Strange

I understand that, but would it be irrational to think that maybe CMBR and whatever first expanded from the singularity is still being emitted from the singularity or where it was?

If that were the case, then wouldn't you expect to see a single, very small source?

Although, in a sense it is true, because the radiation does appear to come from where the singularity was (i.e. everywhere).

(Although, the singularity, probably, was not a physical "thing".)

Not.

I don't think intelligence is based around my computer, and I'm do not necessarily need to be thankful for it.

I didn't say intelligence is based around your computer. I don't even know what that means. I just pointed out that science produced your computer and it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not.

You may not be thankful for it, but you seem happy enough to use it (feel free to stop any time).

Surely a photon can in its entirety ,

 

O

N

L

Y

 

move off in one unique direction(

You can't think of photons like little bullets.

I don’t why you have gone off on this diversion, but …

And you are asserting Atheism is belief in ultimate truth

That is just silly. Atheism isn’t a belief in “ultimate truth”. It is just an absence of belief in god(s).

you are asserting science is ultimate truth

No asserts science is ultimate truth. Especially not scientists.

how do you know?

We know the scientific method is effective because it works. The computer you are using and the Internet were developed using science (not philosophy, barks, or religion).

I don't believe in science

No one cares.

Your computer will continue to work whether you believe in it or not. That is the great thing about science; it doesn’t require belief.

We design the dictionary and this is part of the words evolution

We don't "design" the dictionary if by that you mean that dictionary writers invent language. They don't. They just document language as it is used.

Language evolves naturally. We have little control over it. You can see this by studying history: attempts to stamp out or enforce particular languages do not work.

except Perl and Tcl, for the love of everything beautiful in computing, leave the old languages alone.

I won't argue with that. Perl is a handy thing for an experienced programmer to have in their toolkit. But I shouldn't recommend it to a learner (it has very sharp edges and is dangerously flammable )

 

Fermat and Feynman describe what happens, but does not explain why.

Physics doesn't really do "why".

Here is Feynman talking about just that issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmtJpzoW0o

sorry again.

may i know for develop this compiler system...which one is the best software to build this?? its is okey if im using NetBeans?? or i should use Eclipse??

Whichever you are most comfortable with. (persoanlly, I find NetBeans slightly easier to use than Eclipse. Others disagree.

 

actually i need guide to develop this..because im starting from nothing to knowing step by step..

This is an interesting example to learn programming with. I would suggest you pick a language (Perl, Java, C#, Python, whatever) then buy a book (or find an online resource) that teaches programming with that language and use your idea as a learning project. Then come back here with questions when you get stuck.

I don't know if anyone here has the time to teach you programming via this forum (I don't).

The Michelson-Morley result was compatible with the idea of "aether dragging" (i.e. the aether being stationary around the Earth). But this model was contradicted by other experiemtns. Those experiemtns might be compatible with "stationary aether" but this is contradicted by the Michelson-Morley result. Similarly with "partial dragging" and all the other ad-hoc attempts to make it work.

No aether theory (*) is compatible with all experiments.

(*) Except LET, which is SR with extra undetectable aether that has no effect on anything. At which point Occam's Law applies and it becomes SR.

 

Our ability to speak is as natural of an embodiment of evolution as is hearing or seeing or that brain intelligence you referred to.

Excellent point. Not only is spoken language not man-made (unlike the Internet and computer that sleep seems quite happy with) but the whole "natural=good; unnatural=bad" meme is ridiculous.

Here is a concept that I'm really trying to wrap my head around.

 

If the big bang started from a singularity and then just began to expand, with everything in the universe still expanding. How can see still see the cosmic microwave background radiation? Wouldn't it of have dissipated with the universal expansion rather than congregate back to earlier locations of the universe?

 

I'm guessing that I am just misunderstanding something, please help.

It is a tricky concept. The important point is the the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation was everywhere; it was released when the universe became transparent as it cooled. This is called the "surface of last scattering". Over time we receive radiation from further and further away - simply based on the time it has taken for those photons to reach us.

Here is a nice analogy called "the surface of last screaming" which might make it clearer: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Lineweaver7_2.html

You know you are a geek when you confuse Halloween with Christmas because Oct 31 == Dec 25.

the sound made from our mouths is not mind-equal.

Of course it isn't. No one one is saying it is.(Assuming I am correct in thinking these garbled words mean: "words are not the same as thought"). I fail to see how this trivially obvious fact is relevant to anything you claim.

 

such as thinking with the tongue and treating it as thinking in the head.

I have no idea what "thinking with the tongue" means.

 

If posters spent the time to reason with my semantics

The trouble is, the semantic content of most of your sentences is worryingly close to nil.

 

a strong point has been made already that's been nullified (that is the reason it's not considered strong)

Ah, I see. The fact that people find your statements incomprehensible and illogical proves that you are right?

