How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:40:23 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.Ask God, He created it.
Irish Mike
On 2/23/2023 9:40 PM, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.I really enjoy these sorts of thoughts. It does appear that the our
universe is expanding (whether there are others is still a question) but
the "things" in our universe are expanding all at the same "time"
(worthy of another thread) ... and I think the general theory is that in
the "past" it contracted and then there was that big bang and it
expanded again.
Or maybe a different "Creation Story" is easier to sell ... I mean
believe. All stories are true if you believe them.
Again, thanks for bringing this one up.
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 11:55:51 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 2/23/2023 9:40 PM, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?I really enjoy these sorts of thoughts. It does appear that the our
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
universe is expanding (whether there are others is still a question) but
the "things" in our universe are expanding all at the same "time"
(worthy of another thread) ... and I think the general theory is that in
the "past" it contracted and then there was that big bang and it
expanded again.
Or maybe a different "Creation Story" is easier to sell ... I mean
believe. All stories are true if you believe them.
Again, thanks for bringing this one up.
Thankfully, there are two experts here who are absolutely sure of themselves- Blabbermouth and Irish Mike.
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
light emitted by hydrogen from 10 billion light years away.
...
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
...
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
...
people via the Internet.
--bks
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 4:44:06 AM UTC-3, risky biz wrote:
light emitted by hydrogen from 10 billion light years away.
In Astronomy, a billion is now called a "buzz".
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 6:29:15 AM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
it's talking or thinking about.The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what
...
~ He said using his computer to communicate with
people via the Internet.
I'm beginning to realize how profoundly dense you really are.
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País,
...
Isn't that where all the geniuses get their science news?
--bks
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País,
...
--bks
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 12:53:33 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
Isn't that where all the geniuses get their science news?
admit it lies to its viewers...
--bks
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 6:29:15 AM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >> risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what >it's talking or thinking about.
...
~ He said using his computer to communicate with
people via the Internet.
I'm beginning to realize how profoundly dense you really are.The specific gravity of each of us is approximately 1.
can Science resolve this paradox:
Fire + Hydrogen = More Fire
Fire + Oxygen = More Fire
Fire + Hydrogen + Oxygen = No Fire
--bks
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 6:00:28 AM UTC-8, Grunty wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 4:44:06 AM UTC-3, risky biz wrote:
light emitted by hydrogen from 10 billion light years away.
~ Sometimes even science publications need to aggiornate their terminology.
In Astronomy, a billion is now called a "buzz".
By dingbats in another dimension?
~ On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:02:54 PM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 12:53:33 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
~ My thought exactly. But consider the source. This guy gets his news from an organization thatIsn't that where all the geniuses get their science news?
admit it lies to its viewers...
--bks
Why are you in this science thread, Jerry?
...
'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País,
...
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País,
...
~ Isn't that where all the geniuses get their science news?
Your genius comments are appreciated by amateur scientists like me:
'It’s a huge breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a
series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.'
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País,
...
~ Isn't that where all the geniuses get their science news?
Your genius comments are appreciated by amateur scientists like me:
'It’s a huge breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a >series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.'
--bks
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:12:21 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País,
...
~ Isn't that where all the geniuses get their science news?
Your genius comments are appreciated by amateur scientists like me:
'It’s a huge breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a
series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.'
~ There's no such journal as "Advancing Physics."
How did you come to imagine that someone claimed it was a journal?
...
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:which the researchers have detailed in a series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País, researchers have discovered a way to speed up, slow down, and even reverse quantum time by taking advantage of unusual properties within a quantum world in specific ways. It’s a huge breakthrough,
The papers were originally published in 2018, and they detail how researchers were able to rewind time to a previous scene, as well as even skip several scenes forward. Being able to reverse and even control quantum time is a huge step forward,especially as we’ve seen increasing movements into quantum simulators.
