. The big bang model has no "origin" in space, only an origin in time. > Why do you think that would happen? I think it happened because we have images of the "smoke" from the bang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg > Doesn't it seem more > likely that the complete lack of interaction within the nothingness > could only begin its evolution over a virtual eternity? Why a massive > explosion? It wasn't an explosion. I suggest you read Ned Wright's excellent tutorial: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm > And when the big bang began, why on earth did it stop banging? After > all, infinity is boundless, and 13 billion light years is a long way > short of infinity, isn't it. The "bang" happened everywhere and the term is used in the sense of an eveent, not something with a duration. Think of the term as meaning "the start of time" and you will understand better, though that may not be strictly accurate. > Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began > to emerge from the nothingness, ... Then there was no "nothingness" from which it could emerge. > ... over an eternity. Relativity was > born, and a point could then be identified anywhere in an endless > dimension. But there was certainly no bang. Have you heard the term "smoking gun"? Where did this smoke come from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg George     Date: 14 Sep 2006 19:23:00 From: Sco Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:1158158584.679186.45170@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > Max Keon wrote: >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:ee6rm8$vh6$1@news.freedom2surf.net... >> >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net... >> >>> >> >>> "Uno" <Uno@max.com> wrote in message >> >>> news:lz2Ng.147$GR.35@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> >>>> Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter. >> >>> >> >>> Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in >> >>> magnitude to the total energy contained in both >> >>> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic >> >>> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the >> >>> gravitational energy is negative, the total is >> >>> zero. >> >> > "Bri" <Bri@Eng.com> wrote in message >> > news:pWqNg.460$TV3.152@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... >> >> Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate the Big >> >> Bang. >> >> > Quite correct but it explains why there isn't a >> > need for infinite energy to create the infinite >> > amount of matter in the universe, the total is >> > zero overall. What I say above is a prediction >> > of many of the relevant competing models. >> >> What you are proposing is a zero origin universe that exploded with >> a big bang. > > What I am describing is standard GR. The big > bang model has no "origin" in space, only an > origin in time. Time has no origination and termination. It is only a relative of a dimension. The model to have origination and termination of time is a mistake. > >> Why do you think that would happen? > > I think it happened because we have images of > the "smoke" from the bang: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg > > >> Doesn't it seem more >> likely that the complete lack of interaction within the nothingness >> could only begin its evolution over a virtual eternity? Why a massive >> explosion? > > It wasn't an explosion. I suggest you read Ned > Wright's excellent tutorial: > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm > >> And when the big bang began, why on earth did it stop banging? After >> all, infinity is boundless, and 13 billion light years is a long way >> short of infinity, isn't it. > > The "bang" happened everywhere and the term is > used in the sense of an eveent, not something with > a duration. Think of the term as meaning "the start > of time" and you will understand better, though that > may not be strictly accurate. > >> Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began >> to emerge from the nothingness, ... > > Then there was no "nothingness" from which it > could emerge. > >> ... over an eternity. Relativity was >> born, and a point could then be identified anywhere in an endless >> dimension. But there was certainly no bang. > > Have you heard the term "smoking gun"? Where > did this smoke come from: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg > > George >     Date: 15 Sep 2006 19:28:03 From: Max Keon Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:1158158584.679186.45170@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Max Keon wrote: >> George Dishman wrote: >>>> George Dishman wrote: >>>>> Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in >>>>> magnitude to the total energy contained in both >>>>> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic >>>>> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the >>>>> gravitational energy is negative, the total is >>>>> zero. >>> >>> "Bri" <Bri@Eng.com> wrote in message >>> news:pWqNg.460$TV3.152@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... >>>> Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate >>>> the Big Bang. >>> >>> Quite correct but it explains why there isn't a >>> need for infinite energy to create the infinite >>> amount of matter in the universe, the total is >>> zero overall. What I say above is a prediction >>> of many of the relevant competing models. >> >> What you are proposing is a zero origin universe that exploded with >> a big bang. > What I am describing is standard GR. The big > bang model has no "origin" in space, only an > origin in time. >> Why do you think that would happen? > I think it happened because we have images of > the "smoke" from the bang: I assume you are describing the CMBR/anisotropy? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg >> Doesn't it seem more >> likely that the complete lack of interaction within the nothingness >> could only begin its evolution over a virtual eternity? Why a massive >> explosion? > It wasn't an explosion. I suggest you read Ned > Wright's excellent tutorial: Can't you just briefly describe this new development, this non bang. Replying to some obscure comment found on a web page isn't much use. > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm >> And when the big bang began, why on earth did it stop banging? After >> all, infinity is boundless, and 13 billion light years is a long way >> short of infinity, isn't it. > The "bang" happened everywhere and the term is > used in the sense of an eveent, not something with > a duration. Think of the term as meaning "the start > of time" and you will understand better, though that > may not be strictly accurate. The zero origin universe opened up everywhere to infinity at the dawn of time too, but there was certainly no immediate emergence of an infinite universe filled with matter, as you are suggesting. The pair of infinitesimally minute opposing forces that started it all off had direction and time-distance between them. Every direction then extended to infinity according to them. I am curious to know how your matter filled dimension could appear everywhere at the same instant, and then proceed to expand from there? And why did it need to expand anyway when it was already expanded as far as it could possibly need to go? But what has happened to the "bang" ? >> Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began >> to emerge from the nothingness, ... > Then there was no "nothingness" from which it > could emerge. It's the same nothingness that you are attempting to describe, no time, no dimension. But without the slightest inference of matter and anti-matter held in limbo, in a "state" of non dimension. Truly nothing. >> ... over an eternity. Relativity was >> born, and a point could then be identified anywhere in an endless >> dimension. But there was certainly no bang. > Have you heard the term "smoking gun"? Where > did this smoke come from: http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/cmbr.html is where it came from. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg ----- Max Keon       Date: 15 Sep 2006 14:40:45 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au > wrote in message news:450a7225$0$27204$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:1158158584.679186.45170@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> Max Keon wrote: >>> George Dishman wrote: >>>>> George Dishman wrote: >>>>>> Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in <snip, re 'big bang': > >>> Why do you think that would happen? > >> I think it happened because we have images of >> the "smoke" from the bang: > > I assume you are describing the CMBR/anisotropy? > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg Indeed. >>> Doesn't it seem more >>> likely that the complete lack of interaction within the nothingness >>> could only begin its evolution over a virtual eternity? Why a massive >>> explosion? > >> It wasn't an explosion. I suggest you read Ned >> Wright's excellent tutorial: > > Can't you just briefly describe this new development, this non bang. What I described is the absolutely standard big bang model and always has been. > Replying to some obscure comment found on a web page isn't much use. > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm It is a four page tutorial on the standard big bang model. Ned Wright was involved with the COBE mission and is a lecturer on cosmology. Since it appears from your comments above that you have some serious misunderstandings regarding the conventional view, it would avoid wasting time talking at cross purposes if you were aware of what it says. You will see that my description is quite ordinary. >>> And when the big bang began, why on earth did it stop banging? After >>> all, infinity is boundless, and 13 billion light years is a long way >>> short of infinity, isn't it. > >> The "bang" happened everywhere and the term is >> used in the sense of an eveent, not something with >> a duration. Think of the term as meaning "the start >> of time" and you will understand better, though that >> may not be strictly accurate. > > The zero origin universe opened up everywhere to infinity at the > dawn of time too, but there was certainly no immediate emergence > of an infinite universe filled with matter, as you are suggesting. > The pair of infinitesimally minute opposing forces that started > it all off had direction and time-distance between them. Every > direction then extended to infinity according to them. Force is defined as rate of change of momentum so without matter or at leas photons there can be no forces. I thought your void was empty? > I am curious to know how your matter filled dimension could appear > everywhere at the same instant, .. Nobody knows. That's where GR reaches its limit. When it becomes comparable to quantum effects the theories are incompatible and that's why many people have spent decades trying to figure out what happens at that level. > and then proceed to expand from > there? And why did it need to expand anyway when it was already > expanded as far as it could possibly need to go? We see it expanding but remember even when Einstein included the cosmological constant in the equations, he wasn't aware of the expansion. That came later and was confirmed by Hubble. ".. as far as it could possibly need to go" is possibly meaningless but you can imagine it "needed" to have kinetic energy to cancel the gravitational potential and give a total of zero if it "came from nothing". That is intentionally vague. > But what has > happened to the "bang" ? The "bang" refers to the very high initial temperature and pressure which rapidly decreased as the plasma expanded. >>> Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began >>> to emerge from the nothingness, ... > >> Then there was no "nothingness" from which it >> could emerge. > > It's the same nothingness that you are attempting to describe, no > time, no dimension. But without the slightest inference of matter > and anti-matter held in limbo, in a "state" of non dimension. Truly > nothing. OK, that is basically the same as the conventional view. >>> ... over an eternity. Relativity was >>> born, and a point could then be identified anywhere in an endless >>> dimension. But there was certainly no bang. > >> Have you heard the term "smoking gun"? Where >> did this smoke come from: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg > > http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/cmbr.html > is where it came from. I'll have to read that carefully. The curves at first look don't appear to represent the intensity variation with temperature and I can't see what material you suggest emitted the radiation but I may have missed it in a first cursory glance. George         Date: 16 Sep 2006 12:13:01 From: Max Keon Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:eee9m4$oss$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > "Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:450a7225$0$27204$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... >> George Dishman wrote: >>> Max Keon wrote: ------ ------ >>>> And when the big bang began, why on earth did it stop banging? After >>>> all, infinity is boundless, and 13 billion light years is a long way >>>> short of infinity, isn't it. >>> >>> The "bang" happened everywhere and the term is >>> used in the sense of an eveent, not something with >>> a duration. Think of the term as meaning "the start >>> of time" and you will understand better, though that >>> may not be strictly accurate. >> >> The zero origin universe opened up everywhere to infinity at the >> dawn of time too, but there was certainly no immediate emergence >> of an infinite universe filled with matter, as you are suggesting. >> The pair of infinitesimally minute opposing forces that started >> it all off had direction and time-distance between them. Every >> direction then extended to infinity according to them. > Force is defined as rate of change of momentum > so without matter or at leas photons there can > be no forces. I thought your void was empty? There was no void. It only came into being when the relationship between the two infinitesimally minute opposing forces first came into being. The relationship between the two made everywhere to infinity relative to them. The void would again cease to exist if the association between the pair was separated to inifinty. From infinite separation is where it all began. Infinite congestion is where it's heading. And before you jump to conclusions, remember that this has bugger all to do with the universe you think you live in. It applies in the zero origin universe only. The real universe. >> I am curious to know how your matter filled dimension could appear >> everywhere at the same instant, .. > Nobody knows. That's where GR reaches its limit. > When it becomes comparable to quantum effects > the theories are incompatible and that's why > many people have spent decades trying to figure > out what happens at that level. Then the big bang theory has no basis whatever! ------ ------ >>>> Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began >>>> to emerge from the nothingness, ... >>> >>> Then there was no "nothingness" from which it >>> could emerge. >> >> It's the same nothingness that you are attempting to describe, no >> time, no dimension. But without the slightest inference of matter >> and anti-matter held in limbo, in a "state" of non dimension. Truly >> nothing. > OK, that is basically the same as the conventional > view. >>>> ... over an eternity. Relativity was >>>> born, and a point could then be identified anywhere in an endless >>>> dimension. But there was certainly no bang. >>> >>> Have you heard the term "smoking gun"? Where >>> did this smoke come from: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg >> >> http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/cmbr.html >> is where it came from. > I'll have to read that carefully. The curves at > first look don't appear to represent the intensity > variation with temperature and I can't see what > material you suggest emitted the radiation but I > may have missed it in a first cursory glance. It all started right from the very first interaction between the original pair. You will notice that I've gone to some lengths to justify the graph comparisons that I've made. I trust that you will agree with my reasoning? ----- Max Keon           Date: 16 Sep 2006 06:39:20 From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings. -- William Blake -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards!   Date: 13 Sep 2006 07:31:56 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? devianju@gmail.com wrote: <snip > > The interconversion of mass to energy initiated in 29 Sep 1905 paper. It is better understood as indicating that mass is a form of energy. > Can you let me know when eqaution > E2 = m02c4 +p2c2 > was derived ? > In whcih journal it was published or proceeding it was published? Not offhand. You would need to look that up. > Under what conditions E2 = m02c4 +p2c2 ? It appies always and can be taken as a definition of mass based on energy and momentum. > In my opinion these aspects must be known before it is interpretted. IMO, interpretation is less important than knowing what tests have confirmed the validity of the equation. In other words, as long as you know when it will give accurate results and how to apply it, you don't need to understand why it works. Other than in the field of quantum mechanics where I understand particles can behave as if they temporarily had a different mass ("off-shell"), the equation is valid for all particles at all speeds including zero-mass particles (photons). The equation E = m c^2 _definitely_ doesn't apply to such particles since it would say photons have zero energy which is known to be wrong. George   Date: 13 Sep 2006 06:33:00 From: Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? George Dishman wrote: > physics.einstein@gmail.com wrote: > > George Dishman wrote: > > > physicsajay wrote: > ... > > > > > > > > ============Devianju responds=============== > > > > E=mc2 has been extended to dE=Ac2dm by Ajay Sharma. > > > > > > "Devianju" should note that his reply is unrelated > > > to the topic being discussed. > > > > > > > He assumes that universe started its life from ZEROANS i.e. particles > > > > of ZERO masses . At that energy emitted was not consistent with E=mc2. > > > > > > Well obviously. The correct general equation is: > > > > > > E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 > > > > > > which simplifies to > > > > > > E = m c^2 > > > > > > but only for particles with non-zero mas that are > > > at rest. For example photons have zero mass but > > > non-zero energy. > > > > > > Ajay Sharma should do a little studying first: > > > > > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html > > > > ========Ajay Sharma responds to Geroge===== > > > > The origin of E=mc2 is L=mc2 derived by Einstein in 1905. > > The eqaution, > > E2 = m02c4 +p2c2 > > was derived very late. > > When something was derived is not relevant, that > is the full correct relativistic equation. The simpler > version, E = m c^2, is of course still valid, but it was > always limited to particles at rest with m>0. > > > GEORGE NOTE . YOU NEED TO STUDY. > > You were unaware that you were trying to use an > equation which is not valid for your particles of > zero mass so it is you who should be studying. > > You should also learn calculus and then integrate > dE=Ac2dm with respect to m and see what you get. > > George =========Ajay Sharma responds to Geroge======== The interconversion of mass to energy initiated in 29 Sep 1905 paper. Can you let me know when eqaution E2 = m02c4 +p2c2 was derived ? In whcih journal it was published or proceeding it was published? Under what conditions E2 = m02c4 +p2c2 ? In my opinion these aspects must be known before it is interpretted. AJAY SHARMA   Date: 13 Sep 2006 06:24:10 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? physics.einstein@gmail.com wrote: > George Dishman wrote: > > physicsajay wrote: ... > > > > > > ============Devianju responds=============== > > > E=mc2 has been extended to dE=Ac2dm by Ajay Sharma. > > > > "Devianju" should note that his reply is unrelated > > to the topic being discussed. > > > > > He assumes that universe started its life from ZEROANS i.e. particles > > > of ZERO masses . At that energy emitted was not consistent with E=mc2. > > > > Well obviously. The correct general equation is: > > > > E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 > > > > which simplifies to > > > > E = m c^2 > > > > but only for particles with non-zero mas that are > > at rest. For example photons have zero mass but > > non-zero energy. > > > > Ajay Sharma should do a little studying first: > > > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html > > ========Ajay Sharma responds to Geroge===== > > The origin of E=mc2 is L=mc2 derived by Einstein in 1905. > The eqaution, > E2 = m02c4 +p2c2 > was derived very late. When something was derived is not relevant, that is the full correct relativistic equation. The simpler version, E = m c^2, is of course still valid, but it was always limited to particles at rest with m >0. > GEORGE NOTE . YOU NEED TO STUDY. You were unaware that you were trying to use an equation which is not valid for your particles of zero mass so it is you who should be studying. You should also learn calculus and then integrate dE=Ac2dm with respect to m and see what you get. George     Date: 16 Sep 2006 19:39:08 From: G. L. Bradford Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? What is the difference between a beginning and a constant? An end and a constant? A beginning and an end? "The only constant is change," meaning "nothing really changes." And recession, including acceleration of recession, cannot in pure fact be confined by cosmological physicists to just one definition and dimensionality. For example, the expanse of the world, or the Universe, will geometrically increase out from any point. It does not have to be expansionism as solely defined by cosmological physicists. Contraction of a specific object, the lesser picture, in such a relative vacuum as distance from any point will geometrically increase in contraction with all geometric increase in expanse of the greater picture, the two opposed exactly equally but oppositely. Magnifying or expanding the object in view reduces or contracts the expanse in view. The bigger you make the object in view, the smaller you make the universe in the same view. Cosmologists have deliberately chosen a different interpretation of observation for very human philosophical and psychological reasons of their own. GLB       Date: 17 Sep 2006 00:56:20 From: Sorcerer Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com > wrote in message news:DJydnYzwaoHkFpHYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@insightbb.com...       Date: 17 Sep 2006 09:22:09 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com > wrote in message news:DJydnYzwaoHkFpHYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@insightbb.com... > What is the difference between a beginning and a constant? An end and a > constant? A beginning and an end? Beginning and end are events hence of zero duration, a constnt has the same value for an extended period of time. > "The only constant is change," meaning "nothing really changes." Philosophical drivel. > And recession, including acceleration of recession, cannot in pure fact > be confined by cosmological physicists to just one definition and > dimensionality. Wrong way round, the standard definitions of recession and expansion are used by cosmologists in the usual way. George   Date: 13 Sep 2006 05:18:42 From: physics.einstein@gmail.com Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? George Dishman wrote: > physicsajay wrote: > > George Dishman wrote: > > > "Ioannis" <morpheus@olympus.mons> wrote in message > > > news:1158001258.528482@athprx04... > > > > "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message > > > > news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > > > >> Hi: > > > >> > > > >> What happened before the big bang? > > > >> > > > >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesti= ng. > > > > > > > > Troll-o-Meter: > > > > > > > > -----------------> > > > >   Date: 13 Sep 2006 03:17:54 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On 12 Sep 2006 18:39:45 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >My model... > > In order to be acceptable, your model needs to come with the following > information: > What makes you think it doesn't? > > -What observations support it? > The exact same observations that currently support certain current explanations. My model offers alternative explanations for some of those which I believe to be better explanations for the observed effects. > > -What predictions does it make that we could observe, and how would we > go about those observations? > Most generally, It predicts that several explanations for certain observed phenomena are not the only possible explanations nor the best explanations. For example: It predicts that in making time and space interdependent, AE erred. That in stating "motion is meaningful only between two bodies", he contradicted that with his premise that they are "...both flexible and dependent upon the state of motion of an observer", which shows that the motion of a single body is indeed meaningful. That time is a property of matter, and that it passes at rates inversely proportional to the state of motion of an object or system. That an ether exists, being the dark matter of today, which was yesterday Gamow's sea of invisible particles, and before that, Dirac's extraordinary negative-mass particles. That the concept of a massless photon is superflous to explain its motion at speed c. That the dual nature of light can be better explained by incorporating our observations of other phenomena consistent with that which exists today so that one leads to the other, eliminating the current patchwork of "self-consistent" theories. That there is a better explanation for the origin of the universe than the BBT, given the theory of dark matter to date, and showing that the IP is superfluous in the better explanation. > > -What could we observe that would prove your model wrong? > Simply observe the rules of logical discourse in comparing my model's explanations of phenomena to that which is in place. > > Without those (at the very least), your theory isn't worth the time to > read, because it is unscientific. But maybe philosophers would be > interested- they have different standards in such matters. > My claim is that several current explanations of observed effects are unscientific and have led physics into a fairytale realm where anything is possible as an explanation for the conclusions drawn from the observations.     Date: 13 Sep 2006 16:06:12 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 13 Sep 2006 03:17:54 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com > wrote: >> -What observations support it? >> >The exact same observations that currently support certain current >explanations. My model offers alternative explanations for some >of those which I believe to be better explanations for the observed >effects. Your model would be much stronger if it could explain some observations that well accepted theories cannot. If you depend on identical observations, you need to be prepared to demonstrate why your model is better- something that is difficult to do (and which you do not seem to have done). "Logic" is not a basis for comparison. >> -What predictions does it make that we could observe, and how would we >> go about those observations? >> >Most generally, It predicts that several explanations for certain >observed phenomena are not the only possible explanations nor >the best explanations. For example: > >It predicts that in making time and space interdependent, AE erred. That is not a prediction. Nor are the other items in your list. You need to be able to make a concrete prediction- something like: if this theory is correct, we should be able to detect a 0.1K sinusoidal variation in the CMB, and that variation should show a 5 mrad spatial frequency. That is a prediction; something testable. Without that, you don't have a theory. >> -What could we observe that would prove your model wrong? >> >Simply observe the rules of logical discourse in comparing my >model's explanations of phenomena to that which is in place. Again, you have not provided a single example of an observation that could prove your model wrong. Theories aren't evaluated against other theories, particularly not by "logical discourse". You need something concrete. Example (using the previous example): if the spatial structure of the CMB differs from 5 mrad by more than 0.5 mrad, this theory in its present form must be inaccurate. >My claim is that several current explanations of observed effects >are unscientific and have led physics into a fairytale realm where >anything is possible as an explanation for the conclusions drawn >from the observations. As long as you recognize that this is just a claim, and is not scientific. As such, you should not expect scientists to take it seriously (nor even to bother reviewing it). _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com   