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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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