rigney

Railton2. Tried this on another venue the other day and was shot down immediately. "Instantaneous Transcendental Teleportation". Think I remember it from Star Trek with the quote, "Beam me up Scotty".

Someday, we may get there from here!!

npbreakthrough, I believe questioning is much more apropos. In challanging these guys to a "Winner Take All" you'd best be bringing along a big stick, knife or a gun. Face it, if any of us were as smart, we'd be in their "Hall of Fame". Good Luck

Mulreay, you and I may share a concurring opinion, and while I'd definitely like to get feed back from everyone, your short sentence on "insignificance" intrigued me. Jump back in with both feet, I'm not smart enough to get flustered, just more inquisitive.

Merged post follows:

The U began with a "singularity" some 13.7 billion years ago is a delusion which has been fostered by commercial popularizations. You can sell books and illustrated magazines by peddling halfbaked speculation that excites people.

I'll give you a big "Amen" on that Martin. Having a Phd in HK, I have no compunction to questioning everything I read and literally all that I see. Touche!

Thanks insane guy!, all information appreciated. Went there and looked at some ideas of which, are only ideas of someone else. Trying not to be a smart a--, but if gravity, known as the weakest of what is "supposidly" the four main forces, pulled everything into such a small space, how? Don't ask what the definitions below mean, I just read them and try to understand. But what wasn't mentioned below was that magnetism has the same reach, only more powerful.

Definition::::

Gravitation is the force of attraction between particles or objects of matter. It has the greatest reach or range but is also the weakest of the fundamental forces. The gravitational strength is only 6*10−39 of the strength of the strongest nuclear forces.

Note: 10−39 equals 1/1039, where 1039 is 1 followed by 39 zeros. That is a very small number.

The strength of the gravitational force decreases as the square of the distance between two objects. This means that if you triple the distance, the gravitation will be reduced by 1/9.

The force of gravitation is most apparent in objects of large mass, such as planets and stars. Gravitation is what keeps the Earth and other planets in orbit around the Sun.

Note: Gravity is defined as gravitation near the surface of the Earth.

How do we define a Singularity? How big does it have to be? How small? What shape? Did our world actually begin as something less than the size of a pin point of light? While I believe our universe was the instantaneous transitional phase of a singularity into becoming matter, could "it" have possibly been billions of miles in diameter at the time?

American Heritage, definitions of: SINGULARITY

1. The quality or condition of being singular.

2. A trait marking one as distinct from others; a peculiarity.

3. Something uncommon or unusual.

4. Astrophysics: A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.

5. Mathematics: A point at which the derivative does not exist for a given function but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative exists. Also called singular point.

Why go back to the parallell line way of thinking you ask? I don't know? But as we look around the universe, line of sight is likely the optimum way of viewing this miracle. Using parallel lines to convey the starting point of my earlier thought was probably the worst choice of words. So, let me try again, "Lineal Vectoring", which will probably be frowned on as well, since the Big Bang was supposidly anisotropic. In a word, if you don't know where the center is, it simply doesn't exist. And if there's no center, there can be no radii? No radius?, No Vectors?. But, since this vectoring thing will likely get me in hot water also, I may as well have some fun with it. When we look out into the universe, we see only that portion which is visable through our most modern telescopes, both optical and radio. What we observe from our position here on earth looking in any direction may be thought of as a central point? Hey!, fourteen billion light years may only be a drop in the bucket and one sided at that? Is there more to the universe? I'd like to think there is, though I really don't know. But, what if we find that our universe has a meta-center and is not anisotropic as thought? And what if the universe is still moving away at a vectorial constant from that central point of creation while pushing along ancient galaxies formed during that millinia of travel and using their circular patterns along these lines to confuse us? I know, we have crack ups ever now and then, but not often. Our Milky Way for example is calculated to be rotating at some 600,000 mile per hr.(2009), with our planetary system circumventing a path around this galaxy in accordance to it's placement. Meanwhile, our solar system orbits the sun, with our earth speeding around it at 65,000 mph., in its annual journey. Plus, we have a daily axial rotational speed of 1,000 mph. With all of this going on, the entire universe is zipping along at some unknown speed and we haven't hit anything yet? Ok!, I've worked up a sweat and was wondering if someone would toss me a paper towel. This is only an idea folks and some questions that I ask. Theory, I'll leave to the theorist. And someone actually came up with the term, "Lobachevskian"?

Thanks Moo, Perhaps this article should be taken off the forum. I meant no disrespect or would have it seen as an act of trying to be condescending, since I'm not capable. But I can see where a person has to be careful when voicing an opinion or making a suggestion. Accept my apology.

No intent to appear kabala Michel, I'm not that smart. But you have surely went on vacation, to the beach or a ball game and realized after the fact that there was something you hadn't taken along that may have been essential to the trip. From Pythagoras to Hawking, it's doubtful that any of these guys ever got it right the first time. If so it was a miracle. I'm sure Einstein must have bitten his tongue on many an occasion for overlooking a simple principal that he himself had laid down. No, there is nothing hidden in my meaning. Just thought it might be a good way to stoke the fire. Jump in! More than likely I'll not have an answer to any question asked of this agenda, but in all honesty, "consternation" is not the best way to fly!! Somewhere, exchanging ideas is what it's all about. See! even knowing that I'm out gunned, I still hope to read your reply.

Many of you may be too young to remember the Exxon Valdez, a mega-tanker that went aground off Alaska in 1989 because, "supposidly" the Captain had a few too many, lost control and "zap", millions of gallons of oil into the drink. The huge difference here is, where as the Valdez had a specific lade, nature may be almost unlimited in what she wants to push up from the sea bed until it is stopped. Even at a mile down the well will "eventually" be capped, but at what expense? I don't want to see Brit.Petro. put out of business, but the two incidents are similar and aught to make the case for better "engineering and mind control". This is not natures Katrina, but both the Exxon Valdez and this boondoggle are man made catatstrophes. Lives lost in the disaster and the habitat destruction has to make one sick at their stomach. Then there is the folks who look at this coast as their only sustenance. What now?

To distinguish the Philosophical context of ignorance as opposed to stupidity, a person must first ask themselves two questions: Can I spell both correctly, and do I know the difference? Sadly, most of us don't!

In a constant endeavor to expand mans knowledge of his environment and the world in general, scientist's have made amazing revelations over the past centuries by re-discovering or uncovering diverse new fields. While medicine, engineering, and the physics of inner and outer space command and demand the largest portion of this pie, each field must be constantly reevaluated to bring us into better prospective. Our universe is one such topic.

During a brief Q & A session with his tribesmen, an ancient Shaman described how the world sits on the back of a giant turtle with its' legs extending the "rest of the way down"!!. And to where, one man asked? In reality, even with all of our Mathematical Genius and Philosophical Wizardry, we are only slightly closer to understanding the reality of our universe today, than did the Shaman.

From the "dark ages" up through the 18th century, to blaspheme authority with questions could mean a one way trip to the "stake", or pleasantly, the "rack" for a re-enlightenment. Little has changed since then. Suggesting new ideas, or rehashing old ones is taboo unless it has been sanctioned by the dictates of observance.

Yes, we must absolutely move forward if there is a chance for civilization to survive. But if we do not on occasion look back to see if we may have missed something, there is little reason to try rationalizing an extended future. How does that old saying go: "The operation was a suscess, but the patient died"!

Feel free to comment on this argument.

Thanks Spyman. "Deep", is the only word I can use to reply with. And I will read the "misconception thing". Gotta blame it on the Einsteins though. If it weren't for guys like him and Hawking, I could still be justified in believing the turtles legs reach the rest of the way down.

Merged post follows:

Just went there and read it, the misconception thing. Not entirely, but several excerpts.