Date: 13 Sep 2006 03:01:33 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote: > However, along an infinite amount of a time, certainly or a several billions > of a years ago, some thing more clear has had became already to appear, > especially, wherever the seas started to appear. > > Therefore, already a kind of a visible structures began to appear, whether, > they passed through their a chemical usual routines, a cyanobacteria become > very clearely to manifest as along that manifestation which it has had makes > to appear, an extremelly micro particles of a kind of a dust and also the > sand, which they has had been made to bound together, to form a clearly a > strange but a solid structures called the stromatolites. > > However, those stromatolites came along a various shapes ans sizes, whether, > sometimes, they do sarted to appear so enormous kind of a vegetation, and > sometimes, like an other kind of a mattresses, whether also, sometimes, they > came also as a miltitude of a forms like a columns, rising above the > surfaces of the water, sometimes very higher. > > However, along all their manifestations, they was a definitely an extreme > kind of a living rocks, whether, this it has had represented the start of > the so called world, along all kind of a micro organisms, along which the > nature has had started to born, and this is what is all about, a definitely > as a matter a fact. What you describe is quite reasonable but you are talking of conditions on Earth soon after it formed about 4.54 billion years ago. My previous comments related to the conditions during the first 100,000 years or so after the big bang which was about 13.7 billion years ago, long before the Sun or Earth existed. That may explain why you disagreed with my views. George   Date: 13 Sep 2006 01:01:13 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Bri wrote: > How do you calculate amount of exposive energy to initiate A-Bomb bang? I have no idea but I suspect it would depend strongly on the design. Basic physics will give a limit for the temperature and pressure needed depending on the fissile material but achieving that depends on the construction. I am reading sci.astro but perhaps someone in sci.physics could answer that better. George   Date: 13 Sep 2006 00:57:07 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? physicsajay wrote: > George Dishman wrote: > > "Ioannis" <morpheus@olympus.mons> wrote in message > > news:1158001258.528482@athprx04... > > > "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message > > > news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > >> > > >> Hi: > > >> > > >> What happened before the big bang? > > >> > > >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > > > > Troll-o-Meter: > > > > > > -----------------> > > >   Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:16:07 From: physicsajay Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? George Dishman wrote: > "Ioannis" <morpheus@olympus.mons> wrote in message > news:1158001258.528482@athprx04... > > "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message > > news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> Hi: > >> > >> What happened before the big bang? > >> > >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > > Troll-o-Meter: > > > > -----------------> > >   Date: 13 Sep 2006 00:56:14 From: Wally Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > Brian Tung wrote: > > Sco wrote: > > > From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there was > > > energy. > > > > Somewhat counter-intuitively, energy is not well-defined for space-times > > that aren't asymptotically flat--a condition not satisfied by the Big > > Bang. Therefore, conservation of energy cannot be applied consistently > > to the Big Bang. > > > My model There it is! "My model" and that's all it is. Sorry. > has the BB contents as negative mass, therefore the > problem of energy conservation is resolved, except perhaps in > the actual cause of the BB explosion, which must have had the > energy to eject the neg. mass, unless it was a case of magnetic > repulsion, which could be the key to how dark matter acts on the > galaxies. > > If it was a case of magnetic repulsion, there may not have been > an actual explosion, just a sudden transformation of charge > states without the BB boom. If matter was being compressed in > a singularity, how would it react to such compression? Why > should it come out as an undefined "primordial soup" having no > real matter (RM) in it? If neg. mass was being compressed to > such an extent, would it not also give the same result, a > transformation of some sort? > > How was dark matter (DM) created, and why? Some say the > relatively small amount of DM has a mysterious "antigravity force" > to it that, combined with DM, adds up to more than 90 percent of > the matter in the universe. Others define such a force as DM > energy that imposes a gravitational force on galaxies, causing > them to behave in ways that are counterintuitive. No one, AFAIK, > has elaborated on the processes required for such explanations, > so we're mostly in the dark for now. > > My model proposes that the contents of the BB were the DM we > don't see today. The first obstacle to that idea is the cbr. How > could DM leave such radiation if DM is neg. mass and thus has > no energy to it? My model has an answer to that: Real matter, > i.e., matter having positive mass, was created from interactions > of the energy from the BB, from the energy of impetus from the > BB, or from both. It is the energy from that RM that constitutes > the cbr, shown by the varying densities of DM in different areas. > > The second obstacle is in the heat produced by the BB. If the > BB occurred from magnetic energy repulsion, that would mean > RM existed then and came out of the BB along with DM. Since > the amount that came out was very little in comparison, there > would have been relatively little heat production in the process, I > would guess. That means the matter particles that formed the > elements could have come out at the BB instead of having > formed later. Again, no I.P. would be needed then. > > The biggest obstacle, however, is in the cause of the > compression process. As I've asked before, what would cause > a universe-wide compression of RM and/or DM? If the U. does > roll back on itself eventually, that could explain some of what > came "before".   Date: 13 Sep 2006 20:54:34 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Chris L Peterson wrote: > On 13 Sep 2006 03:17:54 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> -What observations support it? > >> > >The exact same observations that currently support certain current > >explanations. My model offers alternative explanations for some > >of those which I believe to be better explanations for the observed > >effects. > > Your model would be much stronger if it could explain some observations > that well accepted theories cannot. If you depend on identical > observations, you need to be prepared to demonstrate why your model is > better- something that is difficult to do (and which you do not seem to > have done). > I have demonstrated precisely why my explanations are better. And yes, it was not easy to come up with better explanations. > "Logic" is not a basis for comparison. > Yes, it is indeed. Logic is one of the methods used to test for falsifiability. It is as valid and invalid as math, wrt to reality. > > >> -What predictions does it make that we could observe, and how would we > >> go about those observations? > >> > >Most generally, It predicts that several explanations for certain > >observed phenomena are not the only possible explanations nor > >the best explanations. For example: > > > >It predicts that in making time and space interdependent, AE erred. > > That is not a prediction. > Yes, it is, whether you like it or not. And so far no one has argued against it in any rational way. > > Nor are the other items in your list. You need > to be able to make a concrete prediction- something like: if this theory > is correct, we should be able to detect a 0.1K sinusoidal variation in > the CMB, and that variation should show a 5 mrad spatial frequency. That > is a prediction; something testable. Without that, you don't have a > theory. > That's what a prediction is to you, but not to me. I don't have a theory - i've already told you that. I have a model of the universe that resolves all the stupid problems created in the fantasyland of today's physics. > > >> -What could we observe that would prove your model wrong? > >> > >Simply observe the rules of logical discourse in comparing my > >model's explanations of phenomena to that which is in place. > > Again, you have not provided a single example of an observation that > could prove your model wrong. > Apparently you have no clue how logical discourse works. > > Theories aren't evaluated against other > theories, particularly not by "logical discourse". > Apparently you don't know the difference between "theory" and explanations. > > You need something > concrete. > My ideas are that; yours are party line parrot talk. > > Example (using the previous example): if the spatial structure > of the CMB differs from 5 mrad by more than 0.5 mrad, this theory in its > present form must be inaccurate. > That only shows you give credence to math over logic. > > >My claim is that several current explanations of observed effects > >are unscientific and have led physics into a fairytale realm where > >anything is possible as an explanation for the conclusions drawn > >from the observations. > > As long as you recognize that this is just a claim, and is not > scientific. As such, you should not expect scientists to take it > seriously (nor even to bother reviewing it). > Apparently you don't know what scientific is.   Date: 14 Sep 2006 08:25:25 From: Double-A Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mark Earnest wrote: > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... > > Dear Mark Earnest: > > > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... > >> > >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... > >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to > >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. > >>> > >>> okay, you're officially a kook.... > >> > >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth > >> orbit for 37 years. > > > > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no > > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any > > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has > > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. > > > > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. > > All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of > objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. > > The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter > that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. > > It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so > will > a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes > fast enough. > > And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. Not until Zefram Cochrane pefects his warp-drive engine. Double-A   Date: 14 Sep 2006 06:50:26 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mark Earnest wrote: > "Art Deco" <erfc@netcabal.com> wrote in message > news:130920062146230863%erfc@netcabal.com... > > Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > >>message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... > >>> Dear Mark Earnest: > >>> > >>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >>> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... > >>>> > >>>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > >>>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... > >>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > >>>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to > >>>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. > >>>>> > >>>>> okay, you're officially a kook.... > >>>> > >>>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth > >>>> orbit for 37 years. > >>> > >>> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have > >>> no > >>> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any > >>> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either > >>> has > >>> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. > >>> > >>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. > >> > >>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature > >>of > >>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. > >> > >>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must > >>counter > >>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. > >> > >>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so > >>will > >>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes > >>fast enough. > >> > >>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. > > > > In your dreams, perhaps. > > Dreams are where it all starts. > Einstein was a dreamer. Correction: Einstein was a *worker*. He *toiled* over the details of his work, and he did calculations. PD   Date: 14 Sep 2006 06:49:00 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mark Earnest wrote: > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... > > Dear Mark Earnest: > > > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... > >> > >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... > >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to > >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. > >>> > >>> okay, you're officially a kook.... > >> > >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth > >> orbit for 37 years. > > > > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no > > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any > > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has > > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. > > > > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. > > All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of > objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. > > The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter > that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. > > It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so > will > a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes > fast enough. > > And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. OK, you have no idea what you're talking about, officially. Just a couple of comments - centripetal acceleration, such as exhibited in circular motion, does not involve a change in speed. - the fastest planet in the solar system would not