The Age of the Universe is a Function of Time

--
America's problem? The plates are too big!
Throw out your dinner plates and get smaller ones!
More is NOT better. 20oz soda is TOO big, get an 8 ounce glasses, bottles
and cans .
The fat must come off or you die a sickly decrepit death.


"jonathan" wrote in message
...

The Age of the Universe is a Function of Time

by Donald E. Simanek

Abstract:

Scientific estimates of the age of the earth and the universe show
a consistent tendency to increase at an increasing rate as time goes on.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cutting/ageuniv.htm


The age of the universe is many times older than the earth. The earth was
only created when our sun was created. Suns in the universe have been born,
died and born again many times before our solar system formed. The universe
will go on billions of years after out sun explodes and destroys the
planets. Man will never colonize the stars because growing religion shows
declining intelligence. We would have done so by now if it was gonna happen.
So when the sun goes red giant that will be the end of man and his made up
god.

"George" wrote in message
news:WPmif.582626$_o.192849@attbi_s71...



And you are the strangest of them all.


Uh oh, I feel a rant sweeping over me.

To be honest with you, there's a reason for that. The conventional
world has it /all so/ exactly backwards. The only way to figure things out
is to inverse everything conventional. And rigorously so.
Which means of course I should strive to make my internet 'alt'
as close as possible to the inverse of the real world 'me'.

Creating a mirror image of yourself creates the two opposite
extremes which allows the sane or complex middle to be seen.....objectively.
Then we can combine equal measures of both opposite extremes into
a new and better you. An objective form of self analysis.
Which would seem to be a contradiction in terms, but it's not.

In this way we can make the subjective.... objective.

Which produces a simple, fixed or easy solution. It makes
what's normally hard....easy.. Inverse the input, and the
output is also inversed. What is more art than science
becomes ....more science than art.

Connecting the system specific extremes in possibility
space is the way nature creates all order in the universe.
Living or non-living. But the first order of business is
to define those opposite extremes, to understand yourself.
Then, and only then, it's possible to understand the real world.

Reality is best understood through subjective methods.

But first we must all train or tune our subjective abilities to
each other. So the truth of the universe can not only
be fully expressed, but understood by others.

Until everyone objectively understands themselves, we cannot
begin to comprehend the truth of our existence.

Remember, in the bizzarro world of complexity science, fundamental
law flows from the most complex the universe has to offer, not
the other way around. Truth flows from observing life, not particles
and there's no easier or more complete example to study then yourself.

If you want to understand the big bang, creation or even God
just look in a mirror.


Jonathan


"He who knows others is wise; He who knows himself is enlightened."
Lao-Tzu


s








George

"jonathan" wrote in message
. ..

"George" wrote in message
news:WPmif.582626$_o.192849@attbi_s71...



And you are the strangest of them all.


Uh oh, I feel a rant sweeping over me.

To be honest with you, there's a reason for that. The conventional
world has it /all so/ exactly backwards.

Right. The entire world is wrong, but you got it right. What drug are you
taking that makes you so delusional? Lacing the maryjane again, Johnny?

George

jonathan wrote:



Uh oh, I feel a rant sweeping over me.

To be honest with you, there's a reason for that. The conventional
world has it /all so/ exactly backwards. The only way to figure things out
is to inverse everything conventional. And rigorously so.
Which means of course I should strive to make my internet 'alt'
as close as possible to the inverse of the real world 'me'.



In other words, you've been telling us Great Big Fibs about yourself.

Creating a mirror image of yourself creates the two opposite
extremes which allows the sane or complex middle to be seen.....objectively.
Then we can combine equal measures of both opposite extremes into
a new and better you. An objective form of self analysis.
Which would seem to be a contradiction in terms, but it's not.

In this way we can make the subjective.... objective.

Which produces a simple, fixed or easy solution. It makes
what's normally hard....easy.. Inverse the input, and the
output is also inversed. What is more art than science
becomes ....more science than art.

Connecting the system specific extremes in possibility
space is the way nature creates all order in the universe.
Living or non-living. But the first order of business is
to define those opposite extremes, to understand yourself.
Then, and only then, it's possible to understand the real world.

Reality is best understood through subjective methods.

But first we must all train or tune our subjective abilities to
each other. So the truth of the universe can not only
be fully expressed, but understood by others.

Until everyone objectively understands themselves, we cannot
begin to comprehend the truth of our existence.

Remember, in the bizzarro world of complexity science, fundamental
law flows from the most complex the universe has to offer, not
the other way around. Truth flows from observing life, not particles
and there's no easier or more complete example to study then yourself.

If you want to understand the big bang, creation or even God
just look in a mirror.




Well, you can say what you want, but after that, I'm fairly sure you've
had some experience with drugs... the question is, were they illegal
ones or something that was prescribed? :-D

Pat

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:39:36 GMT, "Nog" wrote:

The age of the universe is many times older than the earth. The earth was
only created when our sun was created. Suns in the universe have been born,
died and born again many times before our solar system formed. The universe
will go on billions of years after out sun explodes and destroys the
planets. Man will never colonize the stars because growing religion shows
declining intelligence. We would have done so by now if it was gonna happen.
So when the sun goes red giant that will be the end of man and his made up
god.

If man was ment to fly he'd have grown wings.


--

Christopher

"Christopher" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:39:36 GMT, "Nog" wrote:

The age of the universe is many times older than the earth. The earth was
only created when our sun was created. Suns in the universe have been
born,
died and born again many times before our solar system formed. The
universe
will go on billions of years after out sun explodes and destroys the
planets. Man will never colonize the stars because growing religion shows
declining intelligence. We would have done so by now if it was gonna
happen.
So when the sun goes red giant that will be the end of man and his made up
god.

If man was ment to fly he'd have grown wings.


--

Christopher

Instead he grew arms to masturbate with.

"Nog" wrote in message
news:I5uif.10974$hL3.10727@trndny05...


--
America's problem? The plates are too big!
Throw out your dinner plates and get smaller ones!
More is NOT better. 20oz soda is TOO big, get an 8 ounce glasses, bottles
and cans .
The fat must come off or you die a sickly decrepit death.


"jonathan" wrote in message
...

The Age of the Universe is a Function of Time

by Donald E. Simanek

Abstract:

Scientific estimates of the age of the earth and the universe show
a consistent tendency to increase at an increasing rate as time goes on.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cutting/ageuniv.htm


The age of the universe is many times older than the earth. The earth was
only created when our sun was created. Suns in the universe have been
born, died and born again many times before our solar system formed. The
universe will go on billions of years after out sun explodes and destroys
the planets. Man will never colonize the stars because growing religion
shows declining intelligence. We would have done so by now if it was gonna
happen. So when the sun goes red giant that will be the end of man and his
made up god.


"Man will never colonize the stars because growing religion shows
declining intelligence." Which shows how little you know of history or the
nature of things. Man has always moved to colonize new frontiers at the
heights of its religiosity. It has never colonized new frontiers in any age
when religion was dismissed. As both Edward Gibbon and Will Durant rightly
claimed, the last great age of discovery and settlement was nothing more or
less than a worldclass acceleration of the spirit of the Crusades that
preceded it. And it was nothing more or less than the following of
precedents set and followed throughout history. Nothing more or less than
natural law. Even the physicist Roger Penrose in a moment of high excitement
called the Universe "the table of God" (meaning the "Horn of Plenty" or the
"Promised Land").

People like you don't masses anywhere but down and down and down. No
possibility of imagination. No possibility of vision. No possibility of any
real initiative or positive energies. Just rotting degradation sitting.

The Universe is no older than the oldest thing in it. It is as young as
the youngest thing in it. It has no age separate from its constitution. It
is indivisible from its makeup. It is countless wheels of time always
turning upon hubs of zero (timelessness-- as identified in and at the speed
of light... the universal meantime) and has 'no age' (a pun) apart. It has
had no Beginning differentiated from all "beginnings." No End differentiated
from all "ends." It has had no Bang differentiated from all "bangs." It has
had no Crunch differentiated from all "crunches", no Rip differentiated from
all "rips." And it will never have any of these things, or anything else,
that will be differentiated.

GLB

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


jonathan wrote:



Uh oh, I feel a rant sweeping over me.

To be honest with you, there's a reason for that. The conventional
world has it /all so/ exactly backwards. The only way to figure things out
is to inverse everything conventional. And rigorously so.
Which means of course I should strive to make my internet 'alt'
as close as possible to the inverse of the real world 'me'.



In other words, you've been telling us Great Big Fibs about yourself.

Such as?

Is this dishonest? If I tend to be inhibited in the real world, then
I should try to be equally uninhibited here. If in the real world
I'd normally react negatively to some statement, then in here
it'd be positive to the same degree. And so on.



Well, you can say what you want,
but after that, I'm fairly sure you've
had some experience with drugs...

I fail to see what that has to do with anything.


the question is, were they illegal
ones or something that was prescribed?


Why do you ask? People so badly want to pigeonhole
everyone else. They want to know if they have a degree, or
smoke dope, or are rich, fat and on and on. So they
can decide whether to listen to or dismiss some opinion.
This only shows the insecurity inherent in our beliefs.
We look to others, to authority, to tell us what to
think and how.

Words should stand and fall on their own merit.

Who spoke them shouldn't even be considered.
Cyberspace in an entirely platonic world. The minute
anyone tries to make it a microcosm of reality all
the new possibilities this medium offers are lost.

And these new freedoms and abilities are lost only
because of vanity. People want credit for what they
said and did, they want to attach their real world
names, titles and rank.

For the sake of vanity, the magnificent New World
is returned unopened.





Jonathan

s



:-D

Pat

jonathan wrote:

In other words, you've been telling us Great Big Fibs about yourself.



Such as?

Is this dishonest? If I tend to be inhibited in the real world, then
I should try to be equally uninhibited here. If in the real world
I'd normally react negatively to some statement, then in here
it'd be positive to the same degree. And so on.



In short, you really don't have any opinion, but merely two different
appearances of one that you express to two different groups of people.
You are a null.



Well, you can say what you want,
but after that, I'm fairly sure you've
had some experience with drugs...



I fail to see what that has to do with anything.



Well, they do tend to alter one's behavior and perception of things; or
as W.C. Fields said:
"A man who overindulges lives in a dream. He becomes conceited. He
thinks the whole world revolves around him; and it usually does."




the question is, were they illegal
ones or something that was prescribed?




Why do you ask? People so badly want to pigeonhole
everyone else. They want to know if they have a degree,


BA in History/PoliSci, minor in English.

or
smoke dope,


Nope.

or are rich,


Not by a long shot.

fat


Yup.

and on and on. So they
can decide whether to listen to or dismiss some opinion.



And amazingly, I mention the above facts to both people I talk to and in
newsgroup postings.

This only shows the insecurity inherent in our beliefs.
We look to others, to authority, to tell us what to
think and how.



I think the fat part is more related to beer and cheese than any desire
to satisfy an authority figure.


Words should stand and fall on their own merit.



True to some extent, but if you know that the person writing them has
admitted that he doesn't really have a fixed opinion on anything that he
is ready to share in a straight-forward and consistent manner with
anyone else, then you should be suspicious of his own belief in what he
has said or written, and his motives for doing so.
This sounds more like a quest for some type of personal empowerment at
the expense of others by pulling the wool over their eyes and
congratulating oneself on one's cunning.

Who spoke them shouldn't even be considered.



If it were Charles Manson, I'd be somewhat careful about the ideas.
The same goes for Marilyn Manson.

Cyberspace in an entirely platonic world. The minute
anyone tries to make it a microcosm of reality all
the new possibilities this medium offers are lost.



Like truth apparently. We sure wouldn't want to shackle it down with
that, would we?

And these new freedoms and abilities are lost only
because of vanity. People want credit for what they
said and did, they want to attach their real world
names, titles and rank.



And if it s a worthwhile idea, they should indeed take credit for it,
and be recognized for having originating it by others.

For the sake of vanity, the magnificent New World
is returned unopened.




You are a very silly person, and I'm not going to read your postings
anymore.

Pat

jonathan wrote:

Why do you ask? People so badly want to pigeonhole
everyone else. They want to know if they have a degree, or
smoke dope, or are rich, fat and on and on. So they
can decide whether to listen to or dismiss some opinion.
This only shows the insecurity inherent in our beliefs.
We look to others, to authority, to tell us what to
think and how.

Words should stand and fall on their own merit.

Who spoke them shouldn't even be considered.

Do you read each and every piece of spam or junk mail carefully
on the chance that it might contain interesting ideas or
lucrative offers?

In the real world it is not possible to thoroughly evaluate
everything one might read or hear. In the real world we have to
rely on the judgement of others in the form of reputation and
credentials. Stephen Hawking probably knows more about cosmology
than someone named jonathan on usenet. Dr. Miller probably has a
better idea about how to cure my ulcers that my Great Aunt Sally.
In the real world we have to rely on inductive reasoning. The
convicted sex offender is probably not the best choice for a day
care worker. The disheveled guy who was 20 minutes late to an
interview isn't the person we want for the job. The crack addict
probably isn't the guy you want marrying your daughter. The guy
who thinks it unfair that people rely on things like reputation,
credentials, appearance, personal habits, and past performance to
make judgements likely has a poor reputation, lousy credentials,
etc.

Jim Davis