The researchers say that the control they can acquire on the quantum world is very similar to controlling a movie.the process and reverse quantum time would rely heavily on the amount of data stored in the quantum world at the time.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system. Unfortunately, scaling up the technique would be nearly impossible, according to the researchers. Much of the time needed to complete
Additionally, the system would only be able to reverse to the state of a given particle, making it difficult to reverse quantum time for the entire system at the same time. As such, being able to reverse quantum time isn’t going to be easily scalableto, say, controlling aging in human beings, as humans are made up of an enormous amount of information. It might even take millions of years to reverse time just a second.'
https://bgr.com/science/researchers-say-they-can-use-the-quantum-world-to-reverse-time/
Time is affected by gravity. Does that mean time has a physical composition? Are there time particles?
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:12:21 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >> risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País,
...
~ Isn't that where all the geniuses get their science news?
Your genius comments are appreciated by amateur scientists like me:
'It’s a huge breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a
series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.'
~ There's no such journal as "Advancing Physics."
How did you come to imagine that someone claimed it was a journal?
...
Perhaps they have a dumpster out back that they call "Advancing
Physics" and feature their papers by burning them in it?
--bks
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:39:14 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:12:21 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >> >> risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País,
...
~ Isn't that where all the geniuses get their science news?
Your genius comments are appreciated by amateur scientists like me:
'It’s a huge breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a
series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.'
~ There's no such journal as "Advancing Physics."
How did you come to imagine that someone claimed it was a journal?
...
~ Yow! Yow! That's where scientists "feature" papers!
Perhaps they have a dumpster out back that they call "Advancing
Physics" and feature their papers by burning them in it?
The paper(s) were published by the American Physical Society.
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:39:14 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >> risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:12:21 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País,
...
~ Isn't that where all the geniuses get their science news?
Your genius comments are appreciated by amateur scientists like me: >> >> >
'It’s a huge breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a >> >> >series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.'
~ There's no such journal as "Advancing Physics."
How did you come to imagine that someone claimed it was a journal?
...
~ Yow! Yow! That's where scientists "feature" papers!
Perhaps they have a dumpster out back that they call "Advancing
Physics" and feature their papers by burning them in it?
The paper(s) were published by the American Physical Society.
"Advancing Physics". You need to find a better source for
your science news.
--bks
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:which the researchers have detailed in a series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País, researchers have discovered a way to speed up, slow down, and even reverse quantum time by taking advantage of unusual properties within a quantum world in specific ways. It’s a huge breakthrough,
The papers were originally published in 2018, and they detail how researchers were able to rewind time to a previous scene, as well as even skip several scenes forward. Being able to reverse and even control quantum time is a huge step forward,especially as we’ve seen increasing movements into quantum simulators.
The researchers say that the control they can acquire on the quantum world is very similar to controlling a movie.the process and reverse quantum time would rely heavily on the amount of data stored in the quantum world at the time.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system. Unfortunately, scaling up the technique would be nearly impossible, according to the researchers. Much of the time needed to complete
Additionally, the system would only be able to reverse to the state of a given particle, making it difficult to reverse quantum time for the entire system at the same time. As such, being able to reverse quantum time isn’t going to be easily scalableto, say, controlling aging in human beings, as humans are made up of an enormous amount of information. It might even take millions of years to reverse time just a second.'
https://bgr.com/science/researchers-say-they-can-use-the-quantum-world-to-reverse-time/
Time is affected by gravity. Does that mean time has a physical composition? Are there time particles?
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
...series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.'
How did you come to imagine that someone claimed the American Physical >Society has a journal called "Advancing Physics"?
--bks
...
...series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.'
How did you come to imagine that someone claimed the American Physical >Society has a journal called "Advancing Physics"?
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:39:14 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >> risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:12:21 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País,
...
~ Isn't that where all the geniuses get their science news?
Your genius comments are appreciated by amateur scientists like me: >> >> >
'It’s a huge breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a >> >> >series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.'
~ There's no such journal as "Advancing Physics."
How did you come to imagine that someone claimed it was a journal?
...
~ Yow! Yow! That's where scientists "feature" papers!
Perhaps they have a dumpster out back that they call "Advancing
Physics" and feature their papers by burning them in it?
The paper(s) were published by the American Physical Society.The American Physical Society does not have a journal called
"Advancing Physics". You need to find a better source for
your science news.
--bks
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 3:18:49 PM UTC-5, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:39:14 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >> risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:12:21 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País,
...
~ Isn't that where all the geniuses get their science news?