make it to Alpha Centauri in 4 weeks. It would not make it there in 400 years. PD   Date: 14 Sep 2006 00:29:49 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mark Earnest wrote: > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... > > Dear Mark Earnest: > > > > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... > >> > >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... > >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to > >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. > >>> > >>> okay, you're officially a kook.... > >> > >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth > >> orbit for 37 years. > > > > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no > > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any > > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has > > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. > > > > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. > > All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of > objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. Wrong, read Newton's first law. > The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Correct. > Planets must counter > that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. Nope. The acceleration due to the Sun is what turns the planets motion from a straight line into the curved path around the Sun. > It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so > will > a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes > fast enough. So why don't the planets spin round the Sun faster and faster until they fly off into space. > And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. Earth should get there before Christmas then. George   Date: 14 Sep 2006 13:03:15 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? George Dishman wrote: > Max Keon wrote: > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:ee6rm8$vh6$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > > >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > >> news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > > >>> > > >>> "Uno" <Uno@max.com> wrote in message > > >>> news:lz2Ng.147$GR.35@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > >>>> Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter. > > >>> > > >>> Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in > > >>> magnitude to the total energy contained in both > > >>> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic > > >>> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the > > >>> gravitational energy is negative, the total is > > >>> zero. > > > > > "Bri" <Bri@Eng.com> wrote in message > > > news:pWqNg.460$TV3.152@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > > >> Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate the Big Bang. > > > > > Quite correct but it explains why there isn't a > > > need for infinite energy to create the infinite > > > amount of matter in the universe, the total is > > > zero overall. What I say above is a prediction > > > of many of the relevant competing models. > > There are no other models of the BB except mine. If you know of any others, cite them or explain them. > > > What you are proposing is a zero origin universe that exploded with > > a big bang. > No, he's not. He is proposing only the BB concept with no relation to reality. That's what Theoretical Physicists do. > > What I am describing is standard GR. The big > bang model has no "origin" in space, only an > origin in time. > See? I told you. > > > Why do you think that would happen? > > I think it happened because we have images of > the "smoke" from the bang: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg > Here, George, you're mixing theory with reality, refusing to talk reality except when it suits you. You are not describing a BB zero origin universe but only "standard GR", you say, but you support that statement with real observations. If std. GR was a fact, you might get away with that. But for now, that argument is not logical. > > > Doesn't it seem more > > likely that the complete lack of interaction within the nothingness > > could only begin its evolution over a virtual eternity? Why a massive > > explosion? > > It wasn't an explosion. I suggest you read Ned > Wright's excellent tutorial: > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm > Unless you explain what you mean by that, you can not just ignore what Gamow and his students wrote in their original theory. > > > And when the big bang began, why on earth did it stop banging? After > > all, infinity is boundless, and 13 billion light years is a long way > > short of infinity, isn't it. > > The "bang" happened everywhere and the term is > used in the sense of an eveent, not something with > a duration. > Oh, right, that makes a lot of sense, no? That's the std. party line, alright. > > Think of the term as meaning "the start > of time" and you will understand better, though that > may not be strictly accurate. > It's not accurate at all. > > > Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began > > to emerge from the nothingness, ... > > Then there was no "nothingness" from which it > could emerge. > Right. There was no unimaginable "Great Void". > > > ... over an eternity. Relativity was > > born, and a point could then be identified anywhere in an endless > > dimension. But there was certainly no bang. > No, sorry. Relativity was not born until 14 billion years later. > > Have you heard the term "smoking gun"? Where > did this smoke come from: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg > > George     Date: 20 Sep 2006 08:31:11 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > PD wrote: > > tomgee wrote: > > > PD wrote: > > > > tomgee wrote: > > > > > Greg Crinklaw wrote: > > > > > > tomgee wrote: > > > > > > > You don't hope that either. You don't give a damn about > > > > > > > anyone but yourself, not even for those who might agree > > > > > > > with you. You have the gall to use the term "open-minded" > > > > > > > when you refuse to open your mind to my ideas. > > > > > > > > > > > > He did open hos mind to them and found them quite lacking--as any > > > > > > thinking educated person would. > > > > > > > > > > > But not as any open-minded person would. He simply voiced > > > > > his unsupported opinion. He made no logical arguments to > > > > > the contrary, as I did. You may think "...any thinking educated > > > > > person would" indeed be open-minded and show that by his > > > > > logical arguments, but he made no such arguments, he only > > > > > gave his opinion of what he thought of my ideas and nothing > > > > > more. He can make no logical arguments because there are > > > > > none to make. He can only regurgitate the illogical fantasies > > > > > he has been made to swallow in order to "earn" his position > > > > > and social status. Your claim, therefore, that he is a thinking > > > > > educated person is false. He is an educated parrot, nothing > > > > > more, sorry. > > > > > > > > You seem to think that "any open-minded person" would view physics the > > > > way you do, TomGee -- as a debate club. You seem to think that "any > > > > open-minded person" has to do more than tell someone that they're > > > > wrong, and in fact you seem to think that "any open-minded person" will > > > > do more than explain exactly where they are wrong -- you seem to think > > > > that "any open-minded minded person" will argue endlessly to *convince* > > > > someone where they are wrong. > > > > > > > Comes once again the King Stooge of sci.fi.Relativity, once > > > again arguing against something I did not say, but still writing > > > prose bereft of physics, only unsupported opinion. He's > > > banking on his belief that many more like him are here reading > > > all this, and he can win his arguments with their support and > > > without a single logical argument to support his fantasies. Is > > > he right? > > > > If you will look at your own post in response to Greg Crinklaw, you > > will note that you had nothing to say about physics, only on someone > > else's style of argument, and in fact your unsupported opinion about > > why he would respond that way. I only responded to you the same manner > > that you responded to someone else, since that seems to be what you > > want to talk about. > > > You had nothing to respond to me about, as I was responding in kind > to Crinklaw. My opinion was fully supported by his refusal or > inability > to discuss physics, same as you do in our discussions, and also by > the logic of my claims wrt his inability to say anything other than > what > you have said in parroting the party line. > > > > > > Here is a phsyicist-teacher who believes his students are > > > stupid and it is his responsibility to brainwash them to believe > > > exactly as he does. > > > > Nonsense. > > > No, not nonsense. That is what you have said in previous posts. Really? Cite where I said that. > > > > However, I do teach them *why* we believe what we do, and if > > they want to believe something else, then I teach them what they'll > > have to do to support what they do believe. > > > Oh? So you claim to have changed your stripes now that you > understand how bad you sound when you argue that students > come to you with wrong ideas and you see to it they learn the > ideas you believe to be right? You have reworded your argument > the complete opposite of what you said at first, but I believe your > stripes are more than hair-deep, and saying that you have changed > does not make it so. I've not changed my stripes. If you believe otherwise, cite your evidence. > > > > Now, there are those who > > say both "I'll believe something other than what you believe" AND > > "furthermore, I don't have to do what you say I do to support what I > > believe". In those cases, they are clearly not interested in doing > > science, and I will consult them to not waste their time spending > > tuition on more science courses. > > > You make that decision based on a very short while of knowing > those students, and if they refuse to kowtow to you for whatever > their reasons, you decide who comes and who goes. Nonsense. The serious physics students are the ones that I know for a number of years, which is more than enough to know whether they are wasting their time or not. Now maybe *your* teachers only knew you for a short time. > That is why > you are so dangerous, you hand out lives and take them away at > your discretion, and based on your responses that show how > utterly subjective your mind works, you are not only the King Stooge > but the anti-Physicist. > > > > > He believes his duty is to make them > > > parrots of physics, to carry on the tradition of stupid science > > > that has existed since day one in the midst of human brilliance. > > > > Ah. So give me ONE example of a brilliant physicist who was not trained > > by other physicists and who did not follow the scientific method. > > (Please, please, PLEASE tell me you are the first.) > > > Well, thanks, but I am not a physicist, just a brilliant layperson. > You are a physicist in name only, lacking even the dark luster > of a burned-out star. You didn't answer my question about giving ONE example of a brilliant physicist who was not trained by other physicists and who did not follow the scientific method. If you can't answer that, then name ONE example of a layperson who made a significant contribution to physics, and who was not trained by physcists and who did not follow the scientific method. Just ONE, TomGee. PD   Date: 14 Sep 2006 12:36:25 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? PD wrote: > Mark Earnest wrote: > > "Art Deco" <erfc@netcabal.com> wrote in message > > news:130920062146230863%erfc@netcabal.com... > > > Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > > >>message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... > > >>> Dear Mark Earnest: > > >>> > > >>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... > > >>>> > > >>>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > > >>>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... > > >>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > > >>>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to > > >>>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> okay, you're officially a kook.... > > >>>> > > >>>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth > > >>>> orbit for 37 years. > > >>> > > >>> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have > > >>> no > > >>> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any > > >>> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either > > >>> has > > >>> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. > > >>> > > >>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. > > >> > > >>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature > > >>of > > >>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. > > >> > > >>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must > > >>counter > > >>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. > > >> > > >>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so > > >>will > > >>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes > > >>fast enough. > > >> > > >>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. > > > > > > In your dreams, perhaps. > > > > Dreams are where it all starts. > > Einstein was a dreamer. > > Correction: Einstein was a *worker*. He *toiled* over the details of > his work, and he did calculations. > > PD > No, PD, you're wrong again. AE was a Theoretical Physicist first - therefore, he was a dreamer first, an "armchair physicist". Oh, he did do some experimenting, so you can call him a worker, but that don't mean he wasn't a dreamer, as you claim.   Date: 15 Sep 2006 06:54:02 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > PD wrote: > > Mark Earnest wrote: > > > "Art Deco" <erfc@netcabal.com> wrote in message > > > news:130920062146230863%erfc@netcabal.com... > > > > Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > > > >>message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02... > > > >>> Dear Mark Earnest: > > > >>> > > > >>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > >>> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com... > > > >>>> > > > >>>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > > > >>>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com... > > > >>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > > > >>>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to > > > >>>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> okay, you're officially a kook.... > > > >>>> > > > >>>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth > > > >>>> orbit for 37 years. > > > >>> > > > >>> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have > > > >>> no > > > >>> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any > > > >>> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either > > > >>> has > > > >>> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding. > > > >>> > > > >>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. > > > >> > > > >>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature > > > >>of > > > >>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. > > > >> > > > >>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must > > > >>counter > > > >>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. > > > >> > > > >>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so > > > >>will > > > >>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes > > > >>fast enough. > > > >> > > > >>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. > > > > > > > > In your dreams, perhaps. > > > > > > Dreams are where it all starts. > > > Einstein was a dreamer. > > > > Correction: Einstein was a *worker*. He *toiled* over the details of > > his work, and he did calculations. > > > > PD > > > No, PD, you're wrong again. AE was a Theoretical Physicist > first - therefore, he was a dreamer first, an "armchair physicist". > Oh, he did do some experimenting, so you can call him a > worker, but that don't mean he wasn't a dreamer, as you claim. Ah... Then show me in your Encarta (or any other reference of your choice, other than your own feeble wit) where it defines a Theoretical Physicist to be a dreamer. PD   Date: 15 Sep 2006 01:21:31 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > George Dishman wrote: > > Max Keon wrote: > > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > news:ee6rm8$vh6$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > >> news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > >>> > > > >>> ... gravitational potential energy is equal in > > > >>> magnitude to the total energy contained in both > > > >>> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic > > > >>> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the > > > >>> gravitational energy is negative, the total is > > > >>> zero. <snip > > > > > ... What I say above is a prediction > > > > of many of the relevant competing models. > > There are no other models of the BB except mine. If > you know of any others, cite them or explain them. There's a limited summary here: http://www.cosmologymodels.com/ A simple example would be the two competing theories for the nature of dark energy which is causing acceleration of expansion, either GR's cosmological constant or 'quintessence'. The WMAP results match the former better than the latter. For a significant departure, consider QSSC and I guess MOND would provide another alternative though I'm not familiar with that at all. <snip > > > > Why do you think that would happen? > > > > I think it happened because we have images of > > the "smoke" from the bang: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg > > Here, George, you're mixing theory with reality, > refusing to talk reality except when it suits you. Since we have not talked before, I don't see that you can acuse me of refusing to discuss anything. Max asked me a question and I gave him a simple answer. There is other evidence as well but that is the most direct. > You are not describing a BB zero origin universe > but only "standard GR", you say, but you support > that statement with real observations. BB is an empirical model based on GR and some ad hoc factors driven by observation. Inflation, dark energy and dark matter were not predicted > If std. GR > was a fact, you might get away with that. But for > now, that argument is not logical. As I said, I am "describing", not presenting an argument either in favour or against. > > > Doesn't it seem more > > > likely that the complete lack of interaction within the nothingness > > > could only begin its evolution over a virtual eternity? Why a massive > > > explosion? > > > > It wasn't an explosion. I suggest you read Ned > > Wright's excellent tutorial: > > > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm > > Unless you explain what you mean by that, you can > not just ignore what Gamow and his students wrote > in their original theory. I think Max is imagining that "big bang" describes a conventional explosion at some point in pre-existing space. That would be a strawman and whether you agree with the conventional model or not, it is a waste of time arguing against a strawman. If Max understands the tutorial, the conversation will be less wasteful. > > > And when the big bang began, why on earth did it stop banging? After > > > all, infinity is boundless, and 13 billion light years is a long way > > > short of infinity, isn't it. > > > > The "bang" happened everywhere and the term is > > used in the sense of an eveent, not something with > > a duration. > > Oh, right, that makes a lot of sense, no? That's the > std. party line, alright. No, just a description of what people mean when discussing the subject. > > Think of the term as meaning "the start > > of time" and you will understand better, though that > > may not be strictly accurate. > > It's not accurate at all. Perhaps. It fits what we observe, beyond that is speculation. > > > Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began > > > to emerge from the nothingness, ... > > > > Then there was no "nothingness" from which it > > could emerge. > > Right. There was no unimaginable "Great Void". According to Max that is, his statement is self-contradictory. <snip > George   Date: 16 Sep 2006 07:16:39 From: PD Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Mark Earnest wrote: > "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:6c9ig2dg9057ulgo7tjdi4f1bo73vbg6l8@4ax.com... > > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:25:59 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark > > Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> > >>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > > > >>>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. > >> > >>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature > >>of > >>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate. > > > > What? I mean, WHAT? At this rate, you're going to earn an entry in > > the "kook of the month" record. > > > >>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must > >>counter > >>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own. > > > > Planets aren't accelerating. They have (approximately) constant > > angular velocity. > > The force of gravity from the Sun is one of constant acceleration. > If planets don't accelerate, they will fall into the Sun. Basic misunderstanding here. Planets are not speeding up. Acceleration is a change in *velocity*, which can mean either a change in speed OR direction OR both. In the case of circular motion, the change is direction only with no change in speed. This change in direction is precisely due to the force of gravity. Circular motion IS falling. PD > > >>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so > >>will a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially > >>goes > >>fast enough. > > > > Two possibilities: > > 1) you're five years old, and have learned some very basic astronomy > > 2) you're over 13 and ignorant > > > >>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks. > > > > Apparently Einstein was wrong then. > > -- > > Mark McIntyre   Date: 16 Sep 2006 06:09:27 From: Subject: Ajay Sharma - a cretin internet troll George Dishman wrote: > devianju@gmail.com wrote: > > <snip> > > > The interconversion of mass to energy initiated in 29 Sep 1905 paper. > > It is better understood as indicating that mass is a form > of energy. > > > Can you let me know when eqaution > > E2 = m02c4 +p2c2 > > was derived ? > > In whcih journal it was published or proceeding it was published? > > Not offhand. You would need to look that up. > > > Under what conditions E2 = m02c4 +p2c2 ? > > It appies always and can be taken as a definition > of mass based on energy and momentum. > > > In my opinion these aspects must be known before it is interpretted. > > IMO, interpretation is less important than knowing > what tests have confirmed the validity of the equation. > In other words, as long as you know when it will give > accurate results and how to apply it, you don't need > to understand why it works. Other than in the field > of quantum mechanics where I understand particles > can behave as if they temporarily had a different > mass ("off-shell"), the equation is valid for all particles > at all speeds including zero-mass particles (photons). > > The equation E = m c^2 _definitely_ doesn't apply to > such particles since it would say photons have zero > energy which is known to be wrong. > > George George, You should be aware that you are conversing with a famous imbecile, Ajay Sharma who spammed all the imaginable threads with his shitty "discovery". You are wasting your time on a patented cretin.     Date: 16 Sep 2006 14:42:50 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Ajay Sharma - a cretin internet troll <rambus2005@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1158412167.446299.88390@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: >> devianju@gmail.com wrote: >> >> <snip> ... > George, > > You should be aware that you are conversing with a famous imbecile, > Ajay Sharma who spammed all the imaginable threads with his shitty > "discovery". You are wasting your time on a patented cretin. I guessed as much when his second post was so completely incoherent I took it to be a poor attempt at an AI robot. He doesn't even realise his "new" version is simply Einstein's equation in differential form. He hasn't replied anyway. Thanks for the heads-up. George   Date: 17 Sep 2006 08:36:38 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? George Dishman wrote: > tomgee wrote: > > George Dishman wrote: > > > Max Keon wrote: > > > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > news:ee6rm8$vh6$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > > >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > >> news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ... gravitational potential energy is equal in > > > > >>> magnitude to the total energy contained in both > > > > >>> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic > > > > >>> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the > > > > >>> gravitational energy is negative, the total is > > > > >>> zero. > <snip> > > > > > ... What I say above is a prediction > > > > > of many of the relevant competing models. > > > > There are no other models of the BB except mine. If > > you know of any others, cite them or explain them. > > There's a limited summary here: > > http://www.cosmologymodels.com/ > No, that's false. All those models are based on the BBT - they are not other models of it. > > A simple example would be the two competing > theories for the nature of dark energy which is > causing acceleration of expansion, either GR's > cosmological constant or 'quintessence'. > The WMAP results match the former better than > the latter. For a significant departure, consider > QSSC and I guess MOND would provide another > alternative though I'm not familiar with that at all. > No, those are not two different models of the BBT but two different theories, competing one against the other. > > <snip> > > > > > Why do you think that would happen? > > > > > > I think it happened because we have images of > > > the "smoke" from the bang: > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg > > > > > Here, George, you're mixing theory with reality, > > refusing to talk reality except when it suits you. > > Since we have not talked before, I don't see that > you can acuse me of refusing to discuss anything. > No, I meant now, when you mixed unconfirmed tenets of GR with the confirmation of cbr, as if the found cbr confirmed your theory. > > Max asked me a question and I gave him a simple > answer. There is other evidence as well but that is > the most direct. > > > You are not describing a BB zero origin universe > > but only "standard GR", you say, but you support > > that statement with real observations. > > BB is an empirical model based on GR and > some ad hoc factors driven by observation. > Inflation, dark energy and dark matter were > not predicted > GR is an uncofirmed theory, so the BBT can not be an empirical model of such. The BBT can only be the same, an unconfirmed theory. > > > If std. GR > > was a fact, you might get away with that. But for > > now, that argument is not logical. > > As I said, I am "describing", not presenting > an argument either in favour or against. > So you say. > > > > > Doesn't it seem more > > > > likely that the complete lack of interaction within the nothingness > > > > could only begin its evolution over a virtual eternity? Why a massive > > > > explosion? > > > > > > It wasn't an explosion. I suggest you read Ned > > > Wright's excellent tutorial: > > > > > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm > > > > Unless you explain what you mean by that, you can > > not just ignore what Gamow and his students wrote > > in their original theory. > > I think Max is imagining that "big bang" describes a > conventional explosion at some point in pre-existing > space. > That is what I am imagining, but as an unconventional explosion. > > That would be a strawman and whether you > agree with the conventional model or not, it is a waste > of time arguing against a strawman. If Max understands > the tutorial, the conversation will be less wasteful. > How is that a strawman any less than the BBT? They were only guessing same as we are today. We agree all the way down to what came out of the BB, which is pure conjecture, and my model has a better explanation for what happened then. > > > > > And when the big bang began, why on earth did it stop banging? After > > > > all, infinity is boundless, and 13 billion light years is a long way > > > > short of infinity, isn't it. > > > > > > The "bang" happened everywhere and the term is > > > used in the sense of an eveent, not something with > > > a duration. > > > > Oh, right, that makes a lot of sense, no? That's the > > std. party line, alright. > > No, just a description of what people mean when > discussing the subject. > But they all say the same thing as you did, which is nonsense, and so when is it not the party line? > > > > Think of the term as meaning "the start > > > of time" and you will understand better, though that > > > may not be strictly accurate. > > > > It's not accurate at all. > > Perhaps. It fits what we observe, beyond that is > speculation. > No, it does not fit what we observe. You have not observed the "start of time" at all except in the imagination of your mind. > > > > > Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began > > > > to emerge from the nothingness, ... > > > > > > Then there was no "nothingness" from which it > > > could emerge. > > > > Right. There was no unimaginable "Great Void". > > According to Max that is, his statement is > self-contradictory. > How so?     