Biology doesn't require that you know what came before the `theory' of
the "Big Bang". It doesn't add to your fitness for reproduction to
know this also surely with your enlarged neo-cortex you will arrive at
a theory and it will be peer reviewed and considering the genie has
only been out of the bottle on the recipe of your 46 chromosomes it
may take another 5 or 10 years before you discover the exploding,
expanding universe was preceded by other like events and our cosmos won.

The knowledge doesn't set you free so much as your brain is a curse
that either makes you more fit to survive predators or it will
contribute to your extinction. 

Hank

P.S. Rob: This is just a theory (g)

--- In [email protected], "rob_analog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Your a man of science? But the science of before is not defined by 
> science or even speculated with theories?  
> "The nothing must be a full, logical and true nothing." A 
> contradiction. As a scientist you must believe in before as something 
> not nothing. Nothing and infinite are mutually exclusive.
> Give up! The big bang was the ultimate creation. In a millionth of a 
> second all the matter in the universe exploded into existence, 
> expanding away at a convient velocity to allow stars planets and 
> life. God is back!
> R
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], "jaze_mcaskill" <jaze_mcaskill@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > In this cause/effect universe, its hard to avoid wondering where it 
> > all started.  Currently there are two or three main thins you can 
> do 
> > with that.  1) Say some diety created everything.  2) Believe in 
> the 
> > Big Bang theory.  3) Something else.  Well, because I trust science 
> > and I want to know what came before cause, I did a little 
> figuring.  
> > The only first "cause" I would allow this theory is nothing.  At 
> the 
> > beginning of the universe there wasn't anything.  Just nothing as 
> far 
> > as the non-existent eye could see.  There was nothing everywhere.  
> > Nothing was limitless.
> >       Now I'm a man of science.  I don't believe or buy into that 
> > God,  religious, buddah or jesus stuff.  I believe in math, logic, 
> > objects I can see and feel and most of science.  So when I try to 
> > think of how the universe started and I want to ascertain an 
> ultimate 
> > before, I have to start with nothing.  .  Not one of those partial 
> nothing's that 
> > are so common in colloquial English.  In order for this nothing to 
> > have a truth value of "true" on a logical truth table, it must be 
> > infinite to consume all elses.  If Plato were imagining this 
> nothing 
> > with me it would be the form of nothing.  He would agree that it 
> > would have to be infinite.  By definition the form of nothing must 
> be 
> > infinite or you have a vacuum and something.
> >       Here there's a snag.  In order for nothing to have a truth 
> > value of "true" it must be infinite to maintain its form.  That 
> > leaves me with an infinite nothing.  Infinity is the exact opposite 
> > of nothing.  Thus I must find a balance and be left with something.
> >       If nothing and infinity combine to make something, what is 
> it?  
> > Where is it?  How is it?  Who is it?  When is it?  I figured why.
> >      I could make a guess as to where.  In the middle.  That makes 
> me 
> > think of torque.
> >      What kind of torque?  "a force that produces or tends to 
> produce 
> > rotation"?  Yeah, that one because the closer to the center you 
> get, 
> > the higher the amount of torque there is.
> >       So this pithy nothing spun and spun with the torque it had.  
> > Its is a fact that there is a constant amount of matter and energy 
> in 
> > the universe (with exception to it's beginning perhaps).  Matter 
> may 
> > be transformed into energy as in the explosion of an atom bomb, but 
> > the universal constant governing the two will remain unchanged.  My 
> > point is that matter and energy are interchangeable.  
> >      Nothing.  Infinity.  Torque. . . and the faster the spin the 
> > more torque.  The more torque, the faster the spin.  Until 
> eventually 
> > there was enogh energy (Nm) to create a materialistic explosion 
> known 
> > as the Big Bang.
> > 
> >      --Jaze
> >
>


Reply via email to