I'm just thankful that "not being" a Physicist has perhaps saved what little rationale I do possess. How these guys can come up with such ideas, I will never understand. That our entire universe could have been spawned from less than a thought, is beyond me, unless there is something deeper than what is imaginable? Personally, I don't believe in the Big Bang "as such" either. While I do believe at some point in time there was a beginning and recurring cycles to this universe, I believe it is impervious to an ending. Thanks again.

Dismissive? Disrespecable? No way Moontan. I had heard the expression somewhere before and thought perhaps it covered all the bases from anywhere in the universe. The Transcendental thing are the three expanations below.

1.Asserting a fundamental irrationality or supernatural element in experience.

2.Surpassing all others; superior.

3.Beyond common thought or experience; mystical or supernatural.

The Teleportation thing is a," hypothetical method of transportation" (Star Wars or Star Treck) I think; in which matter or information is dematerialized, usually instantaneously, at one point and recreated at another. Heck of it is, I'm dumb enough to believe it will eventually happen!!

My intent was to say that since Alpha Centaur, the closest star system to us (a three star system), is about 4.5 light years from earth, and we know so very little about it, would it really matter where aliens came from if they had such a capability? I believe many "civilizations" are likely scattered throughout the gadzillion star systems of the universe. And if any of them are more intelligent than we are, and can get here from wherever, we could and probably would learn a lot from them.

If instantaneous transcendental teleportation is possible, would it really matter from whence they came?

I'll not question the logic in any sense Moontan. It's really only a matter of semantics and a toss up at best! But If instantaneous transcendental teleportation is possible, would it really matter from where they would come?

QUOTE: Dr. Livingston, I presume? Supposidly (quotheth?) by, Henry Stanley.

About a hundred and fifty years ago a guy from England by the name of David Livingston went to Africa as a Preacher or an Entrepreneur, looking for among other things, the source of the Nile River and who knows what else? I'm not exactly sure what his real purpose was? But back in those good old days, if the locals caught you, they'd usually put you in a big cook pot, toss in a few yams or sweet potatoes, some guava, a little Vino and "Voile" supper.

Honestly, not for a moment do I believe we've ever been visited by, "ALIENS"

Thanks. Your explination is justified and I do appreciate it. But, is there a "Continuum" beyond or exponentially surrounding our universe?

Having been a quazi farm boy, miners son; I saw this phenomena more than once as a kid. Have I any idea what it was or is?, "No". But living in the hills of W.V. you got to see things many city kids can't even imagine. 'course they do too. As I remember, Ball Lightning usually happened in the early part of summer when the woods were pretty damp and warm. I just think it was a lightning strike ionizing moisture around the strike area. After seeing it a few times, none of us got too excited, except it was fun to watch and when you tried to tell someone, especially an adult that you saw it, their usual reply was; "Uh-Uh". How many times did I see it? Maybe a half dozen times in as many years. The balls? They were real enough, not dazzling bright but a reddish orange. Some looked to be the size of a #2 washing tub, down to just flecks. But never did see any little green men or space ships to go along with them though?

Is there such a thing as a "Continuum" in relationship to our universe? I've read that before the universe began, there was absolutely nothing. Having went through a myriad of text and the profundity of great men, I'm still under qualified, totally lost and amazed by everything I read. Are the continuum and universe the same thing, two entirely different entities, or does the continuum exist at all? While I do have my thoughts on the subject, it would be nice looking at some plausible answers from some other corner??

Tree, I would be happy to stumble in circles, but mine is more or less an endless zig zag pattern. There is so much information out there to choose from, it actuall scare me. And with such subtle conjecture built into it, there is little to makes me want to change my mind. Many people making these claims are genuine professional folks with degrees I can't even spell. Instead of writing a narrative explaining my (rather nots), just go to google and type in: "Is the human body held together by magnetism or gravity"?

Just wishing I was sharp enough to debate the issue with you without getting squashed!!

I apologise for not remembering where I obtained the info, but it's on google. Like I say, all of you guys are head and shoulder above my understanding of physics. But why would anyone suggest this characteristic in matter would not go to the core of its creation? In essence, we have strong forces, weak forces, magnetism and what we beneovently call gravity, which no one seems to be able to explain. I can at least partially understand my thoughts on magnetism and the inbalance of strong and weak forces. Gravity? Would you please give me something other than a: (you don't know) when explaining my thoughts on magnetism? I'm not ungrateful, merely at a loss?

Tree, as I expressed in my post, I'm not trying to prove a point or belittle anything that is substantive; but merely making an observation. The beauty of a computer is that you don't need to have a Doctorate to question science. Actually, without questioning, there would be no science. The excerpt below is perhaps something you may have read.

I have no way of authenticating its validity, I only read and think! This preamble is only a short bit of information which could take hours for an ameture like me to even try digesting.

(Classes of Magnetic Materials)

The origin of magnetism lies in the orbital and spin motions of electrons and how the electrons interact with one another. The best way to introduce the different types of magnetism is to describe how materials respond to magnetic fields. This may be surprising to some, but all matter is magnetic. It's just that some materials are much more magnetic than others. The main distinction is that in some materials there is no collective interaction of atomic magnetic moments, whereas in other materials there is a very strong interaction between atomic moments.

Hopefully not getting into a debate with someone out of my league, but isn't it true that magnetism is ingrained in all matter, regardless of its level, other than the photon? I have no idea how this is true except that brilliant scientist' have made this analagy.

Yep! I've used the the dirty word "Magnetism" and will probably pay the price for doing so. Having put that on the front burner, let me commence to begin to start! To me, magnetism is the only true and intrensic force in our entire universe. Can it be proven? Absolutely not! If it had been, or could be; there would be no reason for making this assumption. I'm not trying to step on the toes of Physcists, Astronomers or Accredited Theorist. How could I when all I have to offer is a gut feeling and a thought. Magnetism in one form or another is the backbone of our world. But to my way of thinking, today there would be no existance of anything, without magnetism. Man himself, along with every field of endeavor you can think of would be only a dream. To make this small thought even more provocative, magnetism is the imbued and intrinsic force in every iota of matter known to man, other than possibly the photon?

Magnetism, either by natural cause or thru EMF; is the blanket we pull up at night around us, or the A.C we crank up, when the weather is 90 degs. outside, or the refrigerator keeping our beer cold. I would like to keep this thread open if possible and welcome any and all conjecture, if it's not overly formulated. Simply put, I can read readin', but I can't read writin'.

Summation: A serious fool is only an idiot in drag, unless he has a following? In such case, it should be considered a field of fools!

Moderator, I'm simply trying to get my feet wet quickly. Being 78 years young, I don't expect to be a Yo Yo Ma in the next few weeks or even buy a cello. At the moment my biggest problem is trying to keep logged in when making a post or reply? Seems I'm always running out of time or havent logged in adequately to a specific venue, or forum. I would appreciate any "helllp".

Merged post follows:

Moderator, I'm simply trying to get my feet wet quickly. Being 78 years young, I don't expect to be a Yo Yo Ma in the next few weeks or even buy a cello. At the moment my biggest problem is trying to keep logged in when making a post or reply? Seems I'm always running out of time or havent logged into a specific venue, or forum. I would appreciate any "helllp".

Merged post follows:

Moderator, I'm simply trying to get my feet wet quickly. Being 78 years young, I don't expect to be a Yo Yo Ma in the next few weeks or even buy a cello. At the moment my biggest problem is trying to keep logged in when making a post or reply? Seems I'm always running out of time or havent logged into a specific venue, or forum. I would appreciate any "helllp".

I read a short poem some years back that has hung with me since. It may even be a short dichotomy as to why parents put such questions to their children, and why children reply as they do. Time, love, patience and understanding; are the greatest equalizers to any conjecture.

A wreath on the door

His name ain't on no table, in no park his statue stands

All his life he grubbed for wages, you could tell it by his hands

While his total earthly wealth wouldn't fill a tobacco can

I had to come and thank him just for being my old man