Date: 17 Sep 2006 15:53:32 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 17 Sep 2006 08:36:38 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com > wrote: >GR is an uncofirmed theory, so the BBT can >not be an empirical model of such... What is an "unconfirmed theory"? No theory can be proven, only disproven. GR is a theory which is heavily supported by a wide range of independent evidence, but like any theory it is unprovable. It would be fair to say that observational evidence confirms GR (which is not the same as proving it). > The BBT >can only be the same, an unconfirmed theory. Like GR, the various BB theories are well supported (confirmed, not proven) by observation. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com   Date: 17 Sep 2006 22:53:20 From: Sam Wormley Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? What came before the Big Bang? http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBB The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang, t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is singular. In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting information from outside our own one bubble. Thus I conclude that: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." From Bruce Margon and Craig Hogan at the Univ. of Washington What Happened Before the Big Bang? by Paul Davies http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html   Date: 17 Sep 2006 15:46:28 From: Michael Baldwin, Bruce Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Radium wrote: > Hi: > > What happened before the big bang? > > Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. Before the big bang came the foreplay. Most scientists wouldn't understand this because, like Dickless, they've never done it.     Date: 18 Sep 2006 13:40:44 From: Art Deco Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 17 Sep 2006 15:46:28 -0700, "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" <mbbr@mighty.co.za > wrote: >Radium wrote: >> Hi: >> >> What happened before the big bang? >> >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > >Before the big bang came the foreplay. Most scientists wouldn't >understand this because, like Dickless, they've never done it. Was it a big gang bang, Bruce?       Date: 18 Sep 2006 10:29:37 From: honestjohn Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Art Deco" <erfc@netcaba1.com > wrote in message news:kt4tg2hrs9312dnfb7bcrfm4t10vbbnt5e@4ax.com... > On 17 Sep 2006 15:46:28 -0700, "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > <mbbr@mighty.co.za> wrote: > > >Radium wrote: > >> Hi: > >> > >> What happened before the big bang? > >> > >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > >Before the big bang came the foreplay. Most scientists wouldn't > >understand this because, like Dickless, they've never done it. > > Was it a big gang bang, Bruce? > What you'll get when the Sheriff finally puts you in the "Pokey". OJ & Rastus         Date: 19 Sep 2006 06:12:37 From: Art Deco Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:29:37 -0500, "honestjohn" <honestjohn@centurytel.net > wrote: > >"Art Deco" <erfc@netcaba1.com> wrote in message >news:kt4tg2hrs9312dnfb7bcrfm4t10vbbnt5e@4ax.com... >> On 17 Sep 2006 15:46:28 -0700, "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" >> <mbbr@mighty.co.za> wrote: >> >> >Radium wrote: >> >> Hi: >> >> >> >> What happened before the big bang? >> >> >> >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. >> > >> >Before the big bang came the foreplay. Most scientists wouldn't >> >understand this because, like Dickless, they've never done it. >> >> Was it a big gang bang, Bruce? >> >What you'll get when the Sheriff finally puts you in the "Pokey". > >OJ & Rastus Hello ozrakboi! How's it hangin'? LOL           Date: 19 Sep 2006 10:50:15 From: honestjohn Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Art Deco" <erfc@netcaba1.com > wrote in message news:11vug2pjqutoq24oti7a5qvh2smrs4aohn@4ax.com... > On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:29:37 -0500, "honestjohn" > <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote: > > > > >"Art Deco" <erfc@netcaba1.com> wrote in message > >news:kt4tg2hrs9312dnfb7bcrfm4t10vbbnt5e@4ax.com... > >> On 17 Sep 2006 15:46:28 -0700, "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > >> <mbbr@mighty.co.za> wrote: > >> > >> >Radium wrote: > >> >> Hi: > >> >> > >> >> What happened before the big bang? > >> >> > >> >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > >> > > >> >Before the big bang came the foreplay. Most scientists wouldn't > >> >understand this because, like Dickless, they've never done it. > >> > >> Was it a big gang bang, Bruce? > >> > >What you'll get when the Sheriff finally puts you in the "Pokey". > > > >OJ & Rastus > > Hello ozrakboi! How's it hangin'? LOL > Hey, where have you been hiding? Glad you're back. HJ             Date: 19 Sep 2006 22:00:43 From: Art Deco Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:50:15 -0500, "honestjohn" <honestjohn@centurytel.net > wrote: > >"Art Deco" <erfc@netcaba1.com> wrote in message >news:11vug2pjqutoq24oti7a5qvh2smrs4aohn@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:29:37 -0500, "honestjohn" >> <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Art Deco" <erfc@netcaba1.com> wrote in message >> >news:kt4tg2hrs9312dnfb7bcrfm4t10vbbnt5e@4ax.com... >> >> On 17 Sep 2006 15:46:28 -0700, "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" >> >> <mbbr@mighty.co.za> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Radium wrote: >> >> >> Hi: >> >> >> >> >> >> What happened before the big bang? >> >> >> >> >> >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so >interesting. >> >> > >> >> >Before the big bang came the foreplay. Most scientists wouldn't >> >> >understand this because, like Dickless, they've never done it. >> >> >> >> Was it a big gang bang, Bruce? >> >> >> >What you'll get when the Sheriff finally puts you in the "Pokey". >> > >> >OJ & Rastus >> >> Hello ozrakboi! How's it hangin'? LOL >> >Hey, where have you been hiding? In my hole. Is it safe? > Glad you're back. Yes, I'm back, ozrakboi. Complete with signature! LOL -- COOSN-266-06-39716 Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion", as designated by Brad Guth "Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from attribution problems?" -- Dr. David Tholen               Date: 19 Sep 2006 16:14:11 From: honestjohn Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "Art Deco" <erfc@netcaba1.com > wrote in message news:7gm0h29r5tsvcc468kucumhc760v7p1cft@4ax.com... > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:50:15 -0500, "honestjohn" > <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote: > > > > >"Art Deco" <erfc@netcaba1.com> wrote in message > >news:11vug2pjqutoq24oti7a5qvh2smrs4aohn@4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:29:37 -0500, "honestjohn" > >> <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >"Art Deco" <erfc@netcaba1.com> wrote in message > >> >news:kt4tg2hrs9312dnfb7bcrfm4t10vbbnt5e@4ax.com... > >> >> On 17 Sep 2006 15:46:28 -0700, "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > >> >> <mbbr@mighty.co.za> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Radium wrote: > >> >> >> Hi: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> What happened before the big bang? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so > >interesting. > >> >> > > >> >> >Before the big bang came the foreplay. Most scientists wouldn't > >> >> >understand this because, like Dickless, they've never done it. > >> >> > >> >> Was it a big gang bang, Bruce? > >> >> > >> >What you'll get when the Sheriff finally puts you in the "Pokey". > >> > > >> >OJ & Rastus > >> > >> Hello ozrakboi! How's it hangin'? LOL > >> > >Hey, where have you been hiding? > > In my hole. Is it safe? > > > Glad you're back. > > Yes, I'm back, ozrakboi. Complete with signature! LOL > The weather cooling down where you're at (N.C.?) forgot, it's been a while. H.J.   Date: 18 Sep 2006 01:08:23 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? tomgee wrote: > George Dishman wrote: > > tomgee wrote: > > > George Dishman wrote: > > > > Max Keon wrote: > > > > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > > news:ee6rm8$vh6$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > > > >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > > >> news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> ... gravitational potential energy is equal in > > > > > >>> magnitude to the total energy contained in both > > > > > >>> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic > > > > > >>> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the > > > > > >>> gravitational energy is negative, the total is > > > > > >>> zero. > > <snip> > > > > > > ... What I say above is a prediction > > > > > > of many of the relevant competing models. > > > > > > There are no other models of the BB except mine. If > > > you know of any others, cite them or explain them. > > > > There's a limited summary here: > > > > http://www.cosmologymodels.com/ > > > No, that's false. All those models are based on the BBT - > they are not other models of it. They all have different numerical predictions yet all share the same generic form of expansion from a hot dense start, a "big bang" as you say. They are therefore "competing models" as I described and they are "models of the BB" as you said. Since they are different they cannot all be the same as yours so your claim "There are no other models of the BB except mine." is shown to be false. > > A simple example would be the two competing > > theories for the nature of dark energy which is > > causing acceleration of expansion, either GR's > > cosmological constant or 'quintessence'. > > The WMAP results match the former better than > > the latter. For a significant departure, consider > > QSSC and I guess MOND would provide another > > alternative though I'm not familiar with that at all. > > > No, those are not two different models of the BBT ... .. which is why I said "significant departure" .. > ... but two different theories, competing one against > the other. Exactly, they are "competing models" of cosmology. The QSSC in particular includes a "big bang" but it occurs cyclically. > > <snip> > > > > > > > Why do you think that would happen? > > > > > > > > I think it happened because we have images of > > > > the "smoke" from the bang: > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg > > > > > > > > Here, George, you're mixing theory with reality, > > > refusing to talk reality except when it suits you. > > > > Since we have not talked before, I don't see that > > you can acuse me of refusing to discuss anything. > > > No, I meant now, when you mixed unconfirmed > tenets of GR .. The reality is that GR has been widely confirmed and no observational results conflict with it. Deny it if you like. > .. with the confirmation of cbr, as if > the found cbr confirmed your theory. The fact that CMBR exists and has a black body spectrum does indeed give strong confirmation that the universe went through a period when it was filled with a hot dense plasma. The fact remains that, contrary to your claim, I have never 'refused to talk' of any aspect of this. > > Max asked me a question and I gave him a simple > > answer. There is other evidence as well but that is > > the most direct. > > > > > You are not describing a BB zero origin universe > > > but only "standard GR", you say, but you support > > > that statement with real observations. > > > > BB is an empirical model based on GR and > > some ad hoc factors driven by observation. > > Inflation, dark energy and dark matter were > > not predicted > > GR is an uncofirmed theory, Nonsense. The perihelion advance of Mercury, gravitational slowing of clocks on GPS and the observation by Hulse and Taylor are just three obvious confirmations. > so the BBT can > not be an empirical model of such. "empirical" means taken primarily from observation. We know the hot, dense plasma phase existed because we can see it as the CMBR. Modelling that can be done with GR (or Mond or any other theory of gravity you care to choose) but all must acknowledge the existence of the CMBR. > The BBT > can only be the same, an unconfirmed theory. The existence of the hot, dense plasma period in the history of the universe is well confirmed. > > > If std. GR > > > was a fact, you might get away with that. But for > > > now, that argument is not logical. > > > > As I said, I am "describing", not presenting > > an argument either in favour or against. > > So you say. See above, I have now added 'arguments in favour' of GR since you seem to be unaware of them. > > > > > Doesn't it seem more > > > > > likely that the complete lack of interaction within the nothingness > > > > > could only begin its evolution over a virtual eternity? Why a massive > > > > > explosion? > > > > > > > > It wasn't an explosion. I suggest you read Ned > > > > Wright's excellent tutorial: > > > > > > > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm > > > > > > Unless you explain what you mean by that, you can > > > not just ignore what Gamow and his students wrote > > > in their original theory. > > > > I think Max is imagining that "big bang" describes a > > conventional explosion at some point in pre-existing > > space. > > That is what I am imagining, but as an > unconventional explosion. OK. > > That would be a strawman and whether you > > agree with the conventional model or not, it is a waste > > of time arguing against a strawman. If Max understands > > the tutorial, the conversation will be less wasteful. > > How is that a strawman any less than the BBT? A 'strawman' is when you construct a refutation of someone's point but construct an unrepresentative version which is easier to defeat. Max argues against a "big bang" on the assumption that it was an explosion at a point in pre-existing space which is not what the model says. > They were only guessing same as we are today. > We agree all the way down to what came out of > the BB, which is pure conjecture, and my model > has a better explanation for what happened then. We haven't agreed much since we haven't talked much, but I think the model is reasonably robust at least down to the period of nucleogenesis with the possible exception of the Lithium problem, what about you? Of course there's a lot more to understand within the universe since then, the detials of the mechanisms that led to formation of galaxies for example, but that's another matter. > > > > > And when the big bang began, why on earth did it stop banging? After > > > > > all, infinity is boundless, and 13 billion light years is a long way > > > > > short of infinity, isn't it. > > > > > > > > The "bang" happened everywhere and the term is > > > > used in the sense of an eveent, not something with > > > > a duration. > > > > > > Oh, right, that makes a lot of sense, no? That's the > > > std. party line, alright. > > > > No, just a description of what people mean when > > discussing the subject. > > But they all say the same thing as you did, As I said, I was telling Max the meaning of what "they all say" so thanks for the confirmation that I did a good job. > which is > nonsense, and so when is it not the party line? A glossary in a document isn't a "party line". > > > > Think of the term as meaning "the start > > > > of time" and you will understand better, though that > > > > may not be strictly accurate. > > > > > > It's not accurate at all. > > > > Perhaps. It fits what we observe, beyond that is > > speculation. > > No, it does not fit what we observe. You have > not observed the "start of time" at all except in > the imagination of your mind. We don't need to, we can observe the consequences and they fit. For example we see no object with lower limit ages greater than 14 billion years which would be in conflict with the concept of the bang as the start of time. To say that concept fits the observations is true but to say that no other model fits would not be true. Going beyond the period we can infer (directly or indirectly) from observation is speculation. > > > > > Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began > > > > > to emerge from the nothingness, ... > > > > > > > > Then there was no "nothingness" from which it > > > > could emerge. > > > > > > Right. There was no unimaginable "Great Void". > > > > According to Max that is, his statement is > > self-contradictory. > > > How so? See for yourself above, he said nothing existed, not even a void, but also said the universe slowly "began to emerge from the nothingness". George     Date: 20 Sep 2006 09:01:02 From: Max Keon Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:1158566903.146045.104850@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > tomgee wrote: >> George Dishman wrote: >>> tomgee wrote: >>>> George Dishman wrote: >>>>> Max Keon wrote: ------ ------ >>> I think Max is imagining that "big bang" describes a >>> conventional explosion at some point in pre-existing >>> space. >> >> That is what I am imagining, but as an >> unconventional explosion. > OK. >>> That would be a strawman and whether you >>> agree with the conventional model or not, it is a waste >>> of time arguing against a strawman. If Max understands >>> the tutorial, the conversation will be less wasteful. >> >> How is that a strawman any less than the BBT? > A 'strawman' is when you construct a refutation of > someone's point but construct an unrepresentative > version which is easier to defeat. Max argues > against a "big bang" on the assumption that it was > an explosion at a point in pre-existing space which > is not what the model says. Your model doesn't say anything, it postulates it. I assume that the BBT still postulates that the pre-universe was "housed" in a singularity? Which does give the impression that an instantaneously infinite dimension immediately surrounded "it". So you have zero and infinity in the same package. I quite understand and agree with that concept. Nothing is nothing unless something makes it relative. The something is all it's ever relative to, of course. Nothing relative to nothing is non existence. But there is something in your singularity. Even if it all adds up to nothing, it still exists and it is all relative. Something you might like to explain in a non postulative manner is how the matter and anti matter components of the new look pre-universe were separated from each other. Are there two universes, i.e. a matter universe and an anti matter universe? Or do they somehow coexist? I don't understand how that could work. Well, not in your universe anyway. ------ ------ >>>>>> Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began >>>>>> to emerge from the nothingness, ... >>>>> >>>>> Then there was no "nothingness" from which it >>>>> could emerge. >>>> >>>> Right. There was no unimaginable "Great Void". >>> >>> According to Max that is, his statement is >>> self-contradictory. >>> >> How so? > See for yourself above, he said nothing existed, > not even a void, but also said the universe slowly > "began to emerge from the nothingness". Fortunately, whether or not you understood my meaning has nothing to do with reality. I appologize for my inapropriate phrasing, but I'm sure you knew what I meant. ----- Max Keon   Date: 18 Sep 2006 16:54:56 From: Michael Baldwin, Bruce Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Carl Osterwald AKA Art Deco wrote: > On 17 Sep 2006 15:46:28 -0700, "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > <mbbr@mighty.co.za> wrote: > > >Radium wrote: > >> Hi: > >> > >> What happened before the big bang? > >> > >> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting. > > > >Before the big bang came the foreplay. Most scientists wouldn't > >understand this because, like Dickless, they've never done it. > > Was it a big gang bang, Bruce? Only if you're a nigger, Carl.     Date: 20 Sep 2006 15:23:41 From: Double-A Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? honestjohn wrote: > "PasoSchweiz" <Postverteiler@PasoSchweiz.de> wrote in message > news:gkp2h21n3uip22j0gqfa3f45am41kcm29e@pasoschweiz.de... > > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:36:43 -0500, "honestjohn" > > <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote: > > > > >> We call it "Nirvana" down here, ozrakboi. > > >> > > >I heard dat ! > > > > Me too! > > > > ;-> C. > > Even the Gov. of Ark. had a double-wide pulled-up up on the Mansion grounds > to live in while the workers remodeled the State Gov's Mansion ( after Bill > Clinton trashed it ). Did he take stuff with him? Like when he left the White House? Double-A > Gov. Huckabee was on the Tonight show and told Leno > about the State Govenor's residence being a trailer, and Leno liked ta have > shit! > > C.H.J.       Date: 21 Sep 2006 00:32:39 From: PasoSchweiz Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 20 Sep 2006 15:23:41 -0700, "Double-A" <double-aa@hush.ai > wrote: >> Even the Gov. of Ark. had a double-wide pulled-up up on the Mansion grounds >> to live in while the workers remodeled the State Gov's Mansion ( after Bill >> Clinton trashed it ). > > >Did he take stuff with him? Like when he left the White House? Just his old Lady :- > (They forced him to take her along) C.   Date: 19 Sep 2006 07:20:02 From: tomgee Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? George Dishman wrote: > tomgee wrote: > > George Dishman wrote: > > > tomgee wrote: > > > > George Dishman wrote: > > > > > Max Keon wrote: > > > > > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > > > news:ee6rm8$vh6$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > > > > >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > > > >> news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net... > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> ... gravitational potential energy is equal in > > > > > > >>> magnitude to the total energy contained in both > > > > > > >>> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic > > > > > > >>> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the > > > > > > >>> gravitational energy is negative, the total is > > > > > > >>> zero. > > > <snip> > > > > > > > ... What I say above is a prediction > > > > > > > of many of the relevant competing models. > > > > > > > > There are no other models of the BB except mine. If > > > > you know of any others, cite them or explain them. > > > > > > There's a limited summary here: > > > > > > http://www.cosmologymodels.com/ > > > > > No, that's false. All those models are based on the BBT - > > they are not other models of it. > > They all have different numerical predictions yet > all share the same generic form of expansion > from a hot dense start, a "big bang" as you say. > They are therefore "competing models" as I > described and they are "models of the BB" as > you said. Since they are different they cannot > all be the same as yours so your claim "There > are no other models of the BB except mine." is > shown to be false. > Sorry, but I don't think that different numbers makes a competing model. However, I have no reluctance to concede such a trivial point. > > > > A simple example would be the two competing > > > theories for the nature of dark energy which is > > > causing acceleration of expansion, either GR's > > > cosmological constant or 'quintessence'. > > > The WMAP results match the former better than > > > the latter. For a significant departure, consider > > > QSSC and I guess MOND would provide another > > > alternative though I'm not familiar with that at all. > > > > > No, those are not two different models of the BBT ... > > .. which is why I said "significant departure" .. > Yes, I see. > > > ... but two different theories, competing one against > > the other. > > Exactly, they are "competing models" of cosmology. > The QSSC in particular includes a "big bang" but it > occurs cyclically. > But not competing models of the BBT, at least, not in the specific ways the process is described. My explanation of the BB supposes it occurred with such elevated temperatures resulting from the gravitational compression of real matter (i.e., positive mass matter), which is expected. Such temperatures could possibly allow a great explosion to occur at some point, but the precise mechanism for that is missing from the BBT, as noted by the missing precise definition of the singularity it proposes. The existence of a singularity created from the force of gravitation, from which an entire universe is created, presupposes the existence of something previous to its creation. To say that it is nonsense to think about "before" then is not a reasonable argument if one wants to believe such a singularity ever existed. Why then would Modern Physics proclaim such an illogical argument? Worse yet, why would anyone accept it as a rational statement? Are physicists so un-learned as to not be able to tell the difference between logic and illogic? Or are they parrots and automatons deprived of rational thought? It could have been a singularity, but that is only one explanation, based on observations of today, long after the fact, and derived by working backward in time from those observations. It could have happened in some other way, as well, perhaps as my model explains it. > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > Why do you think that would happen? > > > > > > > > > > I think it happened because we have images of > > > > > the "smoke" from the bang: > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg > > > > > > > > > > > Here, George, you're mixing theory with reality, > > > > refusing to talk reality except when it suits you. > > > > > > Since we have not talked before, I don't see that > > > you can acuse me of refusing to discuss anything. > > > > > No, I meant now, when you mixed unconfirmed > > tenets of GR .. > > The reality is that GR has been widely confirmed > and no observational results conflict with it. Deny > it if you like. > I don't deny it, but I don't deny classical physics either, as that has been widely confirmed and no observational results conflict with it. But my point is not that GR has been widely confirmed, because it has not, but that you mix its unconfirmed tenets with observations that confirm something else, as if they confirm those tenets. > > > .. with the confirmation of cbr, as if > > the found cbr confirmed your theory. > > The fact that CMBR exists and has a black body > spectrum does indeed give strong confirmation > that the universe went through a period when it > was filled with a hot dense plasma. > Oh? And how does that confirm GR? > > The fact remains that, contrary to your claim, > I have never 'refused to talk' of any aspect > of this. > I stand corrected, then. > > > > Max asked me a question and I gave him a simple > > > answer. There is other evidence as well but that is > > > the most direct. > > > > > > > You are not describing a BB zero origin universe > > > > but only "standard GR", you say, but you support > > > > that statement with real observations. > > > > > > BB is an empirical model based on GR and > > > some ad hoc factors driven by observation. > > > Inflation, dark energy and dark matter were > > > not predicted > > > > GR is an uncofirmed theory, > > Nonsense. The perihelion advance of Mercury, > gravitational slowing of clocks on GPS and > the observation by Hulse and Taylor are just > three obvious confirmations. > But the main event, the curvature of space, when was that so obviously confirmed? > > > so the BBT can > > not be an empirical model of such. > > "empirical" means taken primarily from observation. > No, not so. You left out "...and experiment." The two are equally imposed; one is not more primary than the other. If they were, the conjunction would be "or" and not "and". Leaving one out or denigrating one cancels the use of the definition for "empirical". > > We know the hot, dense plasma phase existed > because we can see it as the CMBR. Modelling > that can be done with GR (or Mond or any other > theory of gravity you care to choose) but all must > acknowledge the existence of the CMBR. > The existence of it, sure, but not necessarily your explanation of it. That is the point of all my efforts here, your taking your explanations as fact shown by experiment. Such as, "We cannot see past the horizon because that is the edge of the world." Never mind that the oceans falling off the edge of the world never empty out, the explanation must be true because we can plainly observe the edge of the world. Sound circular? It is. > > > The BBT > > can only be the same, an unconfirmed theory. > > The existence of the hot, dense plasma > period in the history of the universe is well > confirmed. > > > > > If std. GR > > > > was a fact, you might get away with that. But for > > > > now, that argument is not logical. > > > > > > As I said, I am "describing", not presenting > > > an argument either in favour or against. > > > > So you say. > > See above, I have now added 'arguments in favour' > of GR since you seem to be unaware of them. > So you say, but in fact you describe GR as if it has been fully confirmed, whereas it has not. > > > > > > > Doesn't it seem more > > > > > > likely that the complete lack of interaction within the nothingness > > > > > > could only begin its evolution over a virtual eternity? Why a massive > > > > > > explosion? > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't an explosion. I suggest you read Ned > > > > > Wright's excellent tutorial: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm > > > > > > > > Unless you explain what you mean by that, you can > > > > not just ignore what Gamow and his students wrote > > > > in their original theory. > > > > > > I think Max is imagining that "big bang" describes a > > > conventional explosion at some point in pre-existing > > > space. > > > > That is what I am imagining, but as an > > unconventional explosion. > > OK. > > > > That would be a strawman and whether you > > > agree with the conventional model or not, it is a waste > > > of time arguing against a strawman. If Max understands > > > the tutorial, the conversation will be less wasteful. > > > > How is that a strawman any less than the BBT? > > A 'strawman' is when you construct a refutation of > someone's point but construct an unrepresentative > version which is easier to defeat. Max argues > against a "big bang" on the assumption that it was > an explosion at a point in pre-existing space which > is not what the model says. > Thanks for the definition. The BBT argues that there was no pre-existing space - that space came out of the singularity. It stops short of explaining what the singularity existed within, leaving that up to our minds to imagine, whereas our minds cannot do that. It seems that is the strawman, and not the idea that the singularity exploded into absolute space, as my model contends. > > > They were only guessing same as we are today. > > We agree all the way down to what came out of > > the BB, which is pure conjecture, and my model > > has a better explanation for what happened then. > > We haven't agreed much since we haven't talked > much, but I think the model is reasonably robust > at least down to the period of nucleogenesis with > the possible exception of the Lithium problem, > what about you? > I agree, but hold in reserve the acceptance of its basic assumptions, as discussed in this thread. > > Of course there's a lot more to > understand within the universe since then, the > detials of the mechanisms that led to formation of > galaxies for example, but that's another matter. > > > > > > > And when the big bang began, why on earth did it stop banging? After > > > > > > all, infinity is boundless, and 13 billion light years is a long way > > > > > > short of infinity, isn't it. > > > > > > > > > > The "bang" happened everywhere and the term is > > > > > used in the sense of an eveent, not something with > > > > > a duration. > > > > > > > > Oh, right, that makes a lot of sense, no? That's the > > > > std. party line, alright. > > > > > > No, just a description of what people mean when > > > discussing the subject. > > > > But they all say the same thing as you did, > > As I said, I was telling Max the meaning of what > "they all say" so thanks for the confirmation that > I did a good job. > If that is really what you were doing, you did do a good job, I think. > > > which is > > nonsense, and so when is it not the party line? > > A glossary in a document isn't a "party line". > You're being sarcastic, making fun of a serious problem in physics today. I think all of us should be concerned with the "un-learnedness" (to coin a word) of physicists today, as evidenced by the rote memorization of phrases used in response to questions arising from objective review. > > > > > > Think of the term as meaning "the start > > > > > of time" and you will understand better, though that > > > > > may not be strictly accurate. > > > > > > > > It's not accurate at all. > > > > > > Perhaps. It fits what we observe, beyond that is > > > speculation. > > > > No, it does not fit what we observe. You have > > not observed the "start of time" at all except in > > the imagination of your mind. > > We don't need to, we can observe the consequences > and they fit. > You observe the consequences and make certain conclusions, then you explain that conclusion as your opinion of what's going on. Even if your observations and conclusions are correct, your opinion can still be wrong. If it is true that nothing can ever be proven, it is my opinion that is only because opinion can only be valid to the extent of the objectiveness of the observer. > > For example we see no object with lower > limit ages greater than 14 billion years which would > be in conflict with the concept of the bang as the start > of time. > That concept is not a tenet of the BBT, AFAIK. My model explains how and when time began, and it was not until matter was created. > > To say that concept fits the observations is > true but to say that no other model fits would not be > true. Going beyond the period we can infer (directly or > indirectly) from observation is speculation. > Yes, that is my point, that to say no other model fits would be untrue. > > > > > > > Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began > > > > > > to emerge from the nothingness, ... > > > > > > > > > > Then there was no "nothingness" from which it > > > > > could emerge. > > > > > > > > Right. There was no unimaginable "Great Void". > > > > > > According to Max that is, his statement is > > > self-contradictory. > > > > > How so? > > See for yourself above, he said nothing existed, > not even a void, but also said the universe slowly > "began to emerge from the nothingness". > But George, many today believe there is such a thing as "quantum vacuum fluctuation", where particles of mass magically and randomly appear out of empty space. Even Hawking has particle pairs randomly appearing at the event horizon of a bh. How then does Max contradict himself, but the above belief is not self-contradictory?   Date: 19 Sep 2006 19:57:38 From: Phil Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? George Dishman wrote: > "Sco" <Sco@Eng.com> wrote in message > news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > > From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there was > > energy. > > In most models, the gravitational potential > energy is equal and opposite to the matter > and other forms hence the prior total was > zero. > > George This honestly sounds crazy to me. Would you happen to know what makes gravitational energy opposite of other energy forms? And do you know of any empirical evidence that gravitational potential "cancels out" or reduces the magnitude of any other energy form? Phil   Date: 19 Sep 2006 10:59:57 From: Double-A Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Art Deco wrote: > > > This has nothing to do with nyc.transit, please do not send followups > to that group. This has nothing to do with alt.astronomy, please do not send followups to that group.     Date: 19 Sep 2006 22:07:25 From: Art Deco Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? On 19 Sep 2006 10:59:57 -0700, "Double-A" <double-aa@hush.ai > wrote: > >hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> Art Deco wrote: >> >> >> This has nothing to do with nyc.transit, please do not send followups >> to that group. > >This has nothing to do with alt.astronomy, please do not send followups > to that group. Was the Big Bang a gang rape then, fake Double-Anus? -- COOSN-266-06-39716 Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion", as designated by Brad Guth "Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from attribution problems?" -- Dr. David Tholen   Date: 19 Sep 2006 10:27:01 From: Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Art Deco wrote: This has nothing to do with nyc.transit, please do not send followups to that group.   Date: 20 Sep 2006 02:01:28 From: George Dishman Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? Max Keon wrote: > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:1158566903.146045.104850@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > tomgee wrote: <snip > > >> How is that a strawman any less than the BBT? > > > A 'strawman' is when you construct a refutation of > > someone's point but construct an unrepresentative > > version which is easier to defeat. Max argues > > against a "big bang" on the assumption that it was > > an explosion at a point in pre-existing space which > > is not what the model says. > > Your model doesn't say anything, it postulates it. I assume that > the BBT still postulates that the pre-universe was "housed" in a > singularity? It never did. The theory starts with the observation of the rdshift of local galaxies first measured by Hubble and works back from there to the period of nucleogenesis where the predicted chemical abundances match very well to the observed values. Beyond that becomes speculation. > Which does give the impression that an instantaneously > infinite dimension immediately surrounded "it". So you have zero and > infinity in the same package. I quite understand and agree with that > concept. Nothing is nothing unless something makes it relative. The > something is all it's ever relative to, of course. Nothing relative > to nothing is non existence. But there is something in your > singularity. Even if it all adds up to nothing, it still exists and > it is all relative. > > Something you might like to explain in a non postulative manner > is how the matter and anti matter components of the new look > pre-universe were separated from each other. Are there two > universes, i.e. a matter universe and an anti matter universe? > Or do they somehow coexist? I don't understand how that could > work. Well, not in your universe anyway. Sorry Max, that rambling rubbish may be your universe but it certainly isn't mine. This is mine: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm > >>>>>> Absolutely nothing existed until the zero origin universe began > >>>>>> to emerge from the nothingness, ... > >>>>> > >>>>> Then there was no "nothingness" from which it > >>>>> could emerge. > >>>> > >>>> Right. There was no unimaginable "Great Void". > >>> > >>> According to Max that is, his statement is > >>> self-contradictory. > >>> > >> How so? > > > See for yourself above, he said nothing existed, > > not even a void, but also said the universe slowly > > "began to emerge from the nothingness". > > Fortunately, whether or not you understood my meaning has nothing > to do with reality. I appologize for my inapropriate phrasing, but > I'm sure you knew what I meant. No I don't, that's the problem. I could see it as just poor phrasing if you meant it emerged in an instant, but that is no different from the speculation about the singularity extrapolated from conventional theory so I don't see how you think your model differs. George     Date: 21 Sep 2006 12:04:42 From: Max Keon Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang? "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:1158742888.488248.130050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > Max Keon wrote: >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:1158566903.146045.104850@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >>> tomgee wrote: >>>> How is that a strawman any less than the BBT? >>> >>> A 'strawman' is when you construct a refutation of >>> someone's point but construct an unrepresentative >>> version which is easier to defeat. Max argues >>> against a "big bang" on the assumption that it was >>> an explosion at a point in pre-existing space which >>> is not what the model says. >> >> Your model doesn't say anything, it postulates it. I assume that >> the BBT still postulates that the pre-universe was "housed" in a >> singularity? > It never did. The theory starts with the observation > of the rdshift of local galaxies first measured by > Hubble and works back from there to the period > of nucleogenesis where the predicted chemical > abundances match very well to the observed values. > Beyond that becomes speculation. That's hardly a theory of a universe George! Apart from that, how do you explain this re-post below to which I initially replied??? ------------------------------------------------------------------- > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net... >> >>> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:ee1uec$rmt$1@news.freedom2surf.net... >>>> >>>> "Sco" <Sco@Eng.com> wrote in message >>>> news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>>>> From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there >>>>> was energy. >>>> >>>> In most models, the gravitational potential >>>> energy is equal and opposite to the matter >>>> and other forms hence the prior total was >>>> zero. >> >> "Uno" <Uno@max.com> wrote in message >> news:lz2Ng.147$GR.35@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >>> Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter. >> >> Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in >> magnitude to the total energy contained in both >> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic >> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the >> gravitational energy is negative, the total is >> zero. "Bri" <Bri@Eng.com > wrote in message news:pWqNg.460$TV3.152@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate the Big Bang. Quite correct but it explains why there isn't a need for infinite energy to create the infinite amount of matter in the universe, the total is zero overall. What I say above is a prediction of many of the relevant competing models. George ------------------------------------------------------------------- The predicted chemical abundance that you mention above is only in agreement with the observed values so long as the universe is actually expanding. But what if it's not? What if you're seeing a universe that's evolving from an origin of absolutely nothing? The chemical abundance will again proportionally match the redshifted universe from any specific era in its evolution, as will everything else, including (dare I say) the speed of light... All that has been proven is that the universe has expanded from some indeterminate event which lies beyond the perception of mankind, or that it has evolved from an origin of absolutely nothing. I know which one I would be happier with. >> Which does give the impression that an instantaneously >> infinite dimension immediately surrounded "it". So you have zero and &