pywakit

If only I was a real scientist! Lol. Klaynos, you know I lack the ability to do that kind of math. I am so ashamed. As to the second part, my mechanism is the released kinetic energy ( extreme angular momentum from spin + combined relative motion + chemical reaction ) of 2 massive stars ( neutron? need lots of iron and nickel ) colliding at galactic velocities. Just a fluke, really. The 'debris' from the impact is given further angular momentum in the same manner that we use to accelerate our space probes. But using stars instead of planets. Of course, you would know if these mechanisms are inadequate .... When I conceived this scenario, ( which was scoffed at by my science minded co-workers, I might add ) it was believed that all planets ( objects with planetary mass ) would be in orbit around a star. I was quite excited when a year later astronomers announced the detection of possible rogues.

Yes, I was aware that the farther we get from the sun the less gravitational attraction. I had counted on this to reduce energy requirements for escape velocity. I am still thinking we are talking at cross-purposes. We are not increasing the orbital velocity by a fixed number then remaining at that velocity. This is the same as ion drive. The force is applied continually for many years, with our speed always increasing. So maybe you could calculate the total energy contained in 7 million cubic miles of ice. And throw in 7 million cubic miles of ocean water just for fun .... Would this number be less than 900B times out total energy output in 2008? If it is, then we will need to use more water. Lol.

Martin thank you for this, too. It breaks my heart to think what men like Lowell, and Burroughs, and even Wells missed out on. Could we exist at a better time? We are so incredibly lucky, aren't we .....

Sidebar ... Michel, my apology for getting your name wrong. My brother's name is Michael, and my trifocals warp images a little. I just didn't look carefully enough. A common failing on my part. Like your pencil analogy, too. Your idea is expressed in a way that even a layman ( like me ) can visualize. Further sidebar. My neighbors on the island I mentioned were named Karragorges. Shortened to Karras. Good greek family. And great neighbors. Martin, thank you for that explanation. I changed from your box to the 100^3 ft vacuum chamber in an attempt to provide a 'better' picture of the properties/forces involved. I think all the forces from sub-planck to the galactic and beyond are interelated. Certainly, I may be seeing non-existent relationships here, but I need to fully dis-prove them before I can move forward. Ok. That said ... My 'hypothetical' relationship between the dispersion of gasses and the galaxies motion relative to us, and the backround does not appear IMO contradictory. I do have a good grasp, I think , of the difference between recession and 'ordinary' motion. Space 'smoothing' out the bumps would have only ( essentially ) gravity, and EM working against it. That 'endless battle' you mentioned. It is my thinking that the energy stored within the 'fabric' of space is universal and generally isotropic. It would apply across the board. Shoving/pulling atoms/molecules would require much less 'force' than shoving a galaxy. But if the force is constant, the acceleration ( increase in velocity ), whether to an obsever in motion ... us ... or to a 'fixed' point observer could appear as the galaxies appear now. I have not suggested that galaxies are getting closer to anything, nor that galaxies have exceeded C relative to CMBR. Or for that matter, have anything other than velocities consistent with angular momentum relative to a fixed point. In my view, everything ( matter ) will move farther apart relative to each other. Space being what it is, it will treat everything equally, subject only to and restricted by laws of inertia, angular momentum, EM, and gravity. I am sorry I was less than clear in my changing of the experiment. I never meant for you to visualize the 'box' inside the vacuum chamber. I was more concerned ( as I mentioned before ) about the RATE of acceleration of the atoms/molecules as they attempt to reach equidistance when released from one end of the vacuum chamber. I understand ( somewhat ... lol ) the effect temperature has on the relative motions of atoms. Temperature is just another phenomena associated with matter/energy, and of course that is another dynamic that needs to be factored in. Thank you, as always for allowing me this format to express my thoughts.

Thank you. Please forgive my attempts at humor. I was being facetious about the 'building codes' and other points, too. When we talk about energy requirements to achieve escape velocity I am probably visualizing this all wrong. My understanding is if we were to increase our velocity ( and therefore angular momentum ) by even 5 meters per second, would we not ( assuming we don't run into something ) eventually 'drift' away from the sun? Perhaps this would take another million years to accomplish, but are the physics incorrect? It would not be easy to calculate the thrust from all 3000 pyramids operating at max cap ( just under causing continental plate shifts ), but I think there is sufficient energy available in the ice caps and drawing on the oceans to steadily increase our velocity. Even if we only increase the velocity ( accelerate ) in trillionths of a meter per second, if the thrust is continual, that increase will slowly add up to measurable change in orbital speed. Leaving the solar system in a couple hundred years is not so important. That's just artistic license. ( In fact, in my actual story, it's done in far less time ) But I don't think it is accurate to say we would need more energy than the planet contains to move it away from the sun. And to Alpha.

Yes. I don't doubt for a moment your eyes are open. I wish all believers shared your curiosity. It isn't so much that truth is 'missing'. Physics existed long before Man came along to 'discover' it. As did chemistry and EM. All we are trying to do is understand the truth that is in front of us. Science gives us a very effective manner in which to reveal truths that are already there. Does it have limits? That remains to be seen. So far science has shown that 'truths' which seemed to have no answer before turn out to have very simple answers. In most cases, very beautiful answers. Does the universe care what we do and do not understand? I don't think so, but WE care, and that's all that really matters. Religion is not 'bad' per se, as long as it does not hinder our search for answers. There is nothing good in ignorance other than 'bliss'. Lol. But if 'we' don't try to understand the universe we exist in ... then who? Shall we live our lives out in ignorant bliss, or take the risk we might not like the answer? I say ... take the risk. We can always learn to adapt. We always have.

Only my perception if it. Lol. The universe does not exist for my benefit. It just exists. I happen to think it's a beautiful place to be ... One thing that believers just won't accept is this is the only existence they get. What a shame it would be to spend your life worshipping a make-believe idol, when there is so much to learn of the physical universe, and so little time to learn it .... But there is nothing I can say that will open your eyes to the true majesty of existence. Mores the pity. I will go to my death wondering how humans can still believe that some entity built the universe just for us. All 350 billion galaxies and counting. They must really think they are special. Ok. One more attempt. When men wrote the bible, they looked around them and realized how complicated everything was. From the number of droplets in an ocean wave, to a forest with infinite individual needles, to all the biological species ... and of course, to the shining glory of life itself ... MAN. Clearly this was a complex place. Beyond the scope of any man's brain to comprehend. By comparison, the night sky was pretty simple. The 'stars' ( maybe a couple thousand ) were the same ( except for a few wanderers ) every night. Yes, they shifted a little from season to season, but they always returned, and the pattern of lights never changed. Is it any wonder that it took God 6 days to create all the complexity around them, but merely willed the heavens into existence ... instantaneously? Nope. Makes perfect sense. Or it would of then. But considering there must be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 OTHER stars and planets .... at least ... WITH ALL THE SAME COMPLEXITY as ours .... do you think the authors, if they'd known ... would have written it the way they did? I don't think they would have. Seems a little silly, doesn't it? God could have willed ours into existence in .0000000000000000000000000001 seconds with time left over. Lol. Always makes me laugh when believers accuse me of having an ego. I would think it would be impossible to believe that out of so many stars and planets ... out of all the life that must exist throughout the local universe .... just the followers of Jesus were chosen to live in paradise for eternity. Now THAT'S some serious ego. Well, if indoctrination wasn't effective, nobody would do it ....

Lol. Yes, perhaps you are right in your first statement. As for the last ... concepts like 'prayer' and 'worship' are alien to me. I couldn't even worship Shakira. And I already talk to myself too much. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Why must logic or reason coincide with reality or existence itself, if existence precedes human mind and reality flows from the human mind? This question is well-constructed meaningless verbage. To begin with, reality exists whether or not I am there to observe it. As an observer, however, if I wish to quantify my observations, I have to have some structural mechanism for doing so. Otherwise each seperate event bears no relationship to another, and I start from scratch each time. I remain hopelessly confused. " ... if existence precedes ... " What existence? Mine? The universe? An acceptance of reality, and an agreed upon language, and definitions allows us to quantify, and communicate the reality. Without it we may as well be mute. It is a nonsensical question. Where does the consistency between logic and reason, and existence or reality arise from? Another nonsensical question. I'm getting a head-ache. Why must our mind necessarily determine how things actually are? Because 'not determining' results in total chaos. Communication is impossible because we each have our own definitions of EVERYTHING. To say things must be logical or reasonable is to say that we decide how things must be. That is an illogical statement on it's face. The two do not follow. It makes a ridiculous claim. No we don't. We just agree on a language so we can understand each other. It has nothing to do with 'deciding how things must be'. To think solely within the realms of logic or reason, is to think within boundaries that will never illuminate that which is, to us, unreasonable or illogical. That is incorrect. With out logic and reason we would be incapable of recognizing what IS unreasonable, or illogical. Furthermore, must logic and reason conform to reality, or must reality conform to logic and reason? Logic and reason foster comprehension of the observed reality, and give us a manner in which to express that comprehension, and set agreed upon rules for communication. If the former, how can we say things must be logical or reasonable? Reality is. If you don't like it, don't participate. If the latter, how can we say 'we' do not decide how reality appears? Again, reality is. Logic and reason allow us to quantify that reality. A common language in which to express it. Or where does logic and reason appear beyond the human mind? This is silly. It requires a mind to use the tools of logic and reason. To say that everything is or must be logical or reasonable is to say that the universe is wrought of mind. Not surprisingly, I am not following the logic here. A does not infer B. A does not imply B. A does not have anything at all to do with B. The universe exists whether or not we are around to observe it. That is called ... reality.

To everyone who has participated ... I hope 2010 is a satisfying, and productive year for you. Thank you for being so patient with me ...

Sorry Martin. I am not the most tactful human alive .... Neil DeGrasse Tyson ( a very patient man, in my experience ), Seth Shostak, and Frank Drake come to mind also. Thank you for attempting to straighten me out on GR. Clearly I have misunderstood it's scope, and limitations. I will study harder, I promise. As grumpy as I can get with science, I am not anti-science at all. I think you must know this by now. Quite the contrary. I fully expect science to explain all the mysteries of the universe in time ... Like you, I hope within my life time. I would use Dark Energy as an example of my 'suspicion'. I have read 'theoretical' models that seem to approach it's existence as a 'given' ... then building on or incorporating DE into the model. This is annoying to me, as it only lends further authenticity to an unproven 'hypothetical'. Much the same with Hawking Radiation. Not all respected scientists are in agreement with either of these, as I am sure you know. It is wrong of me to cast aspersions on you or any other scientist. It isn't my intent. We may be talking at cross-purposes here. I don't think space DOES expand. What I am asserting is that space is an energized structure without form ( infinite ), but with certain properties, and limitations. And these properties are possibly mis-identified as an outside force ( DE ) working on both it, and matter. And that matter/energy in the visible local universe are an integral ( borrowed energy ) and transitory part of a previously existing ( eternal ) structure. My main goal is to devise, or have someone else think of a way to devise, experiments that would tend to infer my model as opposed to the current standard model, and others waiting in the wings. At the same time I wait patiently for someone to say ... " Ok, jerk. Here's your critical flaw!" Lol. In which case it's back to square one. In the meantime, I just maintain my desire to contribute something meaningful to Mankind. I could have less lofty goals, I suppose ... but if you are going to dream, you might as well dream big. Your patience rivals Dr. Tyson's. Thank you again. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedTo everyone who has participated ... I hope 2010 is a satisfying, and productive year for you. Thank you for being so patient with me ...

Undeserved flattery, but thank you. Honestly, I am very surprised I have not been banned permanently. I glanced through the offences of suspendees and I think I am guilty of all of them. Maybe nobody is really paying any attention to me .... Lol. Anyway, I went through your stuff, and I really am unqualified to make judgements. But I have to side with Moo, SwansonT, and others. You actually start off quite well, but then things get a little murky. There is either an inherent capricious nature to the meta-physical, it is directed by an intelligence, or it doesn't exist. I'm in the 'does not exist' camp. Every claim of metaphysical/supernatural powers, events, occurrences has failed in the laboratory. There have been some famous ones, like Uri Geller who claimed to bend spoons with his mind. All such claims have been proven to be fraudulent. It defies logic that the event could occur outside the lab, but the moment you walk through a door, they evaporate. The american, and russian governments both spent millions, and many years trying to prove the existence of metaphysics for military/political applications. Yes, they took it quite seriously. They gathered up all the self-proclaimed psychics, and mediums in the world and tried like crazy to eke performances out of them. More often than not, they performed worse than control groups ... meaning they were incapable of improving upon normal expectations for 'chance'. As far as having a difference in proven experimental evidence ( like the double-slit experiment ) there was no observed effect. Yet the myths live on, the current generation of perps counting on the ignorance, and gullibility of their audiences, and their own clever slight-of-hand tricks. And the stories continue to circulate among the ignorant convincing them that there must be truth to it .... I would continue to explore the basic tenet of your theory, but I would also accept that there is no reason for researchers to 'fix' the experiments in such a manner that the results are skewed toward physical answers. On the contrary, I think science would be quite excited to find psychic phenomena are real. At some point, it's time to move on as the horse is long dead ... this doesn't mean it can't be revived one day though ... so keep the thought on the back burner ... I've been busy, and chose to address your request first. I'll still cover Timothy's post in a while. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged

To everyone who has participated ... I hope 2010 is a satisfying, and productive year for you. Thank you for being so patient with me ...

Another point to remember is ... all religions are 'models of the universe'. But they are not THEORETICAL models because they lack any physical evidence to support their model, there is no way to create an experiment to support their model, and they are incapable of accurately predicting any physical phenomena. So they are HYPOTHETICAL models. Purely speculative. And therefore useless in determining anything of a physical nature or structure in the universe. There is a reason why philosophy or beliefs must stay out of the laboratory ... A short story: Two neighbors ( both highly intelligent, and both with a strong belief in the Designer ) each in their respective yards, are relaxing under a tree. It is a pleasant summer, and they while away the afternoon contemplating the world around them. At about the same moment an apple falls on both, conking them hard on the head. "Ooowwww!" "Ooowwww!" The first man rubs his injured head and asks ... "Why did that apple fall?" The second man rubs his injured head and asks ... "Why did that apple fall on ME?" The second man retreats to his study, and spends hours ... days ... deep in thought, nursing his bruised head. Firmly believing that the Designer 'has a plan for him' ... he begins to speculate on the possibilities. What if ... this was a sign from above? What if ... the Designer is trying to send me a message? What if ... ( remembering what he was doing when the event happened ) I am being punished for contemplating the nature of the world I live in? Why did He DO this to ME? Weeks pass. He eventually leaves his study no closer to a solution than the day he walked in, concluding that it is an unsolvable mystery. The first man retreats to his study, too. He spends hours ... days ... deep in thought, nursing his bruised head. Of course, he immediately realizes that it was foolish for him to sit under the tree at that time of year, for the ground is always littered with apples in mid-summer. Still, he is curious. What makes things fall? Is it the Designer's hand? Or are there other forces involved? He devises a series of experiments. The results of those experiments inspire him to make further predictions, and devise more experiments. He leaves his study weeks later with a handful of empirical evidence, having laid the foundation for one of the most momentous discoveries in human history. Gravity's cause and effect. The second man shall remain nameless. The first man is Sir Isaac Newton. ................................................................................ Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I also don't take science as the word of God. Meaning scientists are frequently wrong. I can't find much fault in what you say above. After a meal, I will address Timothy's post.

That was nice. But not very logical. Irrationality is just that. Irrational. It fails to follow reason and logic and assumes facts not in evidence thereby rendering communication pointless. There is no such thing as being 'sort of' pregnant, any more than you can be 'sort of' irrational. You either are or you are not. The post by Timothy is a very good example of an 'appearance' of rational thought when it really is nothing of the kind. It makes false assumptions every step of the way, and in doing so claims 'false' choices as valid and reasonable ones. Essentially, he said 'nothing'. And made no valid, or rational /logical point. It may appear reasonable on the surface, but it lacks any substance. The point is, you can't claim irrational thought as a useful method or tool in determining the nature and structure if the universe. Art is not rational or irrational. It is only a form of expression. It does not seek to answer anything. It conveys a view, nothing more. There is no such thing as 'artistic truth'. And it was neither irrational nor arrogant on my part. It was annoyance. Lol. Look, we can examine the concept that 'God did it' then once we have determined it's potential value in scientific inquiry ( none ) we put it on the back burner, and get back to rational considerations. We can always come back to it at some future time and re-examine to see if our understanding of it, or what it offers provides a better solution than the ones we are coming up with. Don't let my irritation with religion bother you please. You seem like a very thoughtful human, and the world never has enough people like you.

Martin, you will only make me appear more obtuse if you drag me down this road. Lol. Ok. How shall I respond? My understanding of GR is that is describes the properties and relationships of matter/energy in the established medium we call 'space'. I am always a little suspicious when science claims an absolute. "Since there is no substance called space ... " We are certain this statement is true because .... ? We can see ( through measurements ) that some force ( dark energy ) is acting on the 'medium'. We seem to now be claiming this as an absolute. But that is an assumption based on another assumption. That space has no 'substance' of it's own. But does it really follow? The reality is ... there IS a measurable force at play. It seems equally likely that space DOES have substance. This is what logic tells me. What I am trying to do is pin down which explanation best fits the evidence. "No gain in velocity." Hmm. I don't think I am being clear here. Once released from the bottle the atoms charge out to become equidistant inside the box. They are changing their positions in space. That change does not occur instantaneously. What I am trying to establish here is that 'something' is causing the atoms to change position. Whether repulsive or not. And that the relative velocity to distance may be an important measurement. There is a force at play here. The visual I would use would be a cubic room ( vacuum chamber ) 100x100x100 ft. At one end, centered on the wall we have the nozzle for the nitrogen bottle. We manage to release 100 atoms from the bottle simulataneously. What are the velocities/corresponding positions of the atoms relative to the nozzle and each other at 1/1000th of a second? 10/1000ths? 100/1000ths? What is the maximum velocity the atoms will achieve before settling into isotropy? How quicly to they achieve isotropy? What is the 'braking' mechanism once they achieve it? Do the atoms 'run past' isotropy and then 'readjust' their relative positions? You say that the behavior of nitrogen atoms can not be applied to the behavior of galaxies, and what I am suggesting is that there could be a relationship, but we haven't figured it out yet because we haven't studied and compared the numbers, or we lack the capacity to make such comparisons. I sincerely hope I am not giving you a head ache ... If these are stupid questions just tell me to shut up.

I apologize for any misunderstanding. I really had no intent on attacking you personally. My attack is on irrationality as an accepted, and valid state of mind. I will read your posts. The statements you made that I rebutted are very familiar to me. They ( as all similar writings ) are stated in such a manner as to be construed as 'truth' ... a given. You wrote them trying to communicate a viewpoint to others, and I felt that counter-point was justified on the off-chance someone might take such irrational, and incorrect statements as 'truth'. Truth is not relative. It is not subject to interpretation. Truth is fact. Truth is REALITY. That does not stop us from interpreting it any old way we choose, does it? This is where the 'irrationality' comes in. There is nothing wrong with looking at 'evidence' and coming to different conclusions as long as you arrived there rationally. Irrational explanations are 'fairy tales' and have no place in scientific inquiry. If you choose to sit back and let God determine your fate ... if you choose to go in the library and spend your life in the 'pseudo-non-fiction' section, that is fine. I am not suggesting that is what you do, though. It sounds as if you are trying. As far as keeping an 'open mind', I studied the bible open to the 'possibility' that my view on the existence of 'higher powers' could be flawed. The more I studied it, the more I came to understand how and why it was written. And the more flaws became apparent. I gave it a fair reading, though. And I read it again. And again. It really just boiled down to "It's our opinion that God did it". And lots of people agreeing that no evidence was going to be required to back it up. This is not a useful tool when trying to understand how the universe functions. This road dead-ends in about 20 feet. Theology is the study of "others' irrational and baseless opinions built on unfounded and unsupported claims." To think that people will make a life-long career out of this is absolutely stunning to me. All those books in the library, and you spend your whole life on just one. Could you ( not you specifically ) be any more irrational? Yes. Einstein. My bad. It is very important to remember that nothing happens in a vacuum. Einstein danced on egg-shells. The view in America, and Europe was rather devoutly religious. The world view was on very shaky ground at that time. The universe was getting way too big for comfort. To claim atheism, or non-theism outright would have been to lay himself open to the most severe of attacks ... on his character ... and by extension ... on his science. I vaguely recall reading that many years ago now. And feeling disappointed, as it was clearly said to placate and sooth rumblings from the 'religious community' which was 90 plus % of the world. I can't help but notice you did not actually defend any of the statements I rebutted. Instead, you simply said I was wrong in assuming you are religious. So I would respectfully ask you go back and either falsify my comments, or concede yours were inaccurate. That said, thank you very much for the complimentary remarks. I think you are very much NOT your typical believer. As you said yourself ... before, you shunned the very word 'science'. At least you are trying to include rational thought. This is a good thing.

Uh oh. Thinking as a philosopher rather than a scientist. As much as I would like to consider it a compliment to be compared to Aristotle, he was, after all, rather ignorant as to the true functions of the universe. So yes. Bad thinking. Lol. But you are kind. So now I must ask the obvious. "As far as we know......" Have there ever been any studies of this nature? Do we have the capability of making such comparisons? And perhaps I fail to glean all the information contained in your post. I was more concerned with the INCREASING RATE OF ACCELERATION of the atoms from initial release to isotropic positions, rather than measurements of a 'static' state of being. We know that the galaxies farthest from us ( in time and space ) are 'moving away' faster than those closer. My contention is the atoms leave the bottle at a certain velocity and quickly accelerate. They go from 'zero' to (x) ... then back to 'zero' again once equidistance ( general isotropy ) has been achieved within the box. How long does it take to reach maximum velocity? The idea here is space takes a given volume/number of atoms from 'rest' and pulls them apart. The more massive ( and therefore, the stronger the gravitational force ) the structure, the longer it takes to accelerate that mass. As before ... even if there was a correlation, it could be attributed to dark energy. More bad thinking? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFurthermore, if we removed the walls of the box, giving the atoms infinite space in which to disperse, what 'would' be the maximum velocity achieved? I don't think there will be a point where the atoms say "Ok. We are far enough from each other now." will they ... Point being, there is no 'repulsive' force. The atoms are much too far apart to have any further possible relationship/interaction. ( communication ) The other point being ... it seems illogical that 'space' is actually expanding between any two atoms, anymore than 'space' is expanding between galaxies.

I don't know who posted this to begin with, but I could not disagree more strenuously. I have read a similar ( if not the same ) passage before and it is just another example of believers creating 'truisms' that are completely manufactured, irrational at their core, and designed to imbue a sense of credibility where none exists. I don't appreciate being lumped in with the 'we'. I think there are many more who would agree with me. I don't mean to offend, but believers as a rule are incapable of distinguishing reality from opinion. They also think there is safety in numbers, and if enough people share the belief, there must be some inherent truth. They also are incapable of grasping that reality and beliefs are completely, distinctly diametrically opposed. To them beliefs ARE reality. And furthermore, as they are unable to discern the difference, they claim that EVERYONE has beliefs. "You can't see the air, but yet you believe in it". How many times have I heard this nonsense? I am a non-theist. I don't have 'beliefs'. I don't wonder if the physical universe is just a grand 'shared' illusion, or my own. There is zero evidence of spirits, elves, ghosts, witches, gods, or whatever. The universe exists. Period. I have always understood ... since I was 4 years old that god(s) were manufactured deities, with zero evidence to back them up. OPINIONS. Nothing more. I consider myself reasonably intelligent, and I am not in that 'position' at all. YOU may be in the position of the little child, and I am sorry for that. I recommend the first thing you do is locate the section marked 'ENGLISH' since you clearly speak/write it. Next go to the 'NON-fiction' section. This will be a good starting point for you. Not so overwhelming, perhaps. Understand that you will never be able to read all the books, but that's ok, because most of it is garbage. People's completely unsupported opinions. Entertainment value ... perhaps some interesting philosophical constructs ... but that's about all. To say that this scenario is "... the attitude of even the most intelligent human being towards God" makes the irrational pre-supposition that your god's existence ever had any credibility to begin with. It didn't. Oh the arrogance of it all .... to assume 6 billion non-believers in your god are all messed up, but you are in the right camp. They have an opinion. You have an opinion. I am not familiar enough with other religions' 'holy books' but I am familiar enough with the bible to dismantle it in 10 paragraphs, or less. Ok. Maybe 15. Lol. Of course, if you are a true believer you know that's not possible, right? That's only if you are incapable of rational thought, or logic. Only when you close your eyes real tight and cover your ears. I'm going to step on another few sets of toes and assert that not only is it simple to disprove the christian god, but all other religions as well. Every single one claims special instructions set down from this 'higher power', or 'deity'. They all make claims about the universe we live in. They can all be proved to be nothing more than the active imaginations of very clever, but ultimately ignorant people. Well, you say ... getting a little steamed .... lol ... you can't prove a negative. We may have the facts a little off, but NOBODY can prove god(s) doesn't exist. Yes you can. The answer lies in the 'actual' infinite universe ... the real, physical one, and the 'eternal' universe ... again ... the real one. Not the one believers of all religions made up. Is this too off topic? Lol. I thought from what I read so far that it was kind 'open season' on the subject. I'll shut up now .... Shoot. Ok. The world would be much better off without ignorance. It would still be imperfect, but if people realized this is the only existence they get, they just might change their behavior a little. Maybe people would quickly realize there is no 'glory' in dying for god, or country. It just means you are dead. That might make it harder for leaders to send soldiers to war, don't you think? It also would make us better stewards of our planet, since the people would figure out that their deity isn't going to "come and take them to heaven so they don't really need to worry about the condition they left the planet in ....." ( edit ) Don't get me wrong. I am all for fantasy and illusion. We all need breaks from reality. I like to imagine Shakira running out of gas at my home, no cell service, and needs to borrow my land line. She falls in love with me and never leaves. *sigh* Well, at least I DO have a home ... and cells DON'T work as no tower is close by ... and Shakira EXISTS. So it's POSSIBLE! Lol. Ok. Just wishful thinking. I know the difference between reality ... and fantasy. And I don't really have this fantasy. Still ..... nothing wrong with dreams. Again, sorry for offending everyone. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Unless they are brain-dead, when they stop crying they will learn to adapt. And learn how to be happy, and content in other ways. They certainly won't all drop dead. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Moo, this is just a common tactic of believers. ( and salespeople, too ) It's called 3rd party endorsement. Designed to lend authority, and credibility where none exists. And it is very effective. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is the kind of stuff that drives me nuts. Here we have a very 'authoritative' piece. No there isn't. For one, science didn't really exist until about 500 years ago. And it was ... for the most part ... on the side of religion ... 2nd, a debate requires a minimum of 2 rational parties. No they aren't. One deals with reality, and evidence. The other relies totally on "I read a book and I believe it's contents." This is not accurate, either. Whenever religion hears something that conflicts with their beliefs, their preferred method was/is to torture and kill the messenger. ( don't forget to get the confession signed! ) To stamp out all heretical speech before it infects others. What advances can religion claim in 'advancing our knowledge of the universe'? I can think of NONE. ????? In other words ... telling lies to spread the truth. Now there is some rational thinking. Oh yes. I forgot. The 'ends justify the means' ... right? As long as it's for a 'good' cause. This one is particularly amusing. Science has no interest in 'suppressing' religion. Science just wants religion to leave them the hell alone. You have it backwards. Religion has a rich history of suppression. Science does not. And by the way ... what tools did you bring? This is because you fail to see you were indoctrinated from earliest childhood. You realize it is irrational, yet you can ignore that reality ... and find safety, and apparently 'truth' in the irrationality of 6 billion people. Hmmm. Saying God did it is hardly a 'method'. In other words ... "It's a free country and you can believe whatever you want to believe." 'God did it' is not a 'tool'. It's an unsupported, irrational opinion. God cast his children into the barren wastelands for wanting a little more knowledge than God felt like giving. If science ( and eventually, rational thought ) had not risen IN SPITE of religion I would not be able to do this ( rebutt your statements ) ... Lol. So reality and truth are ILLOGICAL? I suppose so .... if you are incapable of recognizing it ... Having grown up in a christian home and on a christian island, I am very familiar with all these little pearls of wisdom. I swear, they teach you all the same stuff. Never changes. It's called ... "How to cast doubt on reality." Believers do a swell job. And they have been successful for thousands of years with these methods. Because there is a never-ending supply of weak-minded individuals already struggling with their own childhood indoctrinations. And religion offers them a 'home'. And 'love'. And strength in numbers. I really don't like tearing everything you said apart. I wouldn't feel the need if you had simply refrained from saying it. But I think in fairness, anything said here is 'debatable' ... so all of the above was my 'rebuttal'. Doesn't God have a sufficient number of coerced fans, yet? Or maybe you might not consider the threat of ETERNAL torture ( as the only alternative to 'loving' your God ) as coersion. Hmmmm. Let's see. Pulling my arms off. Nope. Hell is much worse. Poking my eyes out. Nope. Hell is much worse. My wife leaving me for my best friend. Nope. Hell is much worse. Watching my son die. Nope. Hell is all these things and much much more. And the pain never stops. For EVER. And believers claim their God loves us so much he has granted us FREE choice. Can you define 'irrational' please? Oh, by the way ... believers point to God's great sacrifice to show his love for us. He gave his 'only begotten Son' for us. Wow. Having lost my own son, I am rather impressed. It's been 23 years and I am still in agony over it. He was my only child, and 7 when he drowned. Must be terrrible for God, too. Never to see h....... woooops. Hang on now. Isn't Jesus with God? Yes. I think he is. So I guess God didn't really make that big a sacrifice for us after all. Well, I'm glad. Because I wouldn't wish this pain on my worst enemy ... if I had one ... which I don't. I wouldn't even wish it on God. And I can think of nobody more deserving ....

Yes, of course to your first statement. However, I was tired and not thinking clearly. As I was formulating the paragraph my original intent was to use the word 'could', as opposed to 'would'. Then I forgot what I was talking about. Lol. I have been following a lot of models, and I am a little familiar with the 'possibility' of gravity repelling at high densities. There seems to be no evidence of such an anomaly, no observations that bear it out, and as yet no real consensus on it's 'probability'. And that is 'one' result. I believe the other result is the opposite. The model(s) you describe does not adequately address other issues such as hydrogen/helium levels, nor CMBR. It does seem to create the need for another mechanism for the creation of CMBR in the first place. So in short, I have a few problems with any 'bounce' theory. Please correct me if my information is inaccurate. It also does not deal satisfactorily with entropy, or isotropy ( I think ), the loss or gain of mass per bounce ( potentially 'running out of steam' ) in the local universe, and it does not offer a satisfactory mechanism for the expansion to reverse. So this is, I suppose, why I would have subconsciously just dismissed the 'bounce' possibilty, and claimed an absolute. I was in error to do so. Either way, of course, I do not think space allows 'infinitely small' any more than it allows 'infinitely big'. Just because math produces an infinite answer does not mean that the universe must obey our math. The fact is, we continue to refer to a singularity as 'infinitely small' when we have zero evidence of any such thing occurring in the universe. Extremely small, yes. But to be infinitely small, I think it would have to contain an infinite amount of mass. And we don't have an infinite amount laying around. Or there would have to be an arbitrary 'trigger' point where gravitational collapse can not be stopped, or reversed. Or it would have to have a maximum limit of mass, a minimum limit to size, then it would have to 'shunt' mass somewhere else. It sure doesn't seem to be returning the information to the universe. Yet. ( Hawking radiation may or may not be a real phenomena, but I don't think we are going to get rid of any black holes that way.) And we have yet to see a black hole turning inside out. Thankfully. It appears that the properties of space become inflexible at some point. It allows bending and stretching just so much, then it puts the bakes on. A photon is the easiest ( possible ) evidence of this. We assume the photon's max velocity is 300,000 kps based solely on it's observed speed. I would disagree with this assumption. It is just as likely that a photon has 'infinite' velocity potential, but the lines of energy ( the medium ) in space that it travels in do the limiting. I will check out the latest from the resource you have provided. And thank you for being such a gentleman. I hope I can reciprocate ... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMartin, tell me if this experiment makes any sense. Maybe I am looking at this the wrong way. But this is what I would do: Since I think it is the 'homogenizing' property of space that makes the nitrogen released in a vacuum rush to equidistance, as opposed to a 'repelling' force of the atoms ( pulled, rather than pushed ), I would take the formula that expresses the accelerating velocity of that 'repulsion' and apply it to various ages of galaxies we know to be receding from us. I would then also apply it to the local group of galaxies to see if their gravitational attraction is in any way affected by space's 'tugging'. Maybe all this has already been done ... If so, my apoplogies. Anyway, I would think we would find a correlation between/among these phenomena. Bad thinking? I suppose so, since it could just as easily be attributed to 'dark energy'.

Thank you Martin. Nothing happens in a vacuum. More specifically, nothing happens in an absolute void ... In the interests of understanding each other maybe you wouldn't mind if I gave a 'brief history of time' as pertains to pywakit's existence. Before I do, though ... I am already a little familiar with models that don't require a BB. In fact, my model doesn't really require a 'bang' so much as it requires a black hole ( the last black hole ) to reach it's critical mass limit and release it's stored energy. Whether that is a 'reaction' or the limits of angular momentum, it doesn't really matter. The effect is the same. So in short, my model does not conflict with the non-BB models ... as far as where the mass comes from. And I use the term BB in it, because that is easier conceptually. And hopefully makes the transition from the standard model not so abrupt. My approach to science is one of acute suspicion. I love science, but my relationship with scientists is not so loving. I'm kidding, but there are several reasons I would feel this way. Valid reasons. Get to that in a minute. Yes Martin, I am a 'layman'. From a scientist's p.o.v. this is ( understandably so ) a dismissive term. But it assumes facts not in evidence ... such as what that layman's level of understanding and comprehension may or may not be. The assumption is a layman will have little grasp of the subject at hand. I think of all those thousands of 'learned men and women' who must have been so extremely annoyed with Edison for daring to take the accumulated knowledge of electromagnetism and chemistry ( stealing it!) and putting together an electric light bulb. Before they figured it out .... How vexing. I have done exactly what Edison did. I 'steal' from the workers in the trenches. An analogy would be my Corvette. Yes, if pressed I suppose given sufficient time I could build one myself. But it was much easier to simply 'steal' the hard work of so many and just order it from the factory. Yellow, convertible, 6M, and waaay too fast. Lol. I did this in 2000 and I must confess, I have never felt guilty as I blast though the gears. I would feel guilty I suppose about stealing the necessary knowledge to produce my model but for the snubs of scientists through out my lifetime. Nothing you did, of course .... Mankind took a stance a long time ago. We were not here by accident, and neither was our universe, regardless of it's size. Science began as an effort to explain why we were special, as opposed to just 'explaining'. It is easy to assert this as nearly all scientists of the day professed a belief in god, or some higher ( cognitive ) authority. There is nothing rational, or scientific about this belief. For me, it's been like living in a mad-house with no walls for half a century. EVERY body is clearly irrational. Lol. Faith is just a manufactured term for 'irrational belief with absolutely no supporting evidence'. This was still very evident when I was a child of six some fifty-one years ago. I was born without a 'belief CAPACITY'. Raised on a devoutly christian island, this was a nightmare. Like living in the 'twilight zone'. Actually very frightening. But this is the basis for my arrogance and obnoxious behavior. And also how I came to understand the universe as I do. Martin, I learned very quickly that adults can be very very wrong even as they insist they are not. In sunday school I made the mistake ( at age 6 ) of questioning god's word, his will, his level of rationality, his judgements, and his very existence. I had already grasped that there was no proof that he existed by the time I was 4, so for me, this relegated him to 'tooth fairy' status. Maybe he DID exist, but the burden of proof was on the believers. And they weren't offering any. My 'mistake' caused the islanders to make me a pariah for more than 5 years. No child was allowed to speak to me for fear I might infect them with my satanic thoughts. No bs. This is what happened. I was beaten so many times I can't count. My family hated me for they were now suspect too in the eyes of the islanders. This incident took place at the beginning of the summer, and as none of my family could stand the sight of me, and I was likely to be beaten if noticed, I requested permission to sleep outside for the summer. Permission granted. ( we lived on a 100 acre farm, btw. ) Overhead each night was a brilliant expanse of stars. ( no streetlights, no neighbors ) I was desperate for relief from my nightmare, and I would lay under the stars and beg some alien race to come get me ... Pathetic really. But the flip side was I spent a great deal of time contemplating the universe. The real one I could see as opposed to this mythical one everyone believed in. I worked out the 'transit method' that summer. Trying to explain it to adults who were certain that god put us here, and there were no other planets in the universe ( which I already visualized as 'infinite' ) was an exercise in futility. Not to mention further beatings. But Martin ... time proved me right. And everyone else wrong. My conclusions were not based on faith, or my own desperate wishes. They were based on 'not' having faith. 'Not' being blinded. Logic said .... there are all those stars. They are suns. If our sun has planets, then other suns do too. But science did not 'officially' agree with me. Yes, there 'probably were' but "We can't know for sure, and we never will because the light from stars is much too bright to ever see a non-radiating object next to it." It took me 4 years to get up the courage to write to NASA. But 'somebody' had to tell them how to find planets because they were clearly not figuring it out for themselves. I ws unaware, by the way, that Struve had written a short paper on this method in 1952 ... and science ignored him, too. NASA saw no need to write me back and thank me, nor even a nice note to encourage my further interest in astrophysics ... and this just told me that even the brightest of scientists can blind themselves to 'truth'. Martin, I have been correct in every prediction I have ever made regarding the 'big' picture. For 50 years. All the 'adults' were wrong. Now that I'm all grown up, is it so hard to see where my rather antagonistic attitude comes from? I have very high confidence in my ability to look at big pictures. 50 years of being correct does that to you. 50 years of scientists being 'incorrect' ( at least as far as the big picture goes ), or at best being afraid to commit in the face of ( in my view ) overwhelming evidence does not make me easily intimidated when very nice, well-intentioned scientists like you tell me I lack sufficient 'academics' to understand how our universe operates. I did not just 'think up' my model. Out of a 'void'. I have stolen every bit of pertinent information I could ( and still do ) from all you nice scientists, to create this model. I am not afraid to commit, nor am I afraid to suffer the sometimes abusive and dismissive reactions from 'learned men'. It is fully expected, and completely understandable that you or others would feel the way you do. I have much to learn ... and some things I will clearly never grasp. But that doesn't matter to me when I'm hitting 150 ( yikes! ) in my vette. I am confident in the underlying physics, and engineering ( and genius ) that went in to building it. I am equally confident in the genius that unravelled astronomy. You said you may 'jump ship' soon. This just further illustrates my point. There is no real, current consensus on the structure and processes that form the physical unverse we occupy. There are 1000 different interpretations from the observations we have to date. You claim Friedman's universe has done a wonderful job. Other very respected scientists do not agree. I think my model is more 'Occam' than the standard model, and that all observations and experiments, and math support mine just as well. In addition, the other models out there require some pretty serious 'magic acts' to solve their deficiencies. My model requires no such magic. No superphysics. No 'hypotheticals' that conflict with known laws and properties of space. Yes, I am very confident. I don't think I am your standard 'layman'. But I still reserve the right to say .... Oooops. I was wrong. It would be tough, but I would survive it. Please forgive my lack of economy in expressing this to you. And please forgive my attitude. It is not directed at you, or any individual. Scientists don't have a lock on 'blindness'. I am just as capable of being wrong, too. I hope we can continue the debate. I hope we can both understand each other better now. I really do understand your viewpoint. I just don't necessarily agree. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedCouple more points I forgot. On the 'methodology of science'. 50 years ago, as I lay on the grass and stared up at the beautiful expanse of stars, I would think about what the scientists said. "There 'might' be no other planets outside our solar system. We can not know for 'sure'." This was complete insanity to me. We knew they were stars. We knew there were other galaxies of stars ... thousands of them. This meant that at the very least there were going to be TRILLIONS to QUADRILLIONS of stars in the KNOWN visible universe. But our star 'may' be the only one with planets. Hmmm. Really. So what you are telling me is there are quadrillions of suns in the universe. And just one has planets. The rest? Just hanging out by themselves .... This was not 'science'. This was religion. The only rational, reasonable, and logical assumption would have been ... Our star has planets. We can't be sure at this time how our planets came to exist, but what we have observed to date is that there is very likely a physical process involved. Therefore the probability of all those other stars NOT having planets is effectively zero, unless ours were put here by some deity. Since we have zero evidence of that either, this is the model we will use until proven otherwise. Taking this stance would not have hampered scientific inquiry in any way. In fact, it might have sped the process up considerably. And there would have still been left open the possiblity of observations disproving that model. But religion stopped them. All of them. From treating the problem truly objectively. It was one thing to understand the mentality of christians and their 'special' status in the universe. Quite another to understand the mentality of scientists. To me, it was inexcusable that science could take such an illogical, and irrational stand .... all the while claiming the infallibility of scientific methodology. Something wrong with my cognition here? And by the way .... how do you think the religions of the world will react if/when science tries to tell them that we have sufficient evidence to assume an infinite universe .... filled with an infinite amount of matter/energy? I don't think they will like it very much at all .... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf in fact, we come down on the side of an infinite universe, generally isotropic, and therefore an infinite amount of matter/energy then we can make some assumptions based on measurements already taken of space around us. There will be an infinite number of replicas of us in an infinite universe. There may be other mechanisms ... other laws of physics in play ... for other universes, but essentially whatever CAN happen, will happen an infinite number of times. We will also be required to take the stance that the universe is eternal. To do otherwise would be to illogically, and irrationally presume infinity ( and from this 'moment' forward ... eternity ) began with us. Reason sound so far? CMBR. This is the measurement that would 'prove' my model, I believe. As you know, it is a closed loop. If the universe is infinite, and generally isotropic, then there will have been an infinite number of 'bangs' in all directions in the past. And the properties of space would apply universally. If the universes are 'leaking' at all ( can't have just one with this 'defect' in infinity ), then we would be getting CMBR from across the 'voids'. ( Because photons would be travelling throught the medium they always travel through. It doesn't matter how far it is when you have been travelling for eternity ...) Anyway, the red shift would show this, would it not? I don't think it does. The argument that space itself is expanding collapses with an infinite/eternal universe. For that would mean a beginning. A starting point. If it's going in one direction now ( expanding ) it would shrink going back in time, to an infinitely small point. Again, all we know is galaxies are moving away at accelerating velocities. It doesn't have to mean space is actually expanding. If there is no leakage, it ( our BB ) is a closed loop. To the last photon. The idea that photons will simply be absorbed back into space does not seem quite rational. We have captured photons that are over 13.5 billion years old ... that have stumbled through all kinds of gasses, gravitational fields, and matter on that journey. They seem rather hardy, don't they? I don't see any reason why they will just go 'poof' in a few more years. Particles, yes. Photons, no. This seems a much better adjustment to the standard model than any others. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I agree with you. I am only trying to suggest a better model than what we have. One that makes no contradictions. I don't 'believe' in my model either. It just seems to fit the evidence better, and would be no less reliable. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged However, if the red shift showed CMBR 'leakage' from outside our local universe, then that would indicate either one-way universes, or an infinite universe so isotropic that each local universe gains exactly the same mass that it loses allowing for continuing BB/expansion/collapse/BB cycles. But again, CMBR redshift measurements do not indicate leakage from other universes.

I do. My opinion is no less valid than yours. Lol.

And I thought scientists had no sense of humor! Lol.

By the way Martin ... I just take your word ( and other physicists ) on things like this ... If this number is negative, the finite case is favored. If it is zero or positive then the infinite. The number is called omega-sub-k. My understanding of the math is nearly non-existent. But the over-all conceptualization ... seems pretty simple. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Martin, could you please explain how this applies to bounded/unbounded space? My understanding ( and attempts at comprehension ) of space is of 'bound' energy permeating infinity in a generally isotropic manner. Quantum fluctuations ( I think if it as a build up of static charge ) essentialy 'clumps' the 'fabric' of space together temporarily stretching the lines of energy. And space tries to immediately 'unclump' them always working toward a homogenous state. This is how I view the 'expansion' of space. Meaning space isn't actually expanding but working within it's own self-imposed limitations ( properties ) to smooth everything back out. This, as opposed to dark energy acting on space, stretching and expanding it ... Am I way off here? Or is this an equally possible alternative to dark energy? Like the atoms of gas 'trying' to become equidistant ( isotropic ) and gravity wanting to clump them together ( entropic ). A property rather than an outside force ...

And thank you for forgiving me ... No, not puzzling at all. We really are not in much disagreement here. I have no ability to do the math myself, but no problem visualizing the various models. I was dimly aware ( lol ) that that the math allowed for finite or infinite. At the time the cosmological principle was proposed, we could see ( guessing here ) 1/1000th of space we can see now. Maybe 1/10,000th. Or less. You are so right in that this is an observational problem. Comparatively speaking, we were 'blind' at the time of Einstein's, and Friedman's work. I have studied a little of the WMAP data, and I try to keep abreast of the latest developments. Cosmology incorporates several disciplines, and I am just grateful that I did not have to immerse myself in one at the expense of the rest. There is a great deal of information available, and it all is part of the larger puzzle. I can appreciate the 'purist' logic here. I understand that the numbers still allow for either side to 'win'. I don't agree, partly because of my ( admittedly limited ) knowledge of space, and that pesky un-scientific common sense ... which has also served well in many discoveries throughout history ... plus, I suppose my ability to comprehend infinity ( imagined or not ), and my inability to comprehend finite space. Guess I have my own 'mind set'. As I already confessed to. We both know that 100 scientists can look at the same evidence and come up with 100 different interpretations. I think this is one of our greatest strengths. "Leave no stone unturned". I am very excited to be living at this time in history. We ARE going to answer this question ... at least, to 'a reasoned conclusion' very soon. I am quite confident it will come down on the side of infinity. Hope I'm right. And thank you again. I am kind of obnoxious at times, aren't I? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm thinking Michael was being facetious.

Very salient questions Michael. I need to stress once again, that I am not a 'proponent' per se of infinite space. I am just looking, to the best of my ability, at all the facts. The 'proven' math. The corroboraing experiments, and the observations. This 'leans' me toward infinity. There is no evidence that I am aware of to pull me over to the other side. If there were some, I would be happy to reassess my 'working model'. There is nothing to make me believe that the space our universe occupies is somehow unique to our location, or that the properties exhibited are not universal. And universal means ... infinite. Until proven NOT to be infinite. Martin is correct when he says that he did not personally presume anything. I made that presumption for him, based on his 'blue ribbon' comments. Strictly speaking, science won't go out on a limb and declare space finite, or infinite. But the closed model has become entrenched in 'our' thinking. So virtually all models ( theoretical, of course ) depict a finite universe. I am fighting a difficult battle ... but not one that I wasn't expecting, especially considering my backround. #3 would be the way I would start to describe it. Sort of. Strings may or may not exist. But I think a good case can be made for space to 'be' energy, rather than 'nothing' with some force acting upon it. I have no evidence that time did not exist before our local universe, and certainly time operates here in a linear fashion ... so what ( somewhat meager, I suppose ) evidence I have would lean toward time always existing. So let's include #5. I call it the fabric of space for better visualization, but really, it's just appears to be a property that space has. I don't believe there is any evidence in our local area that a complete void exists. An 'absolute' vacuum, devoid of matter, OR energy. So let's include #4, too. But let's say that matter and radiation are simply different manifestations of space's inherent energy. Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, and the matter and radiation had to come from somewhere. Space's ( possible ) energy stores seem like the likeliest place to start looking. As opposed to other dimensions, metaphysical solutions, or just 'came out of nowhere'. Of course we need to keep our minds open to other solutions ... even if they seem a little off the wall at first glance. We need to continue to explore strings, and whatever other possibilities bright scientists come up with. Negative results is just as good as positive results. We still learn. In most cases we learn more by the negative results.