Your genius comments are appreciated by amateur scientists like me: >> >> >
'It’s a huge breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a
series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.'
~ There's no such journal as "Advancing Physics."
How did you come to imagine that someone claimed it was a journal?
...
~ Yow! Yow! That's where scientists "feature" papers!
Perhaps they have a dumpster out back that they call "Advancing
Physics" and feature their papers by burning them in it?
The paper(s) were published by the American Physical Society.The American Physical Society does not have a journal called
"Advancing Physics". You need to find a better source for
your science news.
--bks
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País, researchers have discovered a way to speed up, slow down, and even reverse quantum time by taking advantage of unusual properties within a quantum world in specific ways. It’s a huge
especially as we’ve seen increasing movements into quantum simulators.The papers were originally published in 2018, and they detail how researchers were able to rewind time to a previous scene, as well as even skip several scenes forward. Being able to reverse and even control quantum time is a huge step forward,
the process and reverse quantum time would rely heavily on the amount of data stored in the quantum world at the time.The researchers say that the control they can acquire on the quantum world is very similar to controlling a movie.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system. Unfortunately, scaling up the technique would be nearly impossible, according to the researchers. Much of the time needed to complete
scalable to, say, controlling aging in human beings, as humans are made up of an enormous amount of information. It might even take millions of years to reverse time just a second.'Additionally, the system would only be able to reverse to the state of a given particle, making it difficult to reverse quantum time for the entire system at the same time. As such, being able to reverse quantum time isn’t going to be easily
https://bgr.com/science/researchers-say-they-can-use-the-quantum-world-to-reverse-time/
Time is affected by gravity. Does that mean time has a physical composition? Are there time particles?
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:43:15 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País, researchers have discovered a way to speed up, slow down, and even reverse quantum time by taking advantage of unusual properties within a quantum world in specific ways. It’s a huge
especially as we’ve seen increasing movements into quantum simulators.The papers were originally published in 2018, and they detail how researchers were able to rewind time to a previous scene, as well as even skip several scenes forward. Being able to reverse and even control quantum time is a huge step forward,
complete the process and reverse quantum time would rely heavily on the amount of data stored in the quantum world at the time.The researchers say that the control they can acquire on the quantum world is very similar to controlling a movie.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system. Unfortunately, scaling up the technique would be nearly impossible, according to the researchers. Much of the time needed to
scalable to, say, controlling aging in human beings, as humans are made up of an enormous amount of information. It might even take millions of years to reverse time just a second.'Additionally, the system would only be able to reverse to the state of a given particle, making it difficult to reverse quantum time for the entire system at the same time. As such, being able to reverse quantum time isn’t going to be easily
https://bgr.com/science/researchers-say-they-can-use-the-quantum-world-to-reverse-time/
~ I don't believe that is in the current model. The effect of gravity on time comes from the warping of our 4-dimensional universe (which might be up to 21-dimensional)Time is affected by gravity. Does that mean time has a physical composition? Are there time particles?
I don't know what you mean by 'the current model'. Time dilation has been empirically demonstrated.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 11:23:31 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:43:15 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País, researchers have discovered a way to speed up, slow down, and even reverse quantum time by taking advantage of unusual properties within a quantum world in specific ways. It’s a huge
especially as we’ve seen increasing movements into quantum simulators.The papers were originally published in 2018, and they detail how researchers were able to rewind time to a previous scene, as well as even skip several scenes forward. Being able to reverse and even control quantum time is a huge step forward,
complete the process and reverse quantum time would rely heavily on the amount of data stored in the quantum world at the time.The researchers say that the control they can acquire on the quantum world is very similar to controlling a movie.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system. Unfortunately, scaling up the technique would be nearly impossible, according to the researchers. Much of the time needed to
scalable to, say, controlling aging in human beings, as humans are made up of an enormous amount of information. It might even take millions of years to reverse time just a second.'Additionally, the system would only be able to reverse to the state of a given particle, making it difficult to reverse quantum time for the entire system at the same time. As such, being able to reverse quantum time isn’t going to be easily
https://bgr.com/science/researchers-say-they-can-use-the-quantum-world-to-reverse-time/
~ I don't believe that is in the current model. The effect of gravity on