 

The poster I said was good, really considered the semantics and the point at hand.

You seem to have missed the point: he was quoting a lunatic who has been given life imprisonment for multiple murders. As they say: don't be that guy.

This is the only good reply so far, and the reason he believes it's a surrogate activity is the reason I think science shouldn't be classed with human intelligence.

It is a pertty damning indictment of your thought processes to say you agree with Kaczynski.

your response is best left alone, since it only confuses and misleads

You are doing a splendid job of confusing and misleading people all by yourself.

People believe intelligence can be a collection of words

Do they? Who thinks that? That is a very strange idea. Intelligence is a function of the mind - human and animal. Which rather implies it has nothing to do with words.

This seems to be a strawman argument.

 

There's so much you don't know.

Well, I don't know what you are on about. None of that made any sense. Maybe you have a problem with words.

No, I'm stating that to the mind it is meaningless

To the mind what is meaningless?

 

you clearly haven't read what I stated properly

Or maybe you are just not able to express your thoughts very clearly.

 

How does a bark become equal to the mind for barks to be classed as intelligence?

What does that mean? A bark isn't equal to the mind. And a bark isn't classed as intelligence.

And you wonder why people don't understand you?

 

And the word "Sun" is not the actual Sun

Of course not. Have I mentioned Saussure? This is not exactly news.

 

and humans cannot comprehend the Sun, we can merely sense and feel with it.

We can also make measurements, exchange ideas (you know, using those "word" things) and develop complex theories about how it works.

What do you mean by "comprehend"? Because we seem to be doing a pretty good job of perceiving and understanding it.

 

You've rarely responded to the underlying point behind my posts.

That might be because it is pretty much impossible to know what that is.

If there are unanswered questions, why are most scientists agreeing with the big bang theory as it were fact?

That is the nature of science. There is a mountain of evidence for the theory. None against it and a few unknowns. There is no alternative theory that fits all the evidence. So people go with the best we have (for the time being).

Here is a good summary of the main lines of evidence for the big bang model:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

I gave a good reason for why the word is not mind-fodder that still hasn't been addressed.

I haven't seen any good reasons. You have made some confused and half-baked claims, which are unsupported by any evidence and contradict reality. For example, you claim that the power of our language, which has enabled our culture and technology, is somehow inferior to meaningless grunts.

 

Because it is a presumption.

What is? Expansion? No, it is based on several lines of consistent evidence.

 

I asked because the OP and most people believe that the universe is expanding while there is contrary information on the internet which suggests that the universe isn't expanding but it is merely an illusion of this supposed expansion.

There are all sorts of things on the Internet. You might need to find a more reliable source. I'm not aware of any evidence that contradicts expansion. (Although there are, of course, some unanswered questions. This is science after all.)

 

Why are you answering my question with a question?

Why not?

Because your question suggests you think it could be an illusion. If so, what do you think causes the illusion?

If you don't think it could be an illusion, why ask the question?

I'm saying it's an inability to communicate naturally, and wordlessly, like the rest of known nature.

We can communicate better than (probably) any other species.

Other animals can tell others where food is to be found (or lie about it). They can express emotions and sound warnings. But ot an awful lot more.

We can tell stories, write poetry, pass on technical and scientific information. All through the use of words. The development of language is one of the key things that makes it possible for you to have the technology to have this conversation (using words).

But feel free to go back to just barking at people. Let us know how that works out for you.

What if the expanding universe is an illusion?

What do you propose causes this illusion?

My friend has a philosophical argument which involves:

(a) All people can see X but X does not emit (reflect) light that can be analysed as coming from a known substance.

(b) Also, X can “think and perform actions”.

Magic, in other words. I'm not sure what that has to do with the rest of your post. If X is an element then it cannot "think".

 

Uuo is extremely unstable and is therefore, a very short lived element. My question is:

If we keep discovering particles with greater mass numbers than Uuo will the trend necessarily be decreasing stability?

Almost certainly. There may be an "island of stability" for much heavier atoms, but this is only realtive stability.

 

I’m arguing that; if X is emitting light and that a spectrographic analysis of the light coming from X results “no known substance”, then this substance

Are you assuming that X is an element? I don't know a huge amount of spectroscopy, but I think it would be possible to create compounds (and mixtures of compounds) that would be unidentifiable without other analysis. Despite programs like CSI, spectroscopy is not magic. It has to compare against a library of known substances (I think; although it can give you clues about the possible structure of a molecule).

 

1) must be physical [since light is reflecting/emitted from X]

2) must be mass

3) must contain more protons than Uuo

4) is necessarily unstable

5) can not form a system that thinks and performs actions.

If you are assuming X is an element, then I suppose those are all true.

 

Also one more question; do highly unstable elements like Uuo emit or reflect light in the visible spectrum?

It depends. Ununoctium might be a transparent gas. But I think it is now expected to be a solid, in which case it will reflect visible light.