|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Of what's become nondisclosure/taboo
In message , f/fgeorge
writes On 30 Aug 2005 10:32:46 -0700, "Brad Guth" wrote: If you'd like to honestly focus upon something/anything, just specify whatever and I'll follow suit. Any suggestion the BIG BANG theory wasn't the one and only singular event I have some ideas on this: What if there was no "big bang" that engulfed EVERYTHING. What if it was a "big bang" just in our section of the sky? In order for there to be a "big bang" there HAD to be something to go BANG! NO ONE has EVER been able to even SHOW how to produce something from nothing. Since it is not concievable it probably couldn't have happened! Since that is true then there HAD to be something BEFORE the "big bang"! Soooo on to the idea, suppose OUR section of the Universe went thru a black hole type event and after the compression and "big bang" it regrouped and made what we now recognize as our section of the whole. Just because we can't see past the edge doesn't mean that waaaaay out there there isn't anything. There is lots of "empty" space between our known Galaxys and I can't see any reason to the idea that our little section is all there is. 1) Responding to Brad Guth is probably a waste of time. 2) This is totally off topic for sci.astro.seti. 3) CAPITAL letters are the mark of a crank. 4) Your misconceptions about the "big bang" seem to be all-comprehensive. It _wasn't_ an explosion into something else. It was a creation of all of space and time, possibly from nothing at all, possibly from something pre-existing (such as is suggested by the "brane" theory). "Our" section of the universe is limited by the speed of light (according to current theory). The whole universe may well be infinite in space, but (again, according to current theory) not in time. The space between galaxies is irrelevant, because a creation event would produce a new space and new time. -- Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In message , f/fgeorge
writes On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:59:11 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message , f/fgeorge writes 1) Responding to Brad Guth is probably a waste of time. I am TRYING to focus him on a topic that is of interest to many. So have many others, I believe :-) 2) This is totally off topic for sci.astro.seti. And EXACTLY what makes you think ANYTHING is OT, have you not read what has been going on in this group over the past several YEARS! Actually, I see the posting is Brad's fault. He didn't post to sci.astro, and you just trimmed it to the most appropriate. Meanwhile, anyone who hasn't already kill filed him is laughing at those extraordinary rambling paragraphs. 3) CAPITAL letters are the mark of a crank. You KNOW what they say about shoes! How would you know what I was trying to empasise if I didn't captilize sometimes? _Underlining_? :-) (sometimes done like *this*) Just that Usenet is still "officially" a text only and ASCII only medium, and SHOUTING is disapproved of :-) 4) Your misconceptions about the "big bang" seem to be all-comprehensive. So we ARE going to have a discussion about the "big bang" after all? Why not? (Unless someone tells us to stop) It _wasn't_ an explosion into something else. It was a creation of all of space and time, possibly from nothing at all, possibly from something pre-existing (such as is suggested by the "brane" theory). But doesn't that then beg the question "where did we come from? IF there was something "pre-existing", then what was it, where did it come from, etc., etc., etc.? "Our" section of the universe is limited by the speed of light (according to current theory). Seems short sighted. But it's the way things seem to work. You can't throw away a century of theory. Actually, I still like the Charlier cosmology, which allows a static infinite universe, but it does seem that the universe is expanding and eventually reaches an unbreakable speed limit. The whole universe may well be infinite in space, but (again, according to current theory) not in time. Haven't read Peter Lynds have you? I am NOT sure I understand his ideas either but I have read summaries of his work. Now we're getting interesting - and a bit deep for me. But if you believe in linear time there's evidence that the observable universe changes with time, and that it had a beginning. The space between galaxies is irrelevant, because a creation event would produce a new space and new time. But again ONLY for us! How would this interact with the rest of the Universe? How do we KNOW that our "big bang" did not interact with other areas of the Universe, we just haven't been able to detect it yet because of our technology and steadfast beliefs? I think you're missing it again, at least as I understand current theory. There are no "other areas of the universe" in this view, but a whole new universe. And yes, some theories say there is interaction with other universes, and that's why gravity and so on work the way they do. That's why I like brane theory. It reminds me of James Blish's novel "A Clash of Cymbals", in which there is warning of the imminent collision of two universes. Sadly, I don't think he lived to see his ideas reborn as a serious theory. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , f/fgeorge writes [...] How would you know what I was trying to empasise if I didn't captilize sometimes? _Underlining_? :-) (sometimes done like *this*) Just that Usenet is still "officially" a text only and ASCII only medium, and SHOUTING is disapproved of :-) I didn't check to see what email reader f/f George is using, but all those highlightings and smilies show up fine in Mozilla Thunderbird Meanwhile, good *Big* *Bang* comments. And /how/ would we /know/ that there was other than _linear_ time for our existence? Regards, Martin -- ---------- OS? What's that?! (Martin_285 on Mandriva) - Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange. - 53N 1W - Mandriva 10LE GNU Linux - An OS for Supercomputers & PCs ---------- http://www1.mandrivalinux.com/en/concept.php3 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
f/fgeorge;
I can't see any reason to the idea that our little section is all there is. Just because we can't see past the edge doesn't mean that waaaaay out there there isn't anything. Your ulterior motive as another or secondary ruse is working. It's making you almost human. I'd have to agree that perhaps a few little bangs transpired, or perhaps like that black hole sort of passage that sucks in more ways than we can understand. Also, from time to time the Oort to Oort zone encounters with the likes of the Sirius star system should have been interesting. What if that once upon a time black hole encounter were merely an amount or seed of antimatter as having been nicely surrounded by those nearly resting photons? Thereby not all that much normal gravity to deal with, just lots of potential antimatter mass that need not be very large and, thereby a great deal of empty space within a given black hole, plus horrific energy differentials to boot that should make something happen to whatever's capable of passing through. I'm talking about that seed of antimatter accommodating a nifty cloak of those photons from 1e-10 nm (roughly the size of an atom) to perhaps at least 3e5 km if not 9.46e12 km, thus quite a wide spectrum worth of perhaps as many as 1e100 photons/atom. If the antimatter core represented 1e30 atoms, than the collective of those nearly resting photons might become as great as 1e130. Of course such nearly resting photons would remain somewhat energy dark to our instruments, especially of that many as having been situated in one tight little black hole of a spot. BTW "f/fgeorge"; why are you bothering to having this perfectly honest to God contribution of yours removed in 6 Days? I have some ideas on this: What if there was no "big bang" that engulfed EVERYTHING. What if it was a "big bang" just in our section of the sky? In order for there to be a "big bang" there HAD to be something to go BANG! NO ONE has EVER been able to even SHOW how to produce something from nothing. Since it is not concievable it probably couldn't have happened! Since that is true then there HAD to be something BEFORE the "big bang"! Soooo on to the idea, suppose OUR section of the Universe went thru a black hole type event and after the compression and "big bang" it regrouped and made what we now recognize as our section of the whole. Just because we can't see past the edge doesn't mean that waaaaay out there there isn't anything. There is lots of "empty" space between our known Galaxys and I can't see any reason to the idea that our little section is all there is. ~ Life on Venus, Township w/Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm "In war there are no rules" - Brad Guth |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Silverlight;
2) This is totally off topic for sci.astro.seti. I believe the truth and nothing but the truth is what's typically "off topic" as far as yourself and SETI are concerned. Although I do like the following notions that's totally beyond anything Einstein. "Our" section of the universe is limited by the speed of light (according to current theory). The space between galaxies is irrelevant, because a creation event would produce a new space and new time. Obviously creation is creation, thus "new space and new time" makes perfect sense. How about the same as applied for artificial creation via intelligent design? ~ Life on Venus, Township w/Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm "In war there are no rules" - Brad Guth |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I think if we throw out our current ideas we can have a system where time is not sliceable, it just is. WE slice it to keep things organized in our minds, but if we let go of that then maybe time is not how we usually think of it. Einstein had an "observation" that I like: a man is on a train, a second man is standing on the road watching the train go by. If the man on the train starts walking the same way as the train is moving he appears to be moving faster than the train, when observed by the man on the ground. If however he walks the opposite way that the train is moving he appears to be going slower than the train, when observed by the man on the road. Is he in fact going faster than the train when going forward? Is he in fact going slower than the train when walking the other way? It all depends on your point of view or perspective. This was all from Einstein's thoughts about the speed of light and his ideas that it was an impenetrable barrier. There is new thought that maybe it is possible to go FTL, when viewed by someone not a part of the journey. The man on the train did not "feel" like he was going faster than the train, or slower depending on which way he was moving. But to the man on the road he WAS! This is relativity in a nutshell. Think of one person _relative_ to another. In the above statement you made, due to time dilation the man at rest will not see the man on the train move, since his frame of reference is moving so much slower in comparison to the man at rest. Unfortunatley your analogy has been used quite a bit, mostly in the form of two spacecraft relative to one another. My question is why do so many people would like to just get rid of all the hard gained knowledge we've learned over the centuries? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Martin 53N 1W wrote: [ ... ] Meanwhile, good *Big* *Bang* comments. And /how/ would we /know/ that there was other than _linear_ time for our existence? By example; some of the people I work with are clearly functioning in unreal time. Some aspects of alternate universes seem to be involved as well. Gary -- Gary Heston The Intel ASCI Red supercomputer placed first in the 11/97 list of the top 500 supercomputers in the world, at 1.338 TeraFLOPs max. As of 6/05, it wouldn't make the list. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
f/fgeorge
Lo and behold, FTL is where we need to get to. Possibly via pushing secondary FM photons upon a laser beam or waveguide of aligned CW photons which are essentially an alignment of spinning atoms, whereas this may become where those FTL packets get their opportunity as to exit our realm and manage to arrive at some other star system's realm without it taking so gosh darn long. Of course the initial photon waveguide of CW photons is going to take the usual 3e8 m/s to establish. Once established and the secondary FM photons are taking advantage of this extremely fast conveyor belt of carrier photons is where the FLT packets do their thing at perhaps 1e15 bps. Now all we need are a few of those fully robotic laser cannons of perhaps 0.05 milliradian doing their CW thing from the moon. Of course the signal path could get disrupted every so often, which sort of means having polar situated laser cannons that could remain tracked upon a given star system, or other planet. As viewed from either lunar pole, what nearby star systems are there that would accommodate a 100% visual and thus laser tracking opportunity? ~ Life on Venus, Township w/Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm "In war there are no rules" - Brad Guth |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
EEtimes2;
all the hard gained knowledge we've learned over the centuries Isn't worth squat if it doesn't manage to improve the quality and/or longevity of life as we know it. Unfortunately, most all of astronomy fits quite nicely into a rather spendy and globally polluting space-toilet as far as the lower 99.9% of humanity is concerned. ~ Life on Venus, Township w/Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm "In war there are no rules" - Brad Guth |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
f/fgeorge wrote:
[...] I think if we throw out our current ideas we can have a system where time is not sliceable, it just is. WE slice it to keep things organized in our minds, but if we let go of that then maybe time is not how we usually think of it. We observe 'quantized' effects at the atomic level. Has the question been resolved for whether or not "time" itself is quantized at some level or scale? Einstein had an "observation" that I like: a man is on a train, a second man is standing on the road watching the train go by. If the [...] maybe it is possible to go FTL, when viewed by someone not a part of the journey. The man on the train did not "feel" like he was going faster than the train, or slower depending on which way he was moving. But to the man on the road he WAS! A further thought to consider is that synchronised events can occur at distances such that the knowledge that the event should have taken place 'travels' faster than light. However, you can only observe the event from some time later. (And then again, nothing travels faster than some good gossip! ) Another thought: For a very powerful radar that is quickly scanning across the sky, can the end of the radar beam travel in the scan direction faster than light? Regards, Martin -- ---------- OS? What's that?! (Martin_285 on Mandriva) - Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange. - 53N 1W - Mandriva 10LE GNU Linux - An OS for Supercomputers & PCs ---------- http://www1.mandrivalinux.com/en/concept.php3 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|