What if (on Cosmic Chance)

Hello Jughead, and Happy upcoming new year 2010!
I admit that I'm not as familiar with the CBB as you are or even as Dr.
Yubiwan may be.
If I read the diagrams correctly that you linked to, I perceive that the
model shows a toroid-shaped universe.
The sphere of visibility or SoV is as a bubble of visibility somewhere out
in the body of the toroid and not actually near either central opening at
present.
If this is correct, then for me it begs the question, "How can the apparent
genesis event that the model shows as an expulsion from the center of the
toroidal universe be sensed from the location of the SoV?"
If the SoV is out in the body of the toroid, then how can anything OUTSIDE
that SoV, such as the area of expulsion from the center of the toroid, be
perceived in any way?
It would seem that the SoV in this case would simply show an expanding or
contracting sub-universe area, but any kind of power event, such as the
expulsion from the toroid's center could not possibly be perceived within
that SoV bubble.

No, there was no "genesis event", but there was a powerful event nearly 14
billion years ago.
To leap from a mere power event to, "That HAD to be the beginning of the
universe!" or any kind of "beginning" is a construct founded upon the belief
that everything has a beginning and an end, that nothing can be truly
"infinite".
However, the universe in infinite in time and space.
Yes, it does undergo power events from time to time, and we have encountered
many life forms that have existed much longer than the
near-14-billion-year-old power event, a number of them sentient.
We perceive the period of the universe's power event cycle to be 26.35
billion years.
Give or take a few millions.

--
S e m m a
Be well and come... be welcome!

"jughead" wrote in message
...
'Darla' aka "Yubiwan" sed this:

We define "universe" as "everything", all that can be seen and all that
cannot be seen, "everything".
The universe is infinite in time and space.
It has no beginning and no end.

There is no point of origin...

Hmm.. So, are you contending that there is no superhot 'genesis event'
aka the Big Bang, despite the abundance of circumstantial evidence
that there was?

Dunno if you've followed any of the discussions over the years here of
the CBB (continuous BB) model. But under that model, our SoV (sphere
of visibility) has decoupled from the singular 'Bang' point and
migrated some considerable distance away. To any observer here
'inside' our SoV, the explosion had no central point of origin and
seems to have happened "everywhere at once". But to an observer
"outside" the universe, the SoV (its radius determined by the finite
speed of light) has departed from the 'Bang' point at a speed faster
than light.

The CBB model presents two distinct frames of referance; 1.) the
"known universe" as perceived here 'inside' our SoV, with a singular
'one shot' BB buried somewhere in our deep past, with a 'Big Crunch'
looming somewhere in the far future. And 2.) the 'outside' view which
sees a continuously running 'Engine' at the 'bang' point, perpetually
spinning off new creation while simultaneously ingesting the old, in a
homeostatic, closed-loop Process.

It is not the alpha and omega, for there IS no alpha and omega.

The CBB model subsumes but does not negate the 'singular, one-shot'
idea, while fully accomodating the evidence for the superhot genesis
event, the "Alpha & Omega"
as perceived here 'inside' our SoV.

It is evident that many human brains presently are.

--
S e m m a
Be well and come... be welcome!

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
...
IS YOUR BRAIN DERANGED, LAMIE****?

Saul Levy


On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:31:18 -0500, "Lomriy"
wrote:

I'm originally from just off the coast of O`ahu.
That's an island in the Pacific ocean.

I thought patriotic people only made fun of their leaders during an
election.
Then afterwards, everybody "rallies around the flag" and supports their
leaders.

Oh, that's right, you're a human.
My mistake.
No wonder people have been photographing the flushing of flags down the
toilet for decades.
That's where people like you lead their countries.
Down the toilet.

Wouldn't it just make your mom and dad SO proud!
WE THE PEOPLE.
So much for that, huh.

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
. ..
So, you're originally from KENYA? lmfjao!

Do you know ObaMAO?

Saul Levy


On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:13:39 -0500, "Darla"
wrote:

I am not from here, as you know, "jughead".
Since I've lived here for a very long time, then in a sense I can claim
citizenship by having been "grandfathered in".

'Darla' aka 'Yubiwan' aka "Semmalon" sed this:

I admit that I'm not as familiar with the CBB as you are or even as Dr.
Yubiwan may be.

