Neil even science today is a best guess, as you put it an M Mouse the theory of physics is based off an assumption .. and that assumption is so widely accepted as being true that you no longer realize it is an best guess..
Without that best guess you are playing with m mouse. I am laughing as I am wondering if you even know that basic assumption. Allan Matrix ** th3 beginning light On Dec 5, 2012 9:58 AM, "archytas" <[email protected]> wrote: > On he unlikeliness of a beginning see Susskind - > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5385v1.pdf > - it's free. There's a 'sort of' answer to your 'centre' question in > it James - sadly not starring M.Mouse so you and I can grasp it. > Big Bang was not claimed as fact in science and nor was its successor > that has an air of rigs' negative space about it. Inflation theory > runs, more or less, like this: > Inflation starts with a vacuum in an unusually high energy state and > with a negative pressure. Together these give the vacuum repulsive > gravity that pushes things apart rather than draws them together. This > inflates the vacuum, making it more repulsive, which causes it to > inflate even faster. > > But the inflationary vacuum is quantum in nature, which makes it > unstable. All over it, and at random, bits decay into a normal, > everyday vacuum. Imagine the vacuum as a vast ocean of boiling water, > with bubbles forming and expanding across its length and breadth. The > energy of the inflationary vacuum has to go somewhere and it goes into > creating matter and heating it to a ferocious temperature inside each > bubble. It goes into creating big bangs. Our universe is inside one > such bubble that appeared in a big bang 13.7 billion years ago. One > of the striking features of inflation is that it is eternal. New high- > energy vacuum is created far faster than it is eaten away by its decay > into ordinary vacuum, which means that once inflation starts, it never > stops and universes bubble off forever in the future. But because > eternal inflation avoids the dreaded singularity, it opens up the > possibility that this has always been the case with universes bubbling > off forever in the past too. > > Other models include the "cyclic universe" developed within string > theory by Neil Turok. Here, our universe is a four-dimensional island, > or "brane", in a higher dimensional space. It collides repeatedly with > a second brane. Think of the two branes as two parallel slices of > bread, coming together along a fifth dimension, passing through each > other, pulling apart again, then coming together again. Each time the > branes touch, their tremendous energy of motion along the fifth > dimension creates matter on each brane and heats it to tremendous > temperature. To observers on the brane, it looks exactly like a big > bang and would lead to the same patterns in the cosmic microwave > background and distributions of galaxies. Yet it is a big bang without > a beginning,because the cycles have been repeating for eternity. Some > say matter on the branes expands more with each cycle and this means > that if you run it backwards like a movie in reverse, the cyclic > universe encounters either a singularity or some kind of beginning > like inflation, In the "emergent universe" it all begins as a small > static universe, which exists in this state for an infinite amount of > time before suddenly being triggered to inflate. Such scenarios do > arise in string theory. Just as Einstein's static universe (that > preceded Bigly Bangly) was unstable and needed the extra ingredient of > cosmic repulsion, two weird ingredients: a vacuum with negative > energy, and fault-lines in space-time known as domain walls that are a > feature of some models of particle physics are needed to make this > model work. Domain walls should leave an imprint on the temperature of > the cosmic microwave background radiation, which has not been seen, > but this might be explained if they were diluted away by inflation. > > None of these models is true - they are just the best good minds in > the subject area can muster. We lay people confuse ourselves on the > certainty and claims made abut these models and are exposed to them > through idiot media. Right or wrong we don't get any closer to god > concepts, though the physics may be limited by our early exposure to > such myths. Science may be a religion that admits it is uncertain > about its god. Maybe we made our journey to 'now' without past > information because such information cannot be retained in such > 'travel' as ours. We might cross a singularity in the future after > which we can only conceive of what we have done so far as an ignorant > beginning.. > > On 5 Dec, 04:48, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Amazing how little the group knows of physics. RP has a reasonable > > definition of creator origin, though it is a 'singularity' in the > > sense science collapses in and around it. Nothing wrong with that but > > it doesn't help make radios (etc). Matter isn't necessarily energy - > > there is just a conservation law that connects them, itself connected > > with momentum. Big Bang is a construction and losing favour. > > Multiple universes and mirror worlds are also constructions used to > > explain 'evidence'. > > I'm not sure how we can explain not being at the centre of a universe > > we can't really define - and our observations of it are known to be > > 'skewed' by living in an area of normal matter and high gravity. If > > you want to make a magnet you probably need relativity - even to > > explain how a lead-acid battery works as well as it does. This > > doesn't make the theory complete. > > > > Knowing about science doesn't help much with god or why we cling to > > this rock and want to know why, purpose, lack of it and how we should > > live. Negative space is an art concept. Vacuums are thought to have > > energy - the virtual particles, which are known to be particle pairs > > that blink into existence and then annihilate in a timespan too short > > to measure. They do this everywhere, throughout the Universe ( a > > postulate as no one has been to look). > > > > I have never seen any evidence for a spiritual world, but think such > > may be an emergent property of the way we live. > > > > On 4 Dec, 15:33, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not true the beginning can be pretty much pinpointed .. as > for > > > parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing to support > the > > > other than it sounds good. There is more evidence supporting the > spiritual > > > realm than parallel universes > > > Allan > > > > > Matrix ** th3 beginning light > > > On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is beginning and > > > > end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in parallel and > > > > continuously many universes are being born and many are dying , but > > > > Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal time , just > like > > > > the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The difference is > > > > that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit is non-dual. > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee Douglas <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > > > > Heh I can envisage many things, but alas many of them are not > true. I > > > > > distinguish between two things, matter and spirit. Mattter is all > that > > > > is > > > > > physical, which includes physical 'matter' and also energy. To me > there > > > > is > > > > > no paradox of who created the creator. Before the begining there > was > > > > only > > > > > God, God in spirit, and God created the creation out of the spirt > of God. > > > > > That is all matter comes from spirit. > > > > > > > On Friday, 30 November 2012 18:32:43 UTC, andrew vecsey wrote: > > > > > > >> Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy component > to it > > > > >> because matter is manifested as atoms which have motion in them. > But I > > > > could > > > > >> also envision pure motion without involving any atoms...like a > > > > vibration in > > > > >> the fabric of space, > > > > > > >> On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee Douglas wrote: > > > > > > >>> Heh except of course that when it comes right down to it.energy > is > > > > matter > > > > >>> and matter is energy. > > > > >>> On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew vecsey wrote: > > > > > > >>>> The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be > > > > >>>> circumnavigated by the possibility that the original creator > was not > > > > matter, > > > > >>>> but energy. Just like thinking of anything is much faster and > much > > > > easier > > > > >>>> than building it, it becomes conceivable that energy patterns > could > > > > have > > > > >>>> evolved in a random chance way and finely tuned by selective > > > > processes to > > > > >>>> reach intelligence similar to how most scientists believe that > > > > patterns of > > > > >>>> atoms and molecules evolved to form intelligent life. > > > > > > >>>> Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they > manipulated > > > > >>>> atoms to desired patterns and forms to code the information > required > > > > for > > > > >>>> life and to allow them to evolve on their own to complex > intelligent > > > > beings > > > > >>>> able to wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle of where > they > > > > came > > > > >>>> from, where they are going and why they are alive. Meaning and > > > > purpose could > > > > >>>> then be given to our fleeting moment of existence. > > > > > > >>>> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1, archytas wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> ....... All we have in respect of this is to posit > > > > >>>>> creation, begging the question of what created that in an > infinite > > > > >>>>> regress. .....We might get to an intelligent state in which > creation > > > > >>>>> myths are replaced by something more plausible and Truth comes > > > > closer. > > > > > > >>>>> On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>> > Neil , even after re-transposition how long could the brain > live > > > > >>>>> > --1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the universe > ,but > > > > >>>>> > ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end - time of > the > > > > >>>>> > universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and nothing > else. > > > > > > >>>>> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > What survives is the gene - subject to mutations etc. We > are > > > > >>>>> > > already > > > > >>>>> > > 'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation. One's mind > could be > > > > >>>>> > > transposed to another substrate (nearish future) - our > bodies are > > > > >>>>> > > currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the new > substrate > > > > could > > > > >>>>> > > have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive Lee's > 'hope'. > > > > Such > > > > >>>>> > > substrated minds might link in super-intelligence and be > able to > > > > >>>>> > > re- > > > > >>>>> > > transfer into more human-like bodies they learned to make. > This > > > > >>>>> > > would > > > > >>>>> > > be a time beyond singularity. We don't know what such > > > > intelligence > > > > >>>>> > > might invent or even discover - perhaps such intelligence > would > > > > >>>>> > > discover we are not as alone as we think. Being human or > human > > > > >>>>> > > being > > > > >>>>> > > might be as irrelevant as a mitochondria wanting to live > free > > > > >>>>> > > again. > > > > >>>>> > > We might be free of the tiny machines (genes) so much part > of our > > > > >>>>> > > behaviour now. > > > > > > >>>>> > > On 28 Nov, 14:40, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>> > >> T9 grrrrrrr > > > > >>>>> > >> Allan > > > > > > >>>>> > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light > > > > >>>>> > >> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott" < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly maybe' > then (my > > > > >>>>> > >> > grammar and > > > > >>>>> > >> > spelling checker suggests 10 instead of 'then' though)! > :) > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > 2012/11/28 James <[email protected]> > > > > > > >>>>> > >> >> I am an aspect of what was, is, and will be, > coextensively. > > > > >>>>> > >> >> Maybe. > > > > > > >>>>> > >> >> On 11/27/2012 2:28 AM, RP Singh wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> > >> >>> Attachment to life is the cause of the desire for > > > > immortality > > > > >>>>> > >> >>> and the > > > > >>>>> > >> >>> readiness to believe in an after-life or re-birth. It > is an > > > > >>>>> > >> >>> off-shoot of > > > > >>>>> > >> >>> the instinct for survival. > > > > > > >>>>> > >> >>> -- > > > > > > >>>>> > >> >> -- > > > > > > >>>>> > >> > -- > > > > > > >>>>> > > -- > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > --
