nightbat wrote
Ray Vingnutte wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:32:54 -0500
nightbat wrote:
nightbat wrote
Ray Vingnutte wrote:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:11:42 -0500
nightbat wrote:
nightbat wrote
Ray Vingnutte wrote:
Two or three years ago I came across these ideas, at first I
thought oh yeah, come on, but you know it has sort of grown on
me. As Hoyle was supposedly once to have said ' it's a put-up
job' referring to the universe.
The more I learn about the universe the more it makes me wonder,
this is a put-up job isn't it?.
nightbat
Well Ray, from a theoretical Sir Fred Hoyle sci fi
steady
state one perhaps versus from a nightbat formidable basic
disturbed multi overlapping field one trying to normalize, but in
either case, the former nullifying because of energy's nature. Now
if scientist's could ascertain cause of outside force to explain
original imputed non uniform force impetus or equal or greater
neutralizing force potential, no outside designer is necessary.
Sir Hoyle was a great astrophysicist, mathematician, sci fi
theorist and with some scientific associates formulated a great
many valuable interesting papers, publications, and observations
including to be within limits of steady state premise. But the
Universe is not Einstein cosmological constant static, or single
all originating point energy negating Big Bang, despite cosmic
background radiation, or in a Hoyle and Co's. proposed steady
state condition, but a nightbat constant flex or disturbed
momentum one.
I know, then when does the scientific peer reviewed paper or multi
interest addressed exciting books come out to the local bookstore
nearest you? When does the World finally get the GUT that makes
easy reading sense, so insightful Double-A and the rest of the
star gazers can sleep better? Why did this simple premise miss the
great minds of some of the most enlightened scientist's of the
20th century?
Well for one, who took unanimous usenet posters seriously, and who
has the time to appease the formal most demanding main stream
process when you're so busy applying your working model to further
discovery? Who wants to be made an authority with it's famous
Einstein's Nobel and reported curse of lost of privacy and free
research time? So why did they miss it, they were just as
theoretically busy as nightbat but more inclined to academic plus
fame acceptance notoriety, formal book publishing schedules and
demands, and most, ha, ha, just didn't make it into the 21st
century.
the nightbat
Ray
I'm sorry but I have to say I don't really know what you are talking
about or what you are saying.
Perhaps if I post a link to the sort of stuff I have found very
interesting and that may lead in some future time to my requiring
the services of a Psychiatrist may help.. Don't read or follow up on
any of this stuff in the link below if you are of a fragile
disposition, I thought I could handle it at first, I thought I would
know when to stop but I can't handle it at all..I keep going back
there looking for updates etc.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
nightbat
Don't let it concern you Ray, then let it go, for the most
astute scientific theoretical minds just couldn't grasp it either. But
I agree with you about sci fi simulation scenarios, especially
philosophically analyzed, and any sci fi orientated material in
general, it is mostly non real world based or actualized and therefore
lay person perplexing. I am a champion therefore against sci fi when
not labeled as so because it does have the tendency to while stimulate
some hardier flexible minds, possibly confusing, frightening, and
corrupting others. They don't call higher theoretical physics,
abstract math, complex topological space mapping deep waters for no
reason. It is noted, many a beautiful mind has been sometimes lost in
alluring but dangerous deep logical and analytical attempted
formulation.
Forget attempted cross subject discipline treatments, look what
happened to poor poster Shastry, leave them to the sci fi and
Hollywood book and screen writers. If you find them interesting, as
many are, take care to view them cautiously, remembering the sci fi
subjects are hypothetical concepts, not mathematically proofed or
present real world based.
the nightbat
Ray
I thought pretty much the same two or three years ago, Bostrom I
thought, you are an idiot. I was happy with that thought for several
months, then one day I sat down to watch a video about time travel that
I had recorded a few weeks prior. It was very good, interesting and
entertaining at the same time. Drifted somewhat in the middle when a
couple of loons were brought on which seems mandatory now with this
sort of documentary, one said he could time travel with what looked
like a piece of wire on his head and what looked like the internals of
a domestic telephone on the desk. Needless to say his demonstration
didn't work. Then the documentary got back in good style and a chap
was talking, I heard myself saying yeah he is right you know, that
makes sense, then his name came up on the screen like they do in these
documentary's and lo and behold it was none other than Dr. Nick
Bostrom!. Then Paul Davies got in on the act, it was good stuff, it
sort of made sense, much more sense than I could have expected.
And it is not all Bostrom's fault either, Davies is still going strong
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...&oneclick=true
When you read this you can't really disagree with him, well I can't
anyway's.
nightbat
Ray, I went to your reference site and lo and behold it was
about sci fi Davies rattling on about multiverse theory. It also
mentions sci fi Sir Fred Hoyle and where he arrived at that put up job
reference. Ray, I told you, don't believe a word of it as fact, it is
all hypothetical science fiction, not real. The fellows mentioned were
and are known for weaving tales of pure fantasy for the buying book and
movie public. There is only one observed immense Universe with many many
galaxies not other Universes. This is all a spin off from failed String
and now taken over M theory sci fi, and why I object to the sci fi folks
passing this stuff off as real or possible. Not true, since they are at
a lost for figuring out the true Universe they start making up premises
to make their hopelessly lost and sci fi concoctions fit the
constricting or missing data.
As soon as you hear multiverse, worm holes, time travel, black holes,
tears in the fabric of space time, etc. run, or sit back and laugh at
their sci fi hype. A serious scientist or researcher will explain these
misconceptions as pure fantasy, and only rely on mathematically proofed
or observed scientifically peer correlated presentations. The black hole
enigma or paradox alone has done more damage to folks minds then ever
anticipated by Dr. Einstein when first presented as an curious
mathematical anomaly. I have given the resolution over the net science
newsgroups to hopefully dispel its long apparent negative effects on
sensitive logical minds in search of the final answer or solution. Sci
fi is fine if labeled so, but not when it is passed off as real, or as
non theory based, and misreported as certified respectable scientist
approved to gullible impressionable minds.
the nightbat