Y'know, you would garner an order of magnitude more cred and respect
if you'd simply drop the darla/alien/multiple-personality schtick once
and for all, and just dialog as a normal human being. That said, U
sed:

If I read the diagrams correctly that you linked to, I perceive that the
model shows a toroid-shaped universe.
The sphere of visibility or SoV is as a bubble of visibility somewhere out
in the body of the toroid and not actually near either central opening at
present.
If this is correct, then for me it begs the question, "How can the apparent
genesis event that the model shows as an expulsion from the center of the
toroidal universe be sensed from the location of the SoV?"

It can't be sensed directly, obviously. However an abundance of
evidence points to an 'emergence event' from a superhot, hyperdense
state somewhere outside our SoV. Google 'Evidence for the Big Bang'.
One outstanding example is the existance of free primordal deuterium
in the universe (free Du cannot be put there by fusion processes in
stars). The "deuterium problem" cannot be explained by deniers of the
BB.

You cannot know for certain.
Your doubts are exceeded only by your decibels.

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
...
You ENCOUNTERED WHAT? YOU LIE!

HI DARLA!

Saul Levy


On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 02:13:28 -0500, "Semmalon"
wrote:

Hello Jughead, and Happy upcoming new year 2010!
I admit that I'm not as familiar with the CBB as you are or even as Dr.
Yubiwan may be.
If I read the diagrams correctly that you linked to, I perceive that the
model shows a toroid-shaped universe.
The sphere of visibility or SoV is as a bubble of visibility somewhere out
in the body of the toroid and not actually near either central opening at
present.
If this is correct, then for me it begs the question, "How can the
apparent
genesis event that the model shows as an expulsion from the center of the
toroidal universe be sensed from the location of the SoV?"
If the SoV is out in the body of the toroid, then how can anything OUTSIDE
that SoV, such as the area of expulsion from the center of the toroid, be
perceived in any way?
It would seem that the SoV in this case would simply show an expanding or
contracting sub-universe area, but any kind of power event, such as the
expulsion from the toroid's center could not possibly be perceived within
that SoV bubble.

No, there was no "genesis event", but there was a powerful event nearly 14
billion years ago.
To leap from a mere power event to, "That HAD to be the beginning of the
universe!" or any kind of "beginning" is a construct founded upon the
belief
that everything has a beginning and an end, that nothing can be truly
"infinite".
However, the universe in infinite in time and space.
Yes, it does undergo power events from time to time, and we have
encountered
many life forms that have existed much longer than the
near-14-billion-year-old power event, a number of them sentient.
We perceive the period of the universe's power event cycle to be 26.35
billion years.
Give or take a few millions.


--
S e m m a
Be well and come... be welcome!

"jughead" wrote in message
...
'Darla' aka 'Yubiwan' aka "Semmalon" sed this:

I admit that I'm not as familiar with the CBB as you are or even as Dr.
Yubiwan may be.

Y'know, you would garner an order of magnitude more cred and respect
if you'd simply drop the darla/alien/multiple-personality schtick once
and for all, and just dialog as a normal human being. That said, U
sed:


As we say over and over, we do not seek cred nor respect.
We seek only knowledge.

If I read the diagrams correctly that you linked to, I perceive that the
model shows a toroid-shaped universe.
The sphere of visibility or SoV is as a bubble of visibility somewhere
out
in the body of the toroid and not actually near either central opening at
present.
If this is correct, then for me it begs the question, "How can the
apparent
genesis event that the model shows as an expulsion from the center of the
toroidal universe be sensed from the location of the SoV?"

It can't be sensed directly, obviously. However an abundance of
evidence points to an 'emergence event' from a superhot, hyperdense
state somewhere outside our SoV. Google 'Evidence for the Big Bang'.
One outstanding example is the existance of free primordal deuterium
in the universe (free Du cannot be put there by fusion processes in
stars). The "deuterium problem" cannot be explained by deniers of the
BB.


And that abundance of evidence does not lie.
So is your SoV spherical like a bubble? or is it shaped like the surface of
a muffin-like, raisin-filled cake?
There is no "deuterium problem" in an infinite universe, is there?
Is there still Du? yes.
Can Du be manufactured? no.
Ergo, there must have been a Big Bang? giant ludicrous leap.

Because you cannot envision a situation in which Du can be manufactured,
this means it can't be made?
Because there is still Du in the universe, this means it hasn't been here
forever?
Oi.

Yes, there actually was a quite violent event nearly 14 billion years ago.
To call it an "emergence event", as if somehow everything you see today and
more emerged from it, is a supreme leap of faith, larger than any religion
on your planet will ever ask of you.

