Cosmology insanity

Yes, Chris, I do have to agree with you on Occam's razor...it does tend
to fall apart with Quantum mechanics, and the very large macro scales.

Well, as unusual (and I suppose irrational) as it sounds, I can
'maintain' my Cosmology sanity by those methods and 'averted
imagination' that I have already described.......BTW, if anyone
has a newer, better idea of the conditions/regions/events- prior to BB,
I am open for any new, better ideas....feel free to describe them!!
(They might even sound better than mine)! Feel free to use 'strings',
quantum whatevers, Chaos theory, etc. as my mind is fully open to this
subject. I'd really rather hear of someone elses rational proposal, then
have mine 'torn apart'. :-)
Clear Skies,
Tom W.



Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:26:04 -0400, bwhiting wrote:


The 'outside' that I am mentally visualing....


You may as well mentally visualize purple-toed unicorns (a favorite of Brian
Tung g) because they have the same possibility of existence. It does seem very
likely that if there is an "outside" to the Universe, it has a very different
meaning than say, "outside" your house.



In fact, current science states that we can never know about these
distant regions anyway.


It does not state that at all. It states that there are regions of the Universe
beyond our ability to see, or ever receive information from. But there is
nothing that precludes our developing a deep understanding of the nature and
formation of the Universe, and therefore knowing with near complete certainty
what parts we can't see are like.



And I think Occam's razor is valid for anything, anytime,
although it is generally reserved for real scientific questions.


Occam's razor falls apart if you don't have the knowledge to determine what
constitutes simple, possible solutions. At the small end of things, quantum
mechanics is a good example. Someone who doesn't understand the basis of the
peculiar, non-intuitive behavior of things at that scale will fail completely if
he tries to use Occam's razor. It seems that the same problem exists for the
Universe at a large scale.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Well Brian, I think the "First Cause" is kind of a...given, isn't it?
(Except to a possible atheist, but not us normal folk). I, and many
others of the Faith...perhaps not all, but most, it is also
a 'given' as to what you say about the Supreme Being, Creator, God,
Ultimate Truth, whichever term you like....to me, those First Cause
things are kind of already "Carved in Granite", are they not? In fact,
they are not even (for most) questionable or debatable...one either
accepts or rejects the "First Cause", and generally, no amount of debate
will change any minds anyway..... End of discussion of "First Cause".

The debateable, and therefore interesting aspects, are the Second
Cause...the How? and by what Process? cause. I don't say this meaning
to 'skip over' the First Cause....I just already figure it as a 'given,
carved in granite'; and therefore, now let's move on to the actual
process involved...and there is where science comes into play; the How,
and by what process.
This is more interesting to me, because it may, or may not, be carved in
granite- there is some 'maneuvering room' and learning room here.

[Religion, philosophy, answers the Who and Why?
Science answers the questions How, and by what process?]
The two should never stray from their own questions, or try to answer
the other guys' questions, as BIG trouble ensues when you try to cross
over those lines.......just ask Galileo and Pope Urban!
Clear Skies,
Tom W.






Brian Sturges wrote:
Tom, my statement was only directed toward the question of First Cause, and
was not intended to invaladate the entire practice of science! I'm well
aware that we use scientific principles in an effort to learn how things
work. However, God has always existed and nothing could come into being
without Him. These qeustions can never "eventually" be answered as long as
we continue to skip over some essential foundations of reality. Also,
describing how some physical processes work can never be as important as
learning the truth about the Creator, which is why it is so important to see
the value in understanding the significance in our gaps of understanding
about the universe.

Brian
bwhiting wrote in message
...

Brian,
I've already tried that, but unfortunately the Holy Bible is not of much
help, as it only answers the questions Who? and Why?.....not How? and
By what process? (Which are in the realm of science to answer).
Just reading that...."God created the heavens and earth" does not give
any insight to.....the process involved...it only gives you the Who?
(and a little insight as to the Why?) Which the Bible is supposed to do.

Science wants the answers, and is only capable of answering, the How,
and By what process? questions.
(Which are just as important to us as the who and why questions.)

All the Bible does is confirm the Big Bang...."Let there be light"
and of course, with the BB, we already KNOW that all there was, was
light and energy for the first 200,000 years or so, ABB. But again, no
mention of How? and By what process?.....the scientific questions.

Perhaps that's why we have a brain....He give us the means to figure
it all out....those other questions...for ourselves. Just as we have
done as to the process, of Man's entry into the world, some 3-5
million years ago in Africa, we think...or at the very least, Africa
is the leading candidate.

