Painius should (but won't) understand "the Big Bang theory" (Lambda⋅CDM). 

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:43:44 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote:

}]
Painius should (but won't) understand "the Big Bang theory" (Lambda?CDM).
He just won't; doesn't want to, I assume.

"Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite¹ and perfect.
She consumes fuel (EXergy); so, virtually², She's "alive".
[ ¹: Certainly not limited to biblical times/places.
²: in a notional sort of way, like a map, not real. ]

Speaking of God, you belong to tribes/religions of verious sizes.
Had you no "tribe", you'd have no "religion"; they are one and the same.

Randomness is naught but ignorance; so, intrinsically¹, there is no God,
and nature is at once "nothing" ( 4?D, changeless and choiceless )
and everything ( excluding nothing ).
[ ¹: in reality, despite appearances ]

Humanity labors to breathe, eat, drink and breed.
Nature has hard?wired us this way, it wasn't our doing.
Our "objective" has been fixed by nature, not invented.

Speaking of "objectives", the one word mantra/question, "Target?",
clears away horrid/debilitating/random thoughts.

« Mass?Energy = Space?Time », they are one and the same.
Gravity is "EXergy", energy that can do work;
net net (all things considered), it's forever being consumed away.

"Dark Matter" is UNSEEN MASS, "Dark Energy" is EXERGY DEPLETION,
and the start of the Big Bang is just the cosmic horizon,
similar to the event horizon of an ideal black hole.

unLike nature, science is finite; it has a horizon, a limit,
to wit: 13.75 giga?years ago and 46.5 * 2 giga?light?years wide.

I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
just sort of "took off". And "before" which has no meaning. It's
just stupid - royally, unintuitively, and "religiously" stupid.

The Big Bang is a creation myth of science.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

Painius wrote:

I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
just sort of "took off".

I certainly don't understand how anybody in their right mind would even
remotely accept that there is a first "land", an initial "point" in the
Atlantic Ocean called Land's End, after which all of Great Britain just
sort of "takes off".

--
Need a spiritual home? Consider joining us at Mary Queen of the Universe
Latter-day Buddhislamic Free Will Christian UFO Synagogue of Vishnu

On 10/24/2012 6:32 AM, Painius wrote:

I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
just sort of "took off". And "before" which has no meaning. It's
just stupid - royally, unintuitively, and "religiously" stupid.


There it is, folks...Painus just has a gut feeling that there was no big
bang. **** all the evidence to the contrary.
















--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

On Oct 24, 3:32*am, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:43:44 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote:
}]
Painius should (but won't) understand "the Big Bang theory" (Lambda?CDM)..
He just won't; doesn't want to, I assume.

*"Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite and perfect.
*She consumes fuel (EXergy); so, virtually , She's "alive".
*[ : Certainly not limited to biblical times/places.
* * : in a notional sort of way, like a map, not real. ]

* *Speaking of God, you belong to tribes/religions of verious sizes..
* *Had you no "tribe", you'd have no "religion"; they are one and the same.

*Randomness is naught but ignorance; so, intrinsically , there is no God,
*and nature is at once "nothing" ( 4?D, changeless and choiceless )
*and everything ( excluding nothing ).
*[ : in reality, despite appearances ]

*Humanity labors to breathe, eat, drink and breed.
*Nature has hard?wired us this way, it wasn't our doing.
*Our "objective" has been fixed by nature, not invented.

* *Speaking of "objectives", the one word mantra/question, "Target?",
* *clears away horrid/debilitating/random thoughts.

* Mass?Energy = Space?Time , they are one and the same.
*Gravity is "EXergy", energy that can do work;
*net net (all things considered), it's forever being consumed away.

* *"Dark Matter" is UNSEEN MASS, "Dark Energy" is EXERGY DEPLETION,
* *and the start of the Big Bang is just the cosmic horizon,
* *similar to the event horizon of an ideal black hole.

*unLike nature, science is finite; it has a horizon, a limit,
*to wit: 13.75 giga?years ago and 46.5 * 2 giga?light?years wide.

I agree that I don't understand the BB. *I certainly don't understand
how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
just sort of "took off". *And "before" which has no meaning. *It's
just stupid - royally, unintuitively, and "religiously" stupid.

The Big Bang is a creation myth of science.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

But as mainstream ZNR approved myths go, it's a good one because it
gives their god that doesn't believe in fair play or hell, all the
credit it deserves.

Otherwise, I'm favoring the Big Ongoing of aether flowing from the
pole of a mother BH, with the other universe of aether and molecular
stuff directed out of the other BH pole.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

On 10/24/2012 11:51 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

The Big Bang is a creation myth of science.

--

But as mainstream ZNR approved myths go, it's a good one because it
gives their god that doesn't believe in fair play or hell, all the
credit it deserves.

Otherwise, I'm favoring the Big Ongoing of aether flowing from the
pole of a mother BH, with the other universe of aether and molecular
stuff directed out of the other BH pole.



Just more of the completely off the wall science bull**** from Painus
and Goth. The standard model has decades of observation and experimental
data to support it, yet Painus has a 'gut feeling' that it's wrong and
Goth has some foolishness he stole from some other idiot's idea about
the 'big ongoing'.

None of them have ANY...I repeat, ANY, evidence for their retarded
views. Strangely enough, both believe in ether and god as well.









--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

On Oct 24, 11:51*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:32*am, Painius wrote:









On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:43:44 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote:
}]
Painius should (but won't) understand "the Big Bang theory" (Lambda?CDM).
He just won't; doesn't want to, I assume.

*"Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite and perfect.

In any such discussion about the Big Bang theory
which was concocted by "running a time lapse
GEDANKEN scenario" BACK to coordinates 0,0,0,0
which then are/is interpreted to mean that this point
is the ONE original CENTER of the universe.....

.... only to read elsewhere that there is NO center in
the universe... or equivalent that the center is
everywhere...

and that said universe actually expands, without
saying what said space expands into.. and

.... glossing over the issue that all the centers then
expand into each other... to bring the universe back
into the original concept that the universe is static.

ROTFLMAO.... hahahahaha... ahahahahanson



"Forrest Piper" wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:51 am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:32 am, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:43:44 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote:
}]
Painius should (but won't) understand "the Big Bang theory"
(Lambda?CDM).
He just won't; doesn't want to, I assume.

"Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite and perfect.
She consumes fuel (EXergy); so, virtually , She's "alive".
[ : Certainly not limited to biblical times/places.
: in a notional sort of way, like a map, not real. ]

Speaking of God, you belong to tribes/religions of verious sizes.
Had you no "tribe", you'd have no "religion"; they are one and the
same.

Randomness is naught but ignorance; so, intrinsically , there is no
God,
and nature is at once "nothing" ( 4?D, changeless and choiceless )
and everything ( excluding nothing ).
[ : in reality, despite appearances ]

Humanity labors to breathe, eat, drink and breed.
Nature has hard?wired us this way, it wasn't our doing.
Our "objective" has been fixed by nature, not invented.

Speaking of "objectives", the one word mantra/question, "Target?",
clears away horrid/debilitating/random thoughts.

Mass?Energy = Space?Time , they are one and the same.
Gravity is "EXergy", energy that can do work;
net net (all things considered), it's forever being consumed away.

"Dark Matter" is UNSEEN MASS, "Dark Energy" is EXERGY DEPLETION,
and the start of the Big Bang is just the cosmic horizon,
similar to the event horizon of an ideal black hole.

unLike nature, science is finite; it has a horizon, a limit,
to wit: 13.75 giga?years ago and 46.5 * 2 giga?light?years wide.

I agree that I don't understand the BB. I certainly don't understand
how anybody in their right mind would even remotely accept that there
was a first "time", an initial "time", after which all time and space
just sort of "took off". And "before" which has no meaning. It's
just stupid - royally, unintuitively, and "religiously" stupid.

The Big Bang is a creation myth of science.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

But as mainstream ZNR approved myths go, it's a good one because it
gives their god that doesn't believe in fair play or hell, all the
credit it deserves.

Some don't accept BB theory at all, unless there was/is any data to be
garnered from such an event, such as early universe theory, as it
would also apply to things like string theory, etc., but the original
theory seems doomed to self-destruct:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/bigbang/index.html

Otherwise, I'm favoring the Big Ongoing of aether flowing from the
pole of a mother BH, with the other universe of aether and molecular
stuff directed out of the other BH pole.

Makes sense if one takes into account that BB theorists originally
used 10e-33 cm. as the universal "seed", but also of the Wheeler
variety, yielding hyperspace structures, and calculations of
microscopic channels on the order of the same, and having a (mass
equivalent) energy density of 1e+94 g/cm^3.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

On 10/24/2012 1:28 PM, hanson wrote:

... only to read elsewhere that there is NO center in
the universe... or equivalent that the center is
everywhere...


Yes. It has to do with infinities.


and that said universe actually expands, without
saying what said space expands into.. and


Space *itself* is expanding. Into what, is a nonsensical question.



... glossing over the issue that all the centers then
expand into each other... to bring the universe back
into the original concept that the universe is static.



Then how did it start? Gawd?







--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

Harlow Campbell "HVAC" wrote:

hanson wrote:
In any such discussion about the Big Bang theory
which was concocted by "running a time lapse
GEDANKEN scenario" BACK to coordinates 0,0,0,0
which then are/is interpreted to mean that this point
is the ONE original CENTER of the universe.....

... only to read elsewhere that there is NO center in
the universe... or equivalent that the center is
everywhere...

Harlow wrote:
Yes. It has to do with infinities.

hanson wrote:
"infinity/ies" are always used when reality is out of
reach.. be that in the real wiorld or in the gedanken
world of math. Besied the issue above is the
glaring contradiction of copsmologcial theroies
th

hanson wrote:
and that said universe actually expands, without
saying what said space expands into.. and

Harlow wrote:
Space *itself* is expanding.
Into what, is a nonsensical question.

hanson wrote:
ROFL! Your beitsym just fell off & gummed up your works.
You are weaseling &/or parrot what you read somewhere.
Anything that expands does so in its matrix, even space.
So, what is the matrix that space is embedded in, so
that said space can expand in and into?
If that matrix is "Nothing"... then space cannot expand.
If that "Nothing" has properties that allow space to
expand into then what are these "Nothing" properties?

Mahipal Virdy will have further instructions for you, Harlow.

hanson wrote:
... glossing over the issue that all the centers then
expand into each other... to bring the universe back
into the original concept that the universe is static.

Harlow wrote:
Then how did it start? Gawd?

hanson wrote:
To some folks that's the answer... ahahaha...
They are the "lucky" ones.
To me... I DUNNO!... and I like that.
I don't need no Gawd ... the "aw" from/for the
unknown is enough for me... since cosmology is
truly the GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD..
including all of its fantasies, lies and tabulations.
& it is hilarious to boot ...ahahahahanson

On 10/24/2012 7:10 PM, hanson wrote:

Space *itself* is expanding. Into what, is a nonsensical question.

hanson wrote: ROFL! Your beitsym just fell off & gummed up your works.
You are weaseling &/or parrot what you read somewhere. Anything that
expands does so in its matrix, even space. So, what is the matrix that
space is embedded in, so that said space can expand in and into?
If that matrix is "Nothing"... then space cannot expand.
If that "Nothing" has properties that allow space to
expand into then what are these "Nothing" properties?


I know this is difficult for you as well as many other laymen. The 4
dimensional space-time that we know and love is expanding. The matrix
of these 4 dimensions is expanding. Since this 4 dimensional space-time
matrix encompasses everything, the fact of it's expansion is not
unexpected if viewed in the light of current day astrophysics.



Then how did it start? Gawd?

hanson wrote:
To some folks that's the answer... ahahaha... They are the "lucky" ones.
To me... I DUNNO!... and I like that. I don't need no Gawd ... the "aw"
from/for the unknown is enough for me... since cosmology is truly the
GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD..
including all of its fantasies, lies and tabulations.
& it is hilarious to boot ...ahahahahanson



Well stated and well said.






--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg