Big Bang Question

On 09 Nov 2004 08:13:59 GMT, (FanDome123) wrote:

i think nightbat as got a point (if I understand him correctly.)

Lately when I read about "the universe"--I find that highly presumptious.
Because now I'm starting to wonder if this is just "our universe", the only one
we are aware of and investigating at the moment.

I am just a novice astronomer, I still am in the process of digesting
Einstein's relativity theory, the space/time continuum and all the other great
theorys that have come down the grapevine since this morning, but it seems to
me that because dark matter exists, and that a possibility of shadow matter (or
shadow universes) exist, then why is the Big Bang capitalized as if its the
only one?

There once was this definition of the Universe: "All that exist", we
now know better and say: "All that we can observe". There may be
other universes and there is a theory that there are billions of "big
bangs" occurring right under our noses at every moment but we will
never be able to "observe" them so...
Our Big Bang is capitalized just like our Sun, our Moon, our Galaxy
because it is "ours"!!

It would seem to me that energy is infinite, it has no beginning.
How could a scientist recognize a "first cause"; something that seems
inconceivable with the current data.

This has to do more about metaphysic than anything else... Infinity
is impossible to comprehend by the puny human brain, let say that the
Big Bang created it's own time at the same time it created it's own
space. That solve the problem!


Please if any team/group is currently arguing these ideas let me know, as I
would like to expand on this thread!

Regards,

Tom M.





Have a good night!

Benoît...

nightbat wrote

FanDome123 wrote:

i think nightbat as got a point (if I understand him correctly.)

nightbat

" Thank you, thank you very much ", the Maverick Cosmology King
has left the building, not.

FanDome123
Lately when I read about "the universe"--I find that highly presumptious.
Because now I'm starting to wonder if this is just "our universe", the only one
we are aware of and investigating at the moment.

nightbat

Yes, Tom, this is the one and only scientifically observed
Universe.

FanDome123
I am just a novice astronomer, I still am in the process of digesting
Einstein's relativity theory, the space/time continuum and all the other great
theorys that have come down the grapevine since this morning, but it seems to
me that because dark matter exists, and that a possibility of shadow matter (or
shadow universes) exist, then why is the Big Bang capitalized as if its the
only one? It would seem to me that energy is infinite, it has no beginning.
How could a scientist recognize a "first cause"; something that seems
inconceivable with the current data.

nightbat

Correct Tom, that is what I have been trying to indicate to my
profound science newsgroup fellows for so many years, the mathematical
proof anchoring basis and its fundamental implications as applied to
cosmology and physics understanding of an energy based Universe in
present disturbed non uniform momentum state.


Please if any team/group is currently arguing these ideas let me know, as I
would like to expand on this thread!

Regards,

Tom M.


nightbat

Presently I am the lone lead Maverick rider amongst science
present and past brilliant deep water theoretical multi riders in the
race for logical consistent GUT formulation not based contrary to
mathematical proof. I do have a now cloaked associate Maverick rider
called Oc, but presently reticent due to limited certain net peer
rejection based on his reliance on appliance likened mind thoughts and
correlating image model outside Universe force presentation. However, no
other has been humbly able to logically bring together under one
Universe basis all of the prior theories with such profound vision,
mathematical proof basis, and extremely deep theoretical logic clarity
as nightbat's " Black Comet " dynamics for black hole resolution or "
Continuing Universe Rule " for further presented hopeful logical
acceptance GUT resolution.

Since presently no official authoritative or designated acting US person
or group represents and attempts to lead the United States Cosmology
resolution science running GUT net group, as on the other hand the
English Cosmology under Hawking's organized physics group quickly
attempts to net catch up, it is apparent the difficult task before us.
Only now have a select group of more enlightened physics and astronomy
newsgroup science members under cross posted news threads " Almost
Everything is Expanding " and " What if the higgs don't exist " iterated
a glimpse of net relative science group members gaining insight into
nightbat posted original formulation of missing unified field frame and
conferred final multi member understanding presentation.

Distinguishing positive contributing net science posting newsgroup
members a

Under cross posted sci.physics thread " Almost Everything is Expanding "
EL (EL)
Ray Tomes
Uncle Al ---Uncle
David A. Smith ---"N:dlzc1 D:cox
nightbat

Under cross posted sci.physics thread " What if the higgs don't exist "
FrediFizzx
Bjoern
Richard Schultz
Michael Moroney
James Landle (JAMES Landle)
Uncle Al ---Uncle
Herbert Glazier (G=EMC^2 Glazier)
Mike Helland (Mike Helland)
Jack Martinelli
alistair (alistair)
Ken Seto (Ken Seto)
Bruce Pew (Bruce Pew)
nightbat

Thanks for your interest and support Tom.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote

Benoit Morrissette wrote:

On 09 Nov 2004 08:13:59 GMT, (FanDome123) wrote:

Tom
i think nightbat as got a point (if I understand him correctly.)

Lately when I read about "the universe"--I find that highly presumptious.
Because now I'm starting to wonder if this is just "our universe", the only one
we are aware of and investigating at the moment.

I am just a novice astronomer, I still am in the process of digesting
Einstein's relativity theory, the space/time continuum and all the other great
theorys that have come down the grapevine since this morning, but it seems to
me that because dark matter exists, and that a possibility of shadow matter (or
shadow universes) exist, then why is the Big Bang capitalized as if its the
only one?

Benoit
There once was this definition of the Universe: "All that exist", we
now know better and say: "All that we can observe". There may be
other universes and there is a theory that there are billions of "big
bangs" occurring right under our noses at every moment but we will
never be able to "observe" them so...
Our Big Bang is capitalized just like our Sun, our Moon, our Galaxy
because it is "ours"!!

nightbat

That would be find Benoit but science is based on observation
and mathematical proof, we scientifically observe just one Universe and
have mathematical proof of energy's infinite nature.

Tom
It would seem to me that energy is infinite, it has no beginning.
How could a scientist recognize a "first cause"; something that seems
inconceivable with the current data.

Benoit
This has to do more about metaphysic than anything else... Infinity
is impossible to comprehend by the puny human brain, let say that the
Big Bang created it's own time at the same time it created it's own
space. That solve the problem!

nightbat

No, because the SM is based on the premise that everything was
theoretically created at a single originating point everywhere premise
Big Bang event not just its own time and space. It was supposedly the
creation of all time and space, including energy, matter, everything
presently physically known about the present Universe not metaphysic.
The premise of Infinity has been comprehended by human brain and it is
called energy and mathematically proven.


Tom
Please if any team/group is currently arguing these ideas let me know, as I
would like to expand on this thread!

Regards,

Tom M.




Have a good night!

Benoît...

nightbat

You too boys, clear skies.


the nightbat

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:15:09 -0500, nightbat
wrote:

nightbat wrote

Benoit Morrissette wrote:

On 09 Nov 2004 08:13:59 GMT, (FanDome123) wrote:

Tom
i think nightbat as got a point (if I understand him correctly.)

Lately when I read about "the universe"--I find that highly presumptious.
Because now I'm starting to wonder if this is just "our universe", the only one
we are aware of and investigating at the moment.

I am just a novice astronomer, I still am in the process of digesting
Einstein's relativity theory, the space/time continuum and all the other great
theorys that have come down the grapevine since this morning, but it seems to
me that because dark matter exists, and that a possibility of shadow matter (or
shadow universes) exist, then why is the Big Bang capitalized as if its the
only one?

Benoit
There once was this definition of the Universe: "All that exist", we
now know better and say: "All that we can observe". There may be
other universes and there is a theory that there are billions of "big
bangs" occurring right under our noses at every moment but we will
never be able to "observe" them so...
Our Big Bang is capitalized just like our Sun, our Moon, our Galaxy
because it is "ours"!!

nightbat

That would be fine Benoit but science is based on observation
and mathematical proof, we scientifically observe just one Universe and
have mathematical proof of energy's infinite nature.

That's what I said, isn't it? By the way, remember that Sir Isaac
Newton had observational AND mathematical proofs that light is wave
only...


Tom
It would seem to me that energy is infinite, it has no beginning.
How could a scientist recognize a "first cause"; something that seems
inconceivable with the current data.

