Aethelwulf

Yes? '' It was all part of a big secret conspiracy we formed when your mom got knocked up.'' I personally think that comment was beyond personal... one which indeed should have a real punishment for. So bad was that comment, If I was a mod... I would issue seven days.

I am getting some strange messages... the one I speak about is threatening me.

Oh... be quiet please... The rest of me wants to help people here..not deter them... Your attitude is against... not for. If anything you should have said... ''go ahead..'' If you are capable... what have you to to prove so much that an entire explanation suffices? I certainly wouldn't.

ad hominem? hold... these conversations.... Before I said I want these posts held. I still want these posts correctly evaluated. I wil go through them myself until... I see some kind of correlation. yes, you bought me these rose tinted glasses (Like any newcomer)... this is after all, the world you heavily defend.... we shall see... And Inow's post... wow... if that is even accepted here... definately one of these worst posts I have ever seen here. Inow has no right to talk about m ''mom''.... Inthink he should be not only be negatively repped, but banned for 3 days... Ib take VERY personal to that, since my mom my dead. In fact... bringing my dead mum into things... should warrant a death sentence... But if he apologizes... I will admit his continuation here.

iNow, on 30 June 2012 - 11:13 PM, said: The system was obviously put in place to make your perfect little life less so, Aethelwulf. It was all part of a big secret conspiracy we formed when your mom got knocked up. ">swansont, on 30 June 2012 - 11:15 PM, said: Go right ahead. I listed the four in my earlier post, and mentioned a the fifth just a few posts ago. Post #26, #28 , #31 , #35. You posted #71 earlier today and it garnered neg rep. That's five. zapatos got the same answer. What posts did I miss? I wil go through them myself until... I see some kind of correlation >iNow, on 30 June 2012 - 11:13 PM, said: ''The system was obviously put in place to make your perfect little life less so, Aethelwulf. '' >yes, you bought me these rose tinted glasses (Like any newcomer)... this is after all, the world you heavily defend.... we shall see... ; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">And Inow's post... wow... if that is even accepted here... definately one of these worst posts I have ever seen here. Inow has no right to talk about m ''mom''.... Inthink he should be not only be negatively repped, but banned for 3 days... Ib take VERY personal to that, since my mom my dead.

Can I clarify what I have just said to you....? I appreciate your contributions... '' God is just an amazingly baggage of thoughts and information. HE is is not a persona.'' i liked your post, because you asked the right kind of question.

Or you are egregiously misplaced; Shall we go back and see what points I got? I don't mind doing that. While we are it, I don't mind seeing other negatively repped posts by others?

Do you have a degree? If you do, what gives you the right then, to agree to teach, because, I think if you should if you have a degree, you might be able to teach... do you think you are capable of that? Let me put it this way... why are you spending your time on a forum teaching people... with a degree... without the degree of certainty you can teach?

How do you clearly define God....In my approach, I took the same approach any religion might... But I defied those religions by saying their God cannot know anything beyond quantum physics... Uncertainty principles is not a back corner I took.. it is matter of physical fact.

I liked the last post just because of the opening post... ''of course there is a chance.''

the chicken. Chickens lay eggs. Eggs don't lay chicken.

Yes, seconded.

Moon had a good point. This is a science subforum. Please, if you have question on possible religious under-toned posts, redirect them into the speculations area. It really is there for people to speculate without scientific evidence or rather, proofs. I do every day. I deal with equations which involve the kind of singularities you might think about from a Schawrtschild metric that have similarities. And no, I don't take the BB for granted, I think there could be serious problems with it.

OK. I am sorry for getting aggresive... however, I still believe that rep points are not meaningless. They are obviously there to give meaning on a character, especially to outsiders who do not know off-hand what those posters say about those posters in general. This is my point.... you could post amazing things all day, but then some little no-good outsider might decide your future and respect here because you have, lets say a -14 to your posts.... but what if you are teaching people which deserve better? I think swansont pointed this fact out. I seriously don't want people judging me on something which I honestly speculate about, especially if it is in the right area of speculation.

Easily capable of teaching physics. I passed my Higher Diploma in physics, so for those wanting to know physics, I can easily teach them. Mind you... did anyone question caps ability to teach calculus... I don't mean to down-grade his work, but I think some things could have been taught with a bit more clarity? Don't question the man, as I say, question the work.

Understand... I have no personal dislike of you... i am quite easily challenged by many here.. BUT... I won't have someone telling me I am big headed when I know fine well that I sit around the less fortunate nowadays (not here, in everyday life) and I certainly don't bring them down. If I do that with someone, then they deserve it. I won't sit around and listen to your posts which are an attempt to bring me down. I try and be stronger than this... but as one poster said before... those who have been here a long time get good reports no matter what! Time for a change perhaps? I hope I am right, in believing you are not.... however, making attacks like you have gives me a serious dislike to this place. The neg points in this place are clearly flawed. Positive points can also be misplaced... based on the fact it could be just someone you like without little knowledge. It probably happens lest, because of peoples naturally attitude to act on emotions targeted on people they don't like. Mans nature is often to attack and correct. Reputation points are there to highlight that.

then please do. I know we have had ''bad confrontations'' but I am not one to hold grudges. No there cannot be... well... there can be a kind of structure like a black hole if the universe arose in a excited-energy phase... but the universe did not arise in a black hole structure since the universe did not arise in any kind of geometry.

A very nice statistic... 646 rep points (the positive way) no... indeed, it does not bother you... HAHAHAHA! What a laugh. I bet the idea of banishing such a point system even in the slightest bothers you, psychologically of course.

It is forbidden. Not that I care now, please moderators, do as you wish. Mind... you... if I WAS big-headed, then respect the forum rules and issue a warning. Nothing to do with the rep I got? I think I at least have one other person who agrees that I got negative points because of the nature of the post... ''Unlike you - rep doesn't bother me, '' No? Give me a minute to check what rep you have and then check whether any new-comer here will evaluate you in such a way, shall I? really... hold on.

(This thread) explains how particle normally cannot be confined to a single position. If we take quantum mechanics seriously, we seriously have a big problem at the very first instants of time. The reason why is because Big Bang faces a problem of unification if it treats all objects converging from a single point which I added a lot of math to, to satisfy my general point(s) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66999-the-problem-of-unification-made-a-non-problem/ I do however argue, that perhaps the beginning of time was ''special''. I didn't highlight however that the order of events could be smeared. The reason why because time (which is often associated to the order of events) is in fact smeared. Indeed.

Aye, quantum mechanics is right, and our understanding of current relativistic classical dynamics are right (which both have been tested to a fantastic degree) then everything I said above is true. Wikipedia doesn't disagree with me, it seems you have quoted that to disagree in some way. Breakthrough's I can understand. But these are hardly ... or simply ''assumptions''. What I said are educated facts. The big bang has indeed been based on several assumptions... I'd actually go as far to say it has been based on more.

''My question is at the moment of the Big Bang "gravity was infinite" because the singularity was an "infinite mass", thus according to the known laws of physics time should have stood still but luckily somehow it did not?'' In all kind of understanding, when curvature becomes involved, I guess one could say it was infinite. Time however in our relativistic format did not exist. The reason why is because at the beginning of time, there was no geometry. The stuff we associate to in relativity. The universe arose from a ''point'' so time as we know it could not exist since time is part of the geometry where things move about.... In a sense, time is not really fundamental. Good question indeed, your answer hardly hits the topic.

