Hi Sam, A quote from "The EPR Paradox" http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/SECOND_ENLIGHTENMENT/0g_epr.html
**C-I is based on personal whim of a few scientists leaving occasionally their enclosure for unbridled ramble in the labyrinth of pure speculations. What motivations could they follow? One can only guess, but the odds seem to point towards frustration, erbittered jealousy of Relativity, conceit of creating entirely New Physics, seducing science-fiction of Many Worlds and panpsychistic religious revelations. Those seem to fall within the province of lunatic asylums** Not only C-I, but all "interpretations" which consist in illegitimate reifications of abstractions which hold exclusively for the Models, but never for their "reality" territory. The present thread, started by your reasonable definition should have stopped at it, before straying to the loony bin. Georges. --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Sam Carana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Sam Carana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [epistemology 9765] What is Epistemology? > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 1:58 AM > Did you see the article in Scientific American? > Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's > Birth > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce > > Cheers! > Sam Carana > > > > On Nov 18, 12:46 pm, "Henry Kroll" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you like esoteria here is one for you: > > > > *Black diamonds from space indicate age of universe!** > *** > > > > *If nobody was there to see it, was there a Big Bang? > The whole idea that > > such a titanic explosion could come from a single > point the size smaller > > than a Planck length 10E-35 meter and then billions of > years later we are > > here to explain it may be a creationest manifestation > of reality. * > > > > *"The instant of creation remains > unexplained." ---Professor Allan Guth of > > MIT* > > > > *"The actual point of creation lies outside the > scope of present day known > > physics." ---Stephan Hawking * > > > > *Can science verify a consciousness? Are there > watchers who protect us from > > ourselves or is it quantum entanglement? Are we > uncouscously shareing > > quantum entanglement? Is there a God consciousness > field responsible for > > creation? "Religion without science is > blind." What if we could acieve > > consciousness enlightment individually? * > > > > *I am still not convinced that there was a big bang > for a number of reasons. > > The newest space telescopes are now seeing galaxies > out to 14 billion light > > years and they seem to be speeding away from us at > increasing velocities > > nearing the speed of light. For all we know photons > might rund down and > > shift to the red after traveling 14-billion light > years. We just don't know. > > The Big Bang theory is probably a religious > manifestation of reality. * > > > > In fact, the Big Bang theory was invented by the > Catholic Church. "What!" > > you say. "I thought Edwin Hubble invented the Big > Bang theory." Well, that's > > not quite correct. A Catholic monk, George Lemaitre, > first proposed the Big > > Bang theory in 1927. American, Edwin Hubble published > the idea in 1929 two > > years after the Catholic Church grabbed onto the idea. > It was Hubble that > > attached the mathematics to the idea in an attempt to > make sense of it. The > > Catholics invented the idea to unite the Biblical idea > of creation with > > science at the time. You can't make something out > of nothing. The > > fundamental laws of physics specifically state this of > in order to explain > > the creation of all matter in the universe in an > instant from an > > infinitesimally-small, microscopic point you have to > have an event with > > infinite energy. The Catholic Church endorsed the Big > Bang Theory because it > > fit the Biblical creation paradigm, that there is an > infinite God or YHWH. > > > > After Hubble published the theory the Church heralded > it as proof that the > > bible was scientifically accurate and "Divine > Truth." Scholars have been > > debating the validity of this theory for decades. > > > > *BIG BANG DOES NOT CONTRADICT CREATION* > > > > If the Big Bang theory is a reality, according to my > reasoning it does not > > contradict the Biblical six-day creation theory. Say > for example, if God > > were going to set off a firecracker big enough to > create everything he would > > need at lease a couple days head-start to get his > spaceship up to light > > speed before it went off. This might keep him ahead of > the blast just far > > enough to survive because he would be traveling at > 99.9999 percent the speed > > of light and his time would be slowed down to nothing. > > > > Our present knowledge of physics dictates that 12 to > 13 billion years will > > have passed while God traveling near the speed of > light only experienced a > > time elapse of three days. He would have had to set > the charge just right to > > create third dimensional matter. One way of doing this > would be to create > > lots of ORME atoms first which he could control with > his brain waves. Then > > he would use these particles to transmute the > necessary elements to support > > life in all it various forms. > > > > During the 12 to 14 billion years of time matter was > supposed to have > > expanded, destroying and recreated again into its > present state God would > > have had to regulate this process with brain waves. It > would take God > > another day or so to slow down from light speed, find > a suitable world or > > worlds, and push them into the correct orbits to > support life. Then he > > would have to find a moon to regulate the life cycles > and get somebody to > > man it. Hence "The Man in The Moon." Then he > would have to take off again to > > put a few billion more worlds into orbits everywhere. > Finally on the sixth > > day he would come back to find a world teeming with > life (dinosaurs) of > > every description. Then he would have to put hunters > down there with big > > guns to kill off the dinosaurs. > > > > The oxygen levels would have to be high enough to > support animal life so > > obviously he would have to put in orbit near a white > dwarf star so that the > > phytoplankton and diatoms would do their job of > mopping up the CO2 releasing > > oxygen for so-called higher life forms to breathe. > God would then have to > > kill off most of the animal life that is harmful to > man and then create the > > first man to have dominion over what he created. The > easiest and most cost > > effective way to do this is to divert a meteor into > the Earth. Obviously, > > God had lots of deck-hands or helpers (Angels) to do > this. > > > > By this time, advanced civilizations throughout the > Universe and planets in > > other galaxies would have had a much longer time to > evolve and be capable of > > space travel. They were very interested in Earth > because it had such a high > > pressure atmosphere that was 1/3 CO2, the gas > necessary for the creation of > > all life, carbon being the perfect molecule to bond > cell membranes. The > > great pyramid is a model of a carbon molecule. They > would have come to earth > > many times in the past to help mankind evolve. The > latest data shows that > > man's DNA is a composite of 22 different alien > species. We have lots of > > relatives! > > > > They came down here and took some chimpanzee DNA, > mixed in 22 of their own > > specie and turned them loose to see if they would kill > each other off. This > > was done to eliminate a galactic war. We do the > fighting why they stand back > > and bet on the contestants. > > > > Einstein, being a member of the Christian-Jewish > community was forced to go > > along with the Big Bang theory but he had his > reservations. He wondered > > where the energy came from in the first place. There > was no way he could > > explain an infinitely small space creating enough > energy to make everything. > > Then when you get into expansion theory, science turns > into science fiction. > > > > There is no way mankind can advance when he lets > religion dictate what is > > real and not real. Mankind will never discover the > true meaning of God when > > he forces his own ideas upon reality. If he is allowed > to persist in this > > fruitless endeavor he will never discover the truth. > > > > So, when did time begin? In Scientific American May > 2004 issue: "Science > > does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least > two potentially testable > > theories plausibly hold that the universe-and > therefore time-existed well > > before the "big bang" (I don't think > there was one). If either scenario is > > right, the cosmos has always been in existence and, > even if it re-collapses > > one day, it will never end." > > > > *When will our galaxy collide with Andromeda?*** > > > > "Current measurements suggest that, I about > 3-billion years, the Milky Way > > and Andromeda may collide." –John Dubendki > Hayden Planetarium University of > > Toronto, Canada. This is more evidence that there is > no such thing as a big > > bang forcing the universe to expand. Galaxies > wouldn't be colliding if they > > are getting further apart! > > > > If the Universe is expanding then why are galaxies > colliding? Shouldn't they > > be getting further apart? The huge number of colliding > galaxies throw > > another monkey wrench into the big bang theory. > Einstein wasn't completely > > convinced that there is such a thing as a big bang but > he went along with it > > to placate the status quo. To read more of > Einstein's ideas on this subject > > and others read my book, Cosmological Ice > Ages.www.GuardDogBooks.com<http://www.guarddogbooks.com/>&www.AlaskaPublishing.com<http://www.alaskapublishing.com/> > > > > *Then there is the fact that as we (our sun) travels > through space while > > orbiting the galaxy we encounter very old red dwarf > stars. These are burn't > > out crisps so old that they could possibly be left > over from prevous big > > bangs. One of these stars is Banard's Star 5.88 > light years to the northwest > > coming toward us at 14.5 kilometers per second.* > > > > *All elements decay only it take any billions of years > for uranium to turn > > into lead. All the heavy elements above iron are > created in stellar > > explosions. The number of heavy elements on the > surface of the Earth > > convinces me that the cosmos is very very old. First > of all a star has to > > evolve and cook for billions of years until it burns > off all the hydrogen. > > Then the helium starts to burn and finally after > billions more years it will > > swell up into a giant red or shrink down into a white > dwarf. Sometimes the > > explosion is so violent that the star will shrink down > into a neutron star > > or even a black hole. All this takes time—impossible > measures of time. If we > > knew more we could determine the age of any planet by > the carious > > compositions of elements in the crust. A younger > planet would have less time > > to collect heavy elements.* > > > > *They built the Panama Canal with black diamonds. The > cutting tools used to > > slice through the rock were made of black diamonds. > Large black diamonds can > > only come from space. A red dwarf is too hot to make > black diamonds and > > stars are definitely too hot so the only other > explanation is that they came > > from black dwarfs. * > > > > *The simple fact that black diamonds from space exist > is partial proof that > > black dwarfs exist. If black dwarfs are a reality then > the universe is tens > > of billions of years older than present > estimates—possibly eternal.* > > > > *Stars smaller than our Sun would eventually after > tens of billions of years > > use up all their fuel. Carbon bubbling away in the > left over hydrogen and > > nitrogen gas for billions of years formed large > diamond crystals one meter > > in diameter. Such large diamonds could only have > formed under the heat and > > pressure of a burnt out star known as a black ... > > > > read more » > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