Benoit
This has to do more about metaphysic than anything else... Infinity
is impossible to comprehend by the puny human brain, let say that the
Big Bang created it's own time at the same time it created it's own
space. That solve the problem!

nightbat

No, because the SM

English is not my native tongue, what is SM, sado-masochism?

is based on the premise that everything was
theoretically created at a single originating point everywhere premise
Big Bang event not just its own time and space. It was supposedly the
creation of all time and space, including energy, matter, everything
presently physically known about the present Universe not metaphysic.

Of course. But our observational capabilities are limited, like our
mathematical tools. How many times will I have to repeat that: a
theory, a mathematical model is just that: we do not know what a
photon nor an electron is, we can only describe their behavior with a
theory until someone comes with a better mathematical model with
better mathematical tools (you are doing just that if I'm not
mistaken, no?) That's where metaphysic comes in: the rational link
that fill the holes and keep us looking for answers.

The premise of Infinity has been comprehended by human brain and it is
called energy and mathematically proven.

Infinity can certainly be mathematically understood (George Cantor)
but I used the word "comprehend", not "understand". There is a
difference...



Tom
Please if any team/group is currently arguing these ideas let me know, as I
would like to expand on this thread!

Regards,

Tom M.




Have a good night!

Benoît...

nightbat

You too boys, clear skies.


the nightbat


Have a good night!

Benoît...

"Benoit Morrissette" wrote in message
...

That's what I said, isn't it? By the way, remember that Sir Isaac
Newton had observational AND mathematical proofs that light is wave
only...

Huh???

"He is also notable for his arguments that light was composed of particles;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

"He also observed Newton's rings, which are actually a manifestation of the
wave nature of light which Newton did not believe in."
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html

Benoit:


Benoit Morrissette wrote:

On 09 Nov 2004 08:13:59 GMT, (FanDome123) wrote:



i think nightbat as got a point (if I understand him correctly.)

Lately when I read about "the universe"--I find that highly presumptious.
Because now I'm starting to wonder if this is just "our universe", the only one
we are aware of and investigating at the moment.

I am just a novice astronomer, I still am in the process of digesting
Einstein's relativity theory, the space/time continuum and all the other great
theorys that have come down the grapevine since this morning, but it seems to
me that because dark matter exists, and that a possibility of shadow matter (or
shadow universes) exist, then why is the Big Bang capitalized as if its the
only one?



There once was this definition of the Universe: "All that exist", we
now know better and say: "All that we can observe". There may be
other universes and there is a theory that there are billions of "big
bangs" occurring right under our noses at every moment but we will
never be able to "observe" them so...
Our Big Bang is capitalized just like our Sun, our Moon, our Galaxy
because it is "ours"!!


[clip to end]


It is easy to identify the person who is a scientist, or who is of a
fact-based scientific mentality. They use definitions, and they base all
their ideas and actions upon well defined concepts that identify the
facts of existents and relationships in the universe. Others, who are
not of a reason and reality bent, engage in wishful thinking, unbased
hypotheses, mysticism and fiction.

My definition of the universe in the context of what exists is:

The universe is a continuing plurality of existents.

My definition of the universe in the context of what is knowable by the
individual is:

The universe is a continuing plurality of existents, the properties and
functionings of which are knowable by means of human sense perception
data, concept formation, reason, logical demonstration, verification of
perceptual data and concepts, proof, clear identification in word
concepts, and logical classifications of the facts.

All definitions are contextual and hierarchical, and it is by means of
correct definitions that facts are knowable in a system of knowledge.

A hierarchy of knowledge exists in the sciences: note the
classifications of knowledge of existents in biology, chemistry,
geology, and, most importantly, in the library sciences. In physics,
however, there has been much corruption of the definitions and hierarchy
due to the intervention of wrong philosophies, e.g., Kant and Plato,
the disregard of formal logic and proof, and the extreme prevalence of
context switching.

The main questions the scientific mentality would ask a What is it?,
What is the evidence?, and, Why does it function?.

If you keep asking those questions the mystic or fiction writer will, on
the one hand, ultimately say, "It must be.", or, "It must have been that
way." That is his ultimate justification. In other words he doesn't
really know. That is the Kantian refuge - that duty is the ultimate
cause. Otherwise they will offer mysticism, fiction, lies, and massive
context switching.

The scientific mentality, on the other hand, will be able to refer to
the factual evidence of existents, to identifications of their
properties and functionings, and to the facts relationships of existents
as the ultimate arguments.

