Big Bang - formal name?

On Nov 29, 4:19*pm, M Purcell wrote:
On Nov 29, 7:48*am, oriel36 wrote:









On Nov 29, 1:55*pm, M Purcell wrote:

On Nov 29, 5:46*am, oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 29, 11:57*am, Peter Moylan
wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory views as valid so
when an empiricist tells you that he is looking back in time to the
first galaxies when the Universe was very small,he will also tell you
that the furthest galaxies away are the oldest in a very large
Universe so big bang is a triumph of doublethink -

You appear to be saying that, in the theoretical model that you believe
in, those two assertions contradict each other. I'm trying to think of a
model where doublethink would be required to reconcile the two statements.

Are you, perhaps, asserting that the speed of light is negative?

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. * * *http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Simple stuff that anyone could deal with in a minute it takes to think
the thing through,you want the oldest galaxies to represent the
distance scale of the Universe but also believe that they are the
youngest galaxies at a time when the Universe was smaller,in the 5
seconds it takes to discover that it does not makes sense and is
possibly an affliction of the mind for those who genuinely believe
it,the person may discover the actual process of doublethink,not as a
narrative in a novel,but something where the readers in a forum like
this can have immediate contact with,in short ,doublethink is very
much alive and thriving.

I suppose you have trouble relating the sound of a gunshot to a
distant puff of smoke as well.

An elevator voice announcing a floor level sounds profound in
comparison to that and I took the time out to look through your
posting history to see if it was a once-off but unfortunately not,so,
the guys promoting big bang have nothing to worry about,their target
audience is more or less at your level who would run a million miles
than apply common sense to an ideology that doesn't have any,at least
to call it nonsense within two minutes of seeing it.

It is not that you wouldn't understand,there is nothing there in you
to appeal to one way or the other,that is why empiricism is so
dominant and that is why a no center/no circumference ideology (the
joke of it goes over your head) like big bang exists.

The only joke is that you are using the results of physics to refute
something you are unable to understand.

Thanks for proving my point,it ain't much but there you have it.

Let me see,the oldest galaxy is the one that is furthest away when the
Universe was smaller but is now the youngest galaxy is an Universe
that is getting bigger,you guys crack me up and I do not mock the
promoters of big bang,they make a ton of money from doing this
stuff,it is the wider population who couldn't spare two minutes to
figure out the nonsense and move on to the real issue.

What I would give to discover a scientist who could figure out the
correspondence between the day/night cycle and daily rotation,the big
bangers think there are 366 1/4 rotations in a year.

As for you,go ahead and run away,it is what people at your level do.

On Nov 29, 9:08*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:19*pm, M Purcell wrote:





On Nov 29, 7:48*am, oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 29, 1:55*pm, M Purcell wrote:

On Nov 29, 5:46*am, oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 29, 11:57*am, Peter Moylan
wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory views as valid so
when an empiricist tells you that he is looking back in time to the
first galaxies when the Universe was very small,he will also tell you
that the furthest galaxies away are the oldest in a very large
Universe so big bang is a triumph of doublethink -

You appear to be saying that, in the theoretical model that you believe
in, those two assertions contradict each other. I'm trying to think of a
model where doublethink would be required to reconcile the two statements.

Are you, perhaps, asserting that the speed of light is negative?

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. * * *http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Simple stuff that anyone could deal with in a minute it takes to think
the thing through,you want the oldest galaxies to represent the
distance scale of the Universe but also believe that they are the
youngest galaxies at a time when the Universe was smaller,in the 5
seconds it takes to discover that it does not makes sense and is
possibly an affliction of the mind for those who genuinely believe
it,the person may discover the actual process of doublethink,not as a
narrative in a novel,but something where the readers in a forum like
this can have immediate contact with,in short ,doublethink is very
much alive and thriving.

I suppose you have trouble relating the sound of a gunshot to a
distant puff of smoke as well.

An elevator voice announcing a floor level sounds profound in
comparison to that and I took the time out to look through your
posting history to see if it was a once-off but unfortunately not,so,
the guys promoting big bang have nothing to worry about,their target
audience is more or less at your level who would run a million miles
than apply common sense to an ideology that doesn't have any,at least
to call it nonsense within two minutes of seeing it.

It is not that you wouldn't understand,there is nothing there in you
to appeal to one way or the other,that is why empiricism is so
dominant and that is why a no center/no circumference ideology (the
joke of it goes over your head) like big bang exists.

The only joke is that you are using the results of physics to refute
something you are unable to understand.

Thanks for proving my point,it ain't much but there you have it.

Let me see,the oldest galaxy is the one that is furthest away when the
Universe was smaller but is now the youngest galaxy is an Universe
that is getting bigger,you guys crack me up and I do not mock the
promoters of big bang,they make a ton of money from doing this
stuff,it is the wider population who couldn't spare two minutes to
figure out the nonsense and move on to the real issue.

What I would give to discover a scientist who could figure out the
correspondence between the day/night cycle and daily rotation,the big
bangers think there are 366 1/4 rotations in a year.

As for you,go ahead and run away,it is what people at your level do.

In your case two minutes is too much but the earth revolves about the
sun too.

abzorba wrote:
In an earlier post, I noted that the name of that event which
theoretically created our Universe: The Big Bang, was originally
coined as a joke, and compared that joke with the earlier one by
Copernicus, who thought HIS conception of how the Universe (actually
the Solar System) was constructed, would incite "explodendum", meaning
something like "being booed off the stage".

The Big Bang is where all the stars in Hollywood are still coming from.

--
pete

On Nov 29, 12:08*pm, oriel36 wrote:
[...]
Let me see,the oldest galaxy is the one that is furthest away when the
Universe was smaller but is now the youngest galaxy is an Universe
that is getting bigger,you guys crack me up and I do not mock the
promoters of big bang,they make a ton of money from doing this
stuff,it is the wider population who couldn't spare two minutes to
figure out the nonsense and move on to the real issue.

I'm not sure if it will clarify anything for you, but it should be
noted that according to conventional theory, the universe was pretty
large by the time galaxies formed. In a fraction of a second, the
universe expanded to over a billion light years in diameter. So the
distant galaxies that we see as they were 10 billion years ago were a
long way from where we are now. It would indeed be confusing and
contradictory if we were being told that we could see distant galaxies
from a time when the universe was only, say, three feet in diameter.
But that's not what is being claimed.

On Nov 29, 2:26*am, abzorba wrote:
In an earlier post, I noted that the name of that event which
theoretically created our Universe: The Big Bang,

It didn't create the universe, I promise you. You're
merely observing ONE of the "Big Bangs", among
many. The expanding universe will stop expanding
and implode back into itself, causing another Big
Bang.

It's gonna take a while.

---
Mark IV

On Nov 29, 7:25*pm, Jared wrote:
On Nov 29, 12:08*pm, oriel36 wrote:
[...]

Let me see,the oldest galaxy is the one that is furthest away when the
Universe was smaller but is now the youngest galaxy is an Universe
that is getting bigger,you guys crack me up and I do not mock the
promoters of big bang,they make a ton of money from doing this
stuff,it is the wider population who couldn't spare two minutes to
figure out the nonsense and move on to the real issue.

I'm not sure if it will clarify anything for you, but it should be
noted that according to conventional theory, the universe was pretty
large by the time galaxies formed. In a fraction of a second, the
universe expanded to over a billion light years in diameter. So the
distant galaxies that we see as they were 10 billion years ago were a
long way from where we are now. It would indeed be confusing and
contradictory if we were being told that we could see distant galaxies
from a time when the universe was only, say, three feet in diameter.
But that's not what is being claimed.

Doublethink - you want to observe an old galaxy in a young Universe
and an young galaxy in a smaller Universe,you want the old galaxy to
be furthest away in a smaller Universe and on and on it goes,a
delirious mess where all get to hold that the oldest galaxies are
observed to be furthest away when the universe was smaller and believe
some special type of intelligence is needed and you would be correct -
it is called doublethink and what was written about it in a fictional
narrative is fairly accurate -

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness
while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two
opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and
believing in both of them, to use logic against logic..., to forget,
whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory
again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it
again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself
-- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce
unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the
act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word
'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink" Nineteen Eighty-
Four ,Orwell

Ah big bang indeed,it speaks of a type of slavery between those who
don't know and those who imagine all possibilities and end in no
probability of success,a nightmare for those who can give the concept
two minutes of thought in order to be free of it.

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:27:32 -0800 (PST) Mark wrote:

On Nov 29, 2:26Â*am, abzorba wrote:
In an earlier post, I noted that the name of that event which
theoretically created our Universe: The Big Bang,

It didn't create the universe, I promise you. You're
merely observing ONE of the "Big Bangs", among
many. The expanding universe will stop expanding
and implode back into itself, causing another Big
Bang.

You know that for sure, do you?

/W

--
To reach me via email, replace INVALID with the country code of my home
country. But if you spam me, I'll be one sour Kraut.

oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:11 am, "Dr. HotSalt" wrote:

A person of reasonable intelligence is asked to believe that the
furthest galaxies from our own represent the oldest and at a time the
Universe was at its smallest while simultaneously being asked to
believe that these are the youngest galaxies in an extremely large
Universe hence doublethink,the affliction of being able to hold two
contradictory views as valid.
There are not two contradictory views; you are misparsing things.

The Big Bang theory rests on observation *and a couple of
assumptions*. One of the assumptions is the universal constancy of the
speed of light.

Do you agree with that assumption?

[many lines snipped]

A simple yes or no would have been sufficient. You seem to belong to
that school of debate that holds that huge amounts of waffle will stop
the reader from noticing that you haven't answered the question.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

oriel36 wrote:

What I would give to discover a scientist who could figure out the
correspondence between the day/night cycle and daily rotation,the big
bangers think there are 366 1/4 rotations in a year.

Ah, you're the one who was confused about the earth's rotation. I hadn't
noticed that.

My faith in humanity is restored. I thought there were two complete
idiots posting here. Now I see that there's one fewer.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

M Purcell wrote:

The problem with this model is it doesn't look like our universe will
contract, the expansion is accelerating.

As I understand it, the jury is still out on that question. Are we
living in a Big Crunch universe, or one that will expand indefinitely?
The answer seems to be that we're so close to the boundary between those
two possibilities that it's too hard to tell.

The anthropic principle suggests that that must be so. A universe that
collapsed too quickly wouldn't allow enough time for intelligent life to
develop. An indefinitely expanding universe would have too low an energy
density in its later phases, so it could support life only in the
relatively early phases. That leaves us with two possibilities:

- we are in a universe that is expanding forever, but
at that early stage in its history where the
hypothesis of an ultimate collapse is still not
denied by the available evidence; or

- we are in a Big Crunch universe, but so far
ahead of the turnaround time that an assumption
of indefinite expansion still fits the evidence.

By "we" here, I mean any intelligent species in any universe. Those
universes that lie outside the above two possibilities don't have
observers who are able to think about the question.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.