If the SoV is out in the body of the toroid, then how can anything
OUTSIDE
that SoV, such as the area of expulsion from the center of the toroid, be
perceived in any way?

If our SoV were closer in to the Bang point (still in the Expansion
phase of the universe), there would be anisotropy of galaxy
distribution in the direction of expansion (thinning in the direction
of travel). But we observe extreme uniformity of galaxy distribution
from one side of the sky to the other. This shows our SoV is not
located in the Expansion phase, nor deep in the Contraction phase
(where galaxy distribution would be thicker in the direction of
contraction).

Our SoV is somewhere near (or even slightly past) the zero-expansion
point of the toroid. I know this flies in the face of the "ever-
accelerating expansion" idea, which was addressed at great length here
over the years, and as a "thumbnail" on page 2 of that link from
Painius' site.


I have no argument with the above.
I just don't see how one can draw such detailed emergence data from any of
it.
The evidence just as strongly or moreso supports merely a significant
violent event.
Anything else is highly speculative at very best.

It would seem that the SoV in this case would simply show an expanding or
contracting sub-universe area, but any kind of power event, such as the
expulsion from the toroid's center could not possibly be perceived within
that SoV bubble.

Again, not perceived directly, but by logical deduction from the
observed evidence.. AND by deducing how the whole Process would appear
from the imaginal "outside" referance frame.


Deduction can be useful.
It can also be incorrect.
Before one begins to deduce reality, one must have a solid factual or
postulative foundation in reality.
Humans are still in a Ptolemaic stage when it comes to their deductions
about the universe.

No, there was no "genesis event"...

Again, frames of referance. From the outside frame there is no
"event", just the continuously-running Engine powering the Process
perpetually. Think of a gas turbine. But here in the 'inside' frame,
there was indeed an "event" from which our SoV bubble emerged (and
into which it will someday plunge in the Big Crunch (think of a piston
engine and its 'bang-squeeze' reciprocation).

Remember that the 'relative' in relativity is all about seeing
*experientially* from alternate referance frames.. not just rote
recitation of "The Math".

To leap from a mere power event to, "That HAD to be the beginning of the
universe!" or any kind of "beginning" is a construct founded upon the
belief
that everything has a beginning and an end, that nothing can be truly
"infinite".
However, the universe is infinite in time and space.

Gordon Wolter who conceived the CBB model, described the toroidal
universe as "infinite yet bounded". I would interpret that to mean
infinite in time (ie, eternal) but bounded in space. He also said that
if the Primal Particle 'Engine' had voice and could speak, it could
rightly proclaim "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
end."..obviously an allusion to the 'inside' frame.

Yes, it does undergo power events from time to time, and we have
encountered
many life forms that have existed much longer...

C'mon aready. Enough with the "alien" silliness. Hrrumph. oc



Please forgive me if you perceive frivolity of any kind.
I will say two things about your friend, Wolter:
To have perceived a universe of the size and scope (I wonder how many look
at those diagrams and realize the actual size of his toroidal universe?) as
he did, took a mind well, well beyond the capability of most people.
And he was, indeed, correct in his and your assessment of the infinity of
time.

As for your stance on aliens/extraterrestrials, all of a sudden you're
unwilling to step out of the box? (frame?)
You are open-minded about a universe that is tens of thousands of times
larger than your SoV, and yet you won't allow the possibility of aliens
anywhere in that huge expanse even though in your SoV alone there are
billions of galaxies, some of which have been around since nearly the
emergence event you perceive, a period of nearly 9 billion years BEFORE your
Solar system even formed?

Somehow the "silliness" gets lost in all that, at least for me.
For all you know, barring much of the silliness one sees on the Internet,
this could be very serious, at least in terms of "reality".

I do understand, though, why you feel the silliness.
There is a lot of credibility lost due to the humorous hyjinks of humans
portraying aliens in this medium.
Some things cannot be accounted for.
There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, in your experience that could possibly
make you 100%, or even 80%, certain that there is no crew of seans and
humans "out there" protecting this system.
In truth, if it makes you feel any better, I'm Jewish.
May the Schwartz be with you! G

--
S e m m a
Be well and come... be welcome!

You misspelled "aleun", putz. lmfjao!

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
...
Yes, you FAKE, ALEEUN, LYING PORPOISES are DERANGED just as I said
below (missing)!

We know about PIG****, GOOFY**** and all the others here, Semma****!

Rubber rooms handle that problem.