For example, the fictionalist who may say that their is an infinity of
universes cannot at all provide the evidence upon which to base that
assertion.

However, I can prove that there is a plurality of existents in the
universe.

Ralph Hertle

Hi nightbat you are not a theoretical thinker. No other universe are
out there. no gravitons to create gravity attraction. no BH even though
GR math predicts them no virtual particles no Higgs You can't believe
99% of the universe is unobservable because if nightbat can't see it it
is sci-fiction.,and that means it does not exist. String theory has to
be completly sci-fiction. nightbat science is easy for you
because you rule so much out. like most of the universe. Bert PS oops
left out no big bang

nightbat wrote

Ralph Hertle wrote:

Benoit:

Benoit Morrissette wrote:

On 09 Nov 2004 08:13:59 GMT, (FanDome123) wrote:



i think nightbat as got a point (if I understand him correctly.)

Lately when I read about "the universe"--I find that highly presumptious.
Because now I'm starting to wonder if this is just "our universe", the only one
we are aware of and investigating at the moment.

I am just a novice astronomer, I still am in the process of digesting
Einstein's relativity theory, the space/time continuum and all the other great
theorys that have come down the grapevine since this morning, but it seems to
me that because dark matter exists, and that a possibility of shadow matter (or
shadow universes) exist, then why is the Big Bang capitalized as if its the
only one?



There once was this definition of the Universe: "All that exist", we
now know better and say: "All that we can observe". There may be
other universes and there is a theory that there are billions of "big
bangs" occurring right under our noses at every moment but we will
never be able to "observe" them so...
Our Big Bang is capitalized just like our Sun, our Moon, our Galaxy
because it is "ours"!!


[clip to end]

It is easy to identify the person who is a scientist, or who is of a
fact-based scientific mentality. They use definitions, and they base all
their ideas and actions upon well defined concepts that identify the
facts of existents and relationships in the universe. Others, who are
not of a reason and reality bent, engage in wishful thinking, unbased
hypotheses, mysticism and fiction.

My definition of the universe in the context of what exists is:

The universe is a continuing plurality of existents.

My definition of the universe in the context of what is knowable by the
individual is:

The universe is a continuing plurality of existents, the properties and
functionings of which are knowable by means of human sense perception
data, concept formation, reason, logical demonstration, verification of
perceptual data and concepts, proof, clear identification in word
concepts, and logical classifications of the facts.

All definitions are contextual and hierarchical, and it is by means of
correct definitions that facts are knowable in a system of knowledge.

A hierarchy of knowledge exists in the sciences: note the
classifications of knowledge of existents in biology, chemistry,
geology, and, most importantly, in the library sciences. In physics,
however, there has been much corruption of the definitions and hierarchy
due to the intervention of wrong philosophies, e.g., Kant and Plato,
the disregard of formal logic and proof, and the extreme prevalence of
context switching.

The main questions the scientific mentality would ask a What is it?,
What is the evidence?, and, Why does it function?.

If you keep asking those questions the mystic or fiction writer will, on
the one hand, ultimately say, "It must be.", or, "It must have been that
way." That is his ultimate justification. In other words he doesn't
really know. That is the Kantian refuge - that duty is the ultimate
cause. Otherwise they will offer mysticism, fiction, lies, and massive
context switching.

The scientific mentality, on the other hand, will be able to refer to
the factual evidence of existents, to identifications of their
properties and functionings, and to the facts relationships of existents
as the ultimate arguments.

For example, the fictionalist who may say that their is an infinity of
universes cannot at all provide the evidence upon which to base that
assertion.

However, I can prove that there is a plurality of existents in the
universe.

Ralph Hertle

I'll take that as you agree with night.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote

John Zinni wrote:

"Benoit Morrissette" wrote in message
...

That's what I said, isn't it? By the way, remember that Sir Isaac
Newton had observational AND mathematical proofs that light is wave
only...

Huh???

"He is also notable for his arguments that light was composed of particles;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

"He also observed Newton's rings, which are actually a manifestation of the
wave nature of light which Newton did not believe in."
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html

nightbat

I'll take that as you agree with night.

nightbat

I'll take that as you agree with night.

Queen captures Red Knight.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A