There is no such thing as a flow to time. This is a basic principle of relativity. Just thought you should know, regards

Shut up... I was not really arrogant. Just come to realize that my opinions on God does not make me flawed... you read the OP, how does that deserve every neg rep I got? From your own post, you got a neg rep... I don't understand your condescending attitude. I am far from perfect, but because I said a word against some people who where equally annoying, like telling me either I am condescending or I speak a different language (ad hominem), I think you need to sit back and take a few breaths. The fact you have ignored my post on the basis of seeing it as a ''godfly'' post tells me you are highly biased from the outset. You want me to big headed, give me some more reasons to be..... because trust me friend, you are heading that way. Hey pete, I have tried to be humble. Sometimes, out of human error, I might say something which was out of context or may come across as big headed. However, in light of that, I did come back and say... ''I know you guys are capable'' type and that ''please start thinking about what you are saying'' type. In a rep system, no one gives you that opportunity. As I said before, Ecoli eventually started to understand what I was saying, others before this realized different and negged my post's.

The superintelligence of a universe would be something which ''brought about'' the universe. Measurement in physics is usually quite a complicated business for those who are not acquainted in physics. It involves some matrices (depending on what you work with), including a collapse of the wave function (for those who don't understand statistical mechanics). But in its most elegant way, things don't really exist exactly unless they are measured - now, we don't usually think of absolute human observers nowadays since humans are not a requisite for collapsing the wave function. Observers nowadays involved also inanimate observers in the form of particles. A particle can observe another particle, for instance, by disturbing its wave function. This is a reason why positroniums exist. It's because an electron and a positron can stay in stable ''orbits'' because neither one has fully interacted with each wave function, otherwise, if they had completely cancelled out, it would have resulted in gamma radiation. What about the first instants of time? What about the very first conditions of Big Bang? There is a relatively new doctrine in quantum mechanics called ''quantum cosmology''. My OP actually hit the sides of this topic, explaining how the universe ''as a macroscopic entity'' could still exhibit ''quantum effects'' like the smearing of possibilities due to a wave function. Now I will expand on it. The reason why quantum effects still take place in this universe, is because its most earliest existence was below the size of a single proton. In fact, it arose from a dimensionless existence. This is because of adjustments we had to make on the time it required to let the background temperatures to settle in its uniform (irradiated) configuration --- which brought in a new topic called the inflationary phase. Before this phase our universe existed with quantum effects, or at least, this is what we are led to by top leading physicists like Steven Hawking. This condition on our universe meant that if the quantum wave function ruled out microscopic universe, then our universe arose with many possible conditions, just like a photon jumping through a double slit experiment will not experience one path alone, but will travel through both slots simultaneously. Our universe, according to quantum cosmology, therefore means, that it arose with every possible conditions before it.... and in terms of statistical mechanics means an infinite kind of possible states it could have arose in. Now, the question is, ''if that is the case, how and why did the universe arise in the specific condition it did to allow the exact kind of system we observe today?'' Indeed, if any specific measurement was out of a specific type of order, then the universe as we know it today would have been drastically different. This is what I speak of a ''Super-Order'' - an underlying deterministic universe with a specific path which has led to this wonderful construction which allows even humans today to speak about the things they have. If it had not, we would not be here today. It could have been chance, but I can easily tell you those statistics... it would have been 1 in [math]\infty[/math], the infinity arising from all the possible states the universe could have been in. One way, physicists today try and escape this anomaly is by saying that every possibility does actually exist in the form of parallel universes, but you study those equations and one can still see that strange potential arising and you ask yourself ''why does any universe exist outside our own, just to play out every quantum effect?'' In our universe, that kind of existence does not agree to our measurements. When we measure a photon, we do not see it move from one location to another, and then another, or any more beyond this. When we disturb the wave function, our experiment truly says ''here it is''.... in the form of a single particle. It really is not shared among different places. the observer effect should be seen as a fundamental fact of ... tangible, ''here they are'' existences. Not to mention of course, that parallel universes would mean that the word ''universe'' no longer has its true definition, ''something which defined the everything''. (Just to add) Why should any other statistic exist in our universe (impelling those to think of parallel universes) when some matter in the universe will never be observed? If, (and this is a speculation), if parallel universes cost energy, then we can think twice about such a system existing, because of the least action principle.