Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote in message om...

Painius wrote...

Is this a "Self-delusion?" or are we deluded by Nature?

For, creation and evolution cannot even come, like quantum and
relativity theories, under illusory "observers' universe" based on
real singularity. They are delusory on observation of the illusory
"observers' universe" based on real singularity.

....and you yourself are an observer in this illusory universe...

And as the "real" singularity is based firmly on your own
observation of the universe, is this illusory? or delusory?
Your logic would seem to bake it the latter.

Not at all, we being in illusory universe cannot even deny the real
singularity. Even the denial of singularity is ultimately based on the
real singularity itself. And so, repeat, there is no other REAL even
to deny the REAL singularity.

As you are under an illusion like the rest of us, then the
singularity is a delusion. This is not a denial, just a chance
liklihood.

Shaping young minds is a huge responsibility which nobody
should take lightly. And young minds are equally obligated
to make wise choices based upon their teachings, for these
young minds are the teachers of tomorrow. It is ultimately
their beliefs that will determine what is taught as "fact" in
learning arenas of the future.

So has it always been... and so shall it always be.

That is right. It is for this reason a small beginning has been made.

S S Shastry

The small beginning is also an illusion designed to make you
think that in your delusion of a real singularity, you have made
progress. Yet, as you have pointed out, the entire universe is
illusory, which includes these posts and UseNet itself. So i
guess it must be "back to the old (illusory) drawing board."

happy illusory days and...
starry delusory nights!

--
Lessons of time
in the presents of rhymes...
The essence of time
is the presence of primes.

Indelibly yours,
Painius

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

Shastry I don't have to pinch myself to feel reality. The fact at my
age I wake up and find myself alive is all I need. Hard to think of a
singularity not being an illusion when it has zero macro dimensions.
Still we don't find QM theory with its "point particle" having no mass
so hard to take. We can even imagine particles that are 10-^33
centermeters across. If man lived inside a neutron instead of the macro
universe,and if this man was Shastry he would have a different view.
Size gives reality to the viewer's thinking about spacetime. The very
large,and the very tiny can go to infinity. Infinity scares us. Bert

You're damned straight, Bert!

I've read some books on "infinity." Each author, it seemed,
was mostly trying to understand infinity better so it would not
be such an unknown thing, an enigma, a master mystery. As
far as i'm concerned, none of these people succeeded.

And it's a wierd mystery, too. For example, compare all of
the even numbers like 2, 4, 16 and so forth with all the
numbers above zero like 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 17 and the rest. It is
obvious even to the blondest observer that there *must* be
twice as many numbers in the second group. That is, there
are only half as many even numbers as there are in the group
of all numbers.

And yet, both of these groups are "infinite." There is
absolutely NO "highest number" in either group. No matter
how high you count in even numbers or in all numbers, you
could go on counting "forever."

And then there are *fractions* (ugh!). There is an infinite
number of fractions between the numbers 1 and 2. And
there is an infinite number of fractions between 1 and 1 1/2.
There is even an infinite number of fractions between 1 and
1 1/4 !!!

Infinity is an unknown thing... a scary, inexplicable, mystery
of an unknown thing.

Nature abhors an infinity.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Lessons of time
in the presents of rhymes...
The essence of time
is the presence of primes.

Indelibly yours,
Painius

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

Shastry I don't have to pinch myself to feel reality. The fact at my
age I wake up and find myself alive is all I need. Hard to think of a
singularity not being an illusion when it has zero macro dimensions.
Still we don't find QM theory with its "point particle" having no mass
so hard to take. We can even imagine particles that are 10-^33
centermeters across. If man lived inside a neutron instead of the macro
universe,and if this man was Shastry he would have a different view.
Size gives reality to the viewer's thinking about spacetime. The very
large,and the very tiny can go to infinity. Infinity scares us. Bert

You're damned straight, Bert!

I've read some books on "infinity." Each author, it seemed,
was mostly trying to understand infinity better so it would not
be such an unknown thing, an enigma, a master mystery. As
far as i'm concerned, none of these people succeeded.

And it's a wierd mystery, too. For example, compare all of
the even numbers like 2, 4, 16 and so forth with all the
numbers above zero like 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 17 and the rest. It is
obvious even to the blondest observer that there *must* be
twice as many numbers in the second group. That is, there
are only half as many even numbers as there are in the group
of all numbers.

And yet, both of these groups are "infinite." There is
absolutely NO "highest number" in either group. No matter
how high you count in even numbers or in all numbers, you
could go on counting "forever."

And then there are *fractions* (ugh!). There is an infinite
number of fractions between the numbers 1 and 2. And
there is an infinite number of fractions between 1 and 1 1/2.
There is even an infinite number of fractions between 1 and
1 1/4 !!!

Infinity is an unknown thing... a scary, inexplicable, mystery
of an unknown thing.

Nature abhors an infinity.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Lessons of time
in the presents of rhymes...
The essence of time
is the presence of primes.

Indelibly yours,
Painius

From Painius:

Infinity is an unknown thing... a scary,
inexplicable, mystery
of an unknown thing.

Nature abhors an infinity.

Herr Wolter had an interesting and unique take on infinity, seeing it as
based it on the octave principle, wherein every 8th 'note' becomes the
first note of the next octave. He saw this 'interlocking' or overlapping
feature as the structure of infinity itself.. with the 'Keyboard of
infinity' stretching forever in both directions.
Whatever may lie at the 'ends' of the Keyboard of
infinity becomes one of the 'flat earth' issues of his expanded model..
along with the question of Ultimate Origin and the source of the SCO.
oc

From Painius:

Infinity is an unknown thing... a scary,
inexplicable, mystery
of an unknown thing.

Nature abhors an infinity.

Herr Wolter had an interesting and unique take on infinity, seeing it as
based it on the octave principle, wherein every 8th 'note' becomes the
first note of the next octave. He saw this 'interlocking' or overlapping
feature as the structure of infinity itself.. with the 'Keyboard of
infinity' stretching forever in both directions.
Whatever may lie at the 'ends' of the Keyboard of
infinity becomes one of the 'flat earth' issues of his expanded model..
along with the question of Ultimate Origin and the source of the SCO.
oc

Painius wrote:

[snip]

And then there are *fractions* (ugh!). There is an infinite
number of fractions between the numbers 1 and 2. And
there is an infinite number of fractions between 1 and 1 1/2.
There is even an infinite number of fractions between 1 and
1 1/4 !!!

Infinity is an unknown thing... a scary, inexplicable, mystery
of an unknown thing.

You may be aware that mathematicians recognize different kinds of
infinity. For example it can be proven quite easily that the number
of rational numbers (fractions) between any two values, like 0 and 1,
is exactly the same infinity as the number of natural numbers (or
evens, or odds, or primes, or ...). On the other hand the number of
points (real numbers) in any segment of the number-line, no matter
how short, is infinitely larger than that.

But the nature of infinity gets murkier beyond this; see

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ContinuumHypothesis.html.

--
Odysseus

Painius wrote:

[snip]

And then there are *fractions* (ugh!). There is an infinite
number of fractions between the numbers 1 and 2. And
there is an infinite number of fractions between 1 and 1 1/2.
There is even an infinite number of fractions between 1 and
1 1/4 !!!

Infinity is an unknown thing... a scary, inexplicable, mystery
of an unknown thing.

You may be aware that mathematicians recognize different kinds of
infinity. For example it can be proven quite easily that the number
of rational numbers (fractions) between any two values, like 0 and 1,
is exactly the same infinity as the number of natural numbers (or
evens, or odds, or primes, or ...). On the other hand the number of
points (real numbers) in any segment of the number-line, no matter
how short, is infinitely larger than that.

But the nature of infinity gets murkier beyond this; see

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ContinuumHypothesis.html.

--
Odysseus

Hi Painius You are right there can be no such thing as the highest
number,for like Feynman said "You can always add a one to it." Numbers
go to infinity. The inverse square law tells us things weaken with
distance,but these things have to go to infinity just like the fractions
Painius you pointed out to us. Bert

Hi Painius You are right there can be no such thing as the highest
number,for like Feynman said "You can always add a one to it." Numbers
go to infinity. The inverse square law tells us things weaken with
distance,but these things have to go to infinity just like the fractions
Painius you pointed out to us. Bert

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ...
Shastry I don't have to pinch myself to feel reality. The fact at my
age I wake up and find myself alive is all I need. Hard to think of a
singularity not being an illusion when it has zero macro dimensions.
Still we don't find QM theory with its "point particle" having no mass
so hard to take.


How can we be so sure that both these theories aren't wrong?


We can even imagine particles that are 10-^33
centermeters across. If man lived inside a neutron instead of the macro
universe,and if this man was Shastry he would have a different view.
Size gives reality to the viewer's thinking about spacetime. The very
large,and the very tiny can go to infinity. Infinity scares us. Bert


If we all lived on a neutron, we could observe first hand the
mechanics of how particles interact in our atomic level universe. But
then if we were able to look out into the macro universe, we might be
puzzled as to why the stars and planets were not following the same
laws of motion that we had discovered at the atomic level.

So why are we, living on a planet in a solar system, so puzzled that
objects on the galactic scale don't seem to be nicely following the
same laws of motion that we discovered on the solar system level?

Double-A