aguy2

The biggest macro structures in the visible universe appear to be interacting groups of galaxtic clusters and their actions might be best explained in 'classical' terms akin to 'turbulence' in an ideal liquid. aguy2

Night crawling, dinosaur egg sucking rats! aguy2

This 'thread starter' should probably be in the 'Speculation Forum', but nonetheless here goes: Just because 'classical mechanics' by-in-large represents the 'earliest' of our competing explainations of the physical world does not necessarily mean that it is the least valid. Might not QM reasonably discribe the world of the very small, classical mechanics the most macro, with relativity occupying a connective position 'relative' to each? aguy2

The most current CMB data seems to indicate that the visible universe may have a 'perferred' orientation. I agree with you that the visible universe is pretty close to being 'flat', but by in large your response really did not address the questions I posed. Insofar as 'flatness' goes if a 'jet/pulse expansion' had a reasonably large 'conic projection', it would be acting much as an 'isometric expansion ' would. aguy2

What is a 'spoiler warning'? aguy2

Why is it assumed that the pre and post-inflationary epoch BB event expanded 'isometrically', when most other energenic mass expulsions take the form of 'jets' or 'pulses'? I have heard that an isometric expansion is assumed because our mathematical 'toolkit' can only express this type of expansion. Is this true? aguy2

The poem could certainly be viewed as a pun, but the 'punishness' would be more oriented toward a possible re-evaluation of the concept of 'all mighty'. aguy2

For purposes of brevity and ease I am going to insert my critical comments in brackets. aguy2

Sisyphus! I did not say, I asked! You're confusing a 'statement' from what is called a 'legitimate question'. The question rephrased as a statement would be something like, 'If the universe were created perfect it would be so stable as to be static and unchanging or deteriorating'. This statement could be seen as being supportive of my contention that in most cases 'ideal states of perfection' are illegitimate and undesirable goals, but is in no way supportive of my 'signiture paradigm' except possibily in a negative sense. If you want me to do a critique of your treatment, just say, "OK". aguy2

OK? Shall we take a look at 'your' very 1st phrase? To whit: "I'm saying that you're assuming" The rest is punching around straw men of your own construction. You are telling me that 'the reason the Creator of the Universe did so' was to "set up straw men and punch them around". Well, I must admit it is rather fun.

context: "Wouldn't it seem reasonable that the Creator of the Universe had some reason to do so?" Would you care to venture any speculations on what this 'reason' might be? aguy2

It might be this, or it might be that; might not this be what 'all mighty' might be all about? A highly poetically licenced re-examination of the term 'all mighty' used in a popular primary document. aguy2

It might be this or it might be that; might not this be what 'all mighty' might be all about? aguy2

Wouldn't Jesus' reported resurrection 3 days after his death constitute a 'second coming'. Aren't you and other Christians waiting for a 'third coming'? aguy2

Are you asking, 'why should existence have a reason or purpose to exist'? Or alluding to the line of reasoning that goes, 'Ends can not justify means, because each mean is an end in itself'? Or something else all together? aguy2

Aren't the 2 slit experiments conducted with photons not electrons? aguy2

If it weren't for the 'questions' raised by '1st cause' I would tend to agree. aguy2

Here is another take on "All Powerful": What if our universe where a transition state between 2 radically different 'singularities'; as in a condition where there was only 'mass' and this 'mass' transitions to a state of 'mass/energy' and this state transitions to a state of 'energy'? If a state where 'all energy', wouldn't it be comparable to a state of being "All Powerful"? If the universe were created 'perfect', wouldn't it be so stable that there would be need for change? aguy2

I think because the IDists are basically 'apologists' for the 'goody two shoes' God of conventional wisdom, they are missing the boat insofar as 'death' being a possible indication of an 'intelligent designer'. Good point. aguy2

You don't want to forget 'display' either. aguy2

The idea of time/space being a conserved system like matter/energy seems to work particularly well in a oscillating/cyclic series of sub-universes when each cycle is concidered to be something complete in of itself. As in: At the BB event the universe had all the time it was ever going to have and none of the space. As space expands, time contracts till when space is at its maximum egression the universe has run out of time and the BC era (Big Crunch) begins. Of course one would seem to need a term like 'times' if one talks about a series of oscillation/cycles. aguy2

Could time/space be a conserved system like matter/energy, where the sum of time/space remains a constant? aguy2