So while we understand (and assume) that the Creator is capable of
'anything', we would like to know the How and by what process He/was used.
That's all...not asking for much, here. :-) But unfortunately, the Bible
falls short of definitively answering these particular questions.
(Some people might 'read into the Bible' answers to these questions,
but if you are truly honest with yourself....those answers (for the How
and by what process?) are not actually addressed in the Holy Bible.)
We have to look for science to eventually answer these questions.
Clear Skies,
Tom Whiting

Yes Al, thank you....I agree; and I am still waiting for those who
'berated' my mental (and perhaps somewhat imaginary) picture of
the....whatevers (scenerio?)....before BB,
to come up with a more pleasing and plausible..... explanation;
or maybe a better word is...scenerio.
I guess they are 'afraid' to stick their necks out.
(Chris, were are you?) ;-)
Clear skies,
Tom W.




Al Hall wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:51:11 -0400, bwhiting
wrote:


The Perfect Void vaccuum is 'sucking' out the
known visible Universe at a faster and faster rate as we are surrounded
by it....its also the "what" that we (our Universe) are expanding into.
Thus, there is no need to invoke a 'dark energy'...anti-gravity stuff,
scenerio. Remember Occam's Razor?
FWIW,
Clear Skies,
Tom W.


Hi Tom,

Whether a vacuum sucks or not, I think one bit of your hypothesis
deserves restating because it's elegantly simple:

If matter was created at the point of the Big Bang in an infinite
space containing nothing why wouldn't it's expansion to fill that
infinite void account for the continuing expansion of the known
universe without the need to postulate "dark energy"?

Al Hall

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:06:50 -0400, bwhiting wrote:

Yes Al, thank you....I agree; and I am still waiting for those who
'berated' my mental (and perhaps somewhat imaginary) picture of
the....whatevers (scenerio?)....before BB,
to come up with a more pleasing and plausible..... explanation;
or maybe a better word is...scenerio.
I guess they are 'afraid' to stick their necks out.
(Chris, were are you?) ;-)

Who, me?

Well, most of the well accepted variants of the Big Bang are pretty similar at
their core, and from my perspective, are neither implausible nor unpleasing. I
don't have any problem grasping the idea that a universe can expand without
having an "outside" to expand into. I also don't have any problem grasping the
idea that time is a construct of the Universe in the same way space is, and that
there doesn't have to be a "before." Frankly, I don't think I could come up with
something more pleasing or generally elegant than the existing theories.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Chris, I'm not talking about the time OF the BB, or the time
AFTER BB, I'm talking about the.......existing scenerio (as I hate
to use the words 'time before' because as we all know, our current time
began at the BB)..... Before the BB. [The scenerio in existence, or
'scenerio in effect' as it were, before the BB.]
All hypothetical, and imaginary, of course.
Tom W.




Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:06:50 -0400, bwhiting wrote:


Yes Al, thank you....I agree; and I am still waiting for those who
'berated' my mental (and perhaps somewhat imaginary) picture of
the....whatevers (scenerio?)....before BB,
to come up with a more pleasing and plausible..... explanation;
or maybe a better word is...scenerio.
I guess they are 'afraid' to stick their necks out.
(Chris, were are you?) ;-)


Who, me?

Well, most of the well accepted variants of the Big Bang are pretty similar at
their core, and from my perspective, are neither implausible nor unpleasing. I
don't have any problem grasping the idea that a universe can expand without
having an "outside" to expand into. I also don't have any problem grasping the
idea that time is a construct of the Universe in the same way space is, and that
there doesn't have to be a "before." Frankly, I don't think I could come up with
something more pleasing or generally elegant than the existing theories.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:19:39 GMT, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:48:53 -0700, Al Hall wrote:

If matter was created at the point of the Big Bang in an infinite
space containing nothing...

Which is not what the Big Bang theories suppose.


why wouldn't it's expansion to fill that
infinite void account for the continuing expansion of the known
universe without the need to postulate "dark energy"?

The rate of expansion is increasing. Dark energy is the mechanism used to
explain the increasing rate, not the expansion itself.


Hi Chris,

And thanks for bearing with us. Here's another question:

I'm in a spaceship and decide to blow up a balloon and release it into
space. The balloon expands in the vacuum of space and bursts. Do the
gas molecules that were in the balloon accelerate or decelerate over
time?

Al

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:18:22 -0700, Al Hall wrote:

I'm in a spaceship and decide to blow up a balloon and release it into
space. The balloon expands in the vacuum of space and bursts. Do the
gas molecules that were in the balloon accelerate or decelerate over
time?

As I understand things, gravity overcomes expansion in regions where the mass
density is high enough- galaxies and galaxy clusters. So in the scenario you
suggest, I would expect the gas molecules to decelerate due to their mutual
gravitational attraction, and due to the fact that you performed this experiment
in a region not undergoing local expansion.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com