Meanwhile ****ING PORPOISES should NEVER be given WOODEN BLOCK SETS!

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA!

Saul Levy


On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 02:55:17 -0500, "Semmalon"
wrote:

It is evident that many human brains presently are.


--
S e m m a
Be well and come... be welcome!

From 'darla/"Semmalon", an encyclical on sillyness:

As for your stance on aliens/extraterrestrials, all of a sudden you're
unwilling to step out of the box? (frame?)
You are open-minded about a universe that is tens of thousands of times
larger than your SoV, and yet you won't allow the possibility of aliens
anywhere in that huge expanse even though in your SoV alone there are
billions of galaxies, some of which have been around since nearly the
emergence event you perceive, a period of nearly 9 billion years BEFORE your
Solar system even formed?

Somehow the "silliness" gets lost in all that, at least for me.
For all you know, barring much of the silliness one sees on the Internet,
this could be very serious, at least in terms of "reality".

I do understand, though, why you feel the silliness.
There is a lot of credibility lost due to the humorous hyjinks of humans
portraying aliens in this medium.
Some things cannot be accounted for.
There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, in your experience that could possibly
make you 100%, or even 80%, certain that there is no crew of seans and
humans "out there" protecting this system.

Narf. No reasonable person could believe there is NOT sentient life
elsewhere in the universe. To believe Earth is the one and only
harborage of life would be ludicrous. The "silliness" referred to is
that of a person sitting at a computer pretending to be an entourage
of extraterrestrial aliens.

In past years three 'test questions' were posed to you as a litmus
test of your professed alien-hood:

1.) What is the true nature of space?
2.) What is the causal mechanism of gravity?
3.) What is the working principle of hyperdrive?

This would be basic kindergarden stuff to any spacefaring race. The
questions were posed to you on several occasions but you ducked them
every time, offering some sophomoric hoo-ha about hitching rides on
superluminal "gas streams". Your slip is showing, dearie. You ain't no
alien, that's for damn sure.

But you ARE capable of intelligent and engaging dialog. Just need to
ditch the demeaning and embarrassing "alien" crappola. oc

"jughead" wrote in message
...
From 'darla/"Semmalon", an encyclical on sillyness:

As for your stance on aliens/extraterrestrials, all of a sudden you're
unwilling to step out of the box? (frame?)
You are open-minded about a universe that is tens of thousands of times
larger than your SoV, and yet you won't allow the possibility of aliens
anywhere in that huge expanse even though in your SoV alone there are
billions of galaxies, some of which have been around since nearly the
emergence event you perceive, a period of nearly 9 billion years BEFORE
your
Solar system even formed?

Somehow the "silliness" gets lost in all that, at least for me.
For all you know, barring much of the silliness one sees on the Internet,
this could be very serious, at least in terms of "reality".

I do understand, though, why you feel the silliness.
There is a lot of credibility lost due to the humorous hyjinks of humans
portraying aliens in this medium.
Some things cannot be accounted for.
There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, in your experience that could
possibly
make you 100%, or even 80%, certain that there is no crew of seans and
humans "out there" protecting this system.

Narf. No reasonable person could believe there is NOT sentient life
elsewhere in the universe. To believe Earth is the one and only
harborage of life would be ludicrous. The "silliness" referred to is
that of a person sitting at a computer pretending to be an entourage
of extraterrestrial aliens.

In past years three 'test questions' were posed to you as a litmus
test of your professed alien-hood:

1.) What is the true nature of space?
2.) What is the causal mechanism of gravity?
3.) What is the working principle of hyperdrive?

This would be basic kindergarden stuff to any spacefaring race. The
questions were posed to you on several occasions but you ducked them
every time, offering some sophomoric hoo-ha about hitching rides on
superluminal "gas streams". Your slip is showing, dearie. You ain't no
alien, that's for damn sure.

But you ARE capable of intelligent and engaging dialog. Just need to
ditch the demeaning and embarrassing "alien" crappola. oc


You're very good, aren't you?
You almost say who you think I am, but you hold it back.
That's very good.

Hayakawa once wrote that there are two things that people look for when they
judge the credibility of anything that's been written:

1. WHAT was written, and
2. WHO wrote it.

And I'll add that sometimes WHEN it was written, like that dialog with
Double-A and Einstein's great words of 1920.
WHEN is important because Einstein was still formulating his GR.
He hadn't completed it yet.
It hadn't been that long since he and his mathematician wife had divorced.
Let me see, that's worth looking up.
"Mileva", Mileva Maric, the cute petite little rich genius.
Einstein was still scrambling trying to replace her and to befriend the best
mathematicians in his crowd.
He certainly hadn't finished all those equations of his.
And as you probably know, he never did really complete his GR.
There's someone out there who will soon complete it for him.
Someone's going to go "Ah hahh! Ah hahh!", and that will happen very soon.

But back to Hayakawa.
You said some really nice things about our dialog, and I thank you more than
you know for this.
Maybe, just maybe, you put more emphasis on the WHO?
So you think you know who I am, so then, no big deal, right?
If you are fairly certain that I'm not really a putz (I'm actually more of a
schmuck, but who's measuring?), and that Darla's not really a bimbo
super-porpoise, then there really ain't no reason why we can't have more fun
with all this, is there?

It's been a pretty good while since we had fun with falling off buildings.
Dropping plates and glasses, "See what mean old Mr. Gravity just did!
Awww!"

So heck, you old coot, where's the beef?
Let's keep moving like old Marvin Hamlisch, orchestrating that magical
process:

T H O U G H T

And who knows?
Maybe someday, alt.astronomy might actually amount to something more than
just a fascinating meeting of friends and foes?
Maybe your friend, Wolter, will get the notability he deserves? Hahh?
Ah hahh?

Yes, you are a good person, you old coot, so let's focus on that dialog that
occasionally raises the important questions.
Whoever it is that you think I am, that was probably just an anonymous
handle anyway, right?
So think of the "aliens" as just a few more anonymous handles -- no big
deal, okay?
On Usenet, where the deer and the antelope play, and yeah, even a few old
buffalo still roam, let's keep soaring like eagles!

It's been awhile since I really soared.
I guess gravity's been holding me pretty fast.
And who knows who might show up?
There were some pretty deep thinkers back "in the day".
Here's a toast... to the deep thinkers, may they ever defeat the freakin'
math!

--
S e m m a (you know whooo)
Be well and come... be welcome!
Vhat da hell, my friend, vhat da hell.

And one more thing:

"jughead" wrote in message
...
From 'darla/"Semmalon", an encyclical on sillyness:



In past years three 'test questions' were posed to you as a litmus
test of your professed alien-hood:

1.) What is the true nature of space?
2.) What is the causal mechanism of gravity?
3.) What is the working principle of hyperdrive?

This would be basic kindergarden stuff to any spacefaring race. The
questions were posed to you on several occasions but you ducked them
every time, offering some sophomoric hoo-ha about hitching rides on
superluminal "gas streams". Your slip is showing, dearie. You ain't no
alien, that's for damn sure.


You're right about that last part, I'm a person, not much of one maybe, but
a person.

And no more ducking.

1.) You have to admit, the nature of space has been made pretty clear in
recent times.
It's comprised of a gravitational field, which is stronger near matter.
Yes, it's a foam of sorts, but not of full-fledged particles; it's a foam of
quarks and sub-quarks vibrating between energy and sub-matter and energy and
sub-antimatter.
The frequency is so high, and they spin so fast that the q-aq sub-particles
rarely annihilate each other.
The gravitational field strength increases and acts as a force upon those
billions and billions of sub-particles, those quarks.
They constantly stream into matter.
And since they are not full-fledged particles, they don't have the problems
with heat and such that particles would bear.
So space is partly energy and partly sub-particulate, and you pretty much
know the rest.

2.) Covered up in 1, above.

3.) Hyperdrive? forget hyperdrive.
It does get much better.
I can't really elaborate without falling back on those silly, sophomoric
hoo-ha superluminal streams you love so much.
And since you already know about that, I'll disappear for a few and fix my
slip.

I hear there are some very pretty girls out there who like to let their slip
show a bit to catch the eye.
Ah hahh? Ah hahh?

--
S e m m a
Be well and come... be welcome!

"jughead" wrote in message
...
Narf. No reasonable person could believe there is NOT sentient life
elsewhere in the universe. To believe Earth is the one and only
harborage of life would be ludicrous.


Oh? You've got proof of other intelligent life besides ours?

Anywhere?

Someone has to be the 1st. Don't you agree?


But you ARE capable of intelligent and engaging dialog. Just need to
ditch the demeaning and embarrassing "alien" crappola. oc


What is truly extraordinary about this guy, 'Darla', is his ability
to get the gullible and weak-minded to believe his ****.

AA and Bert come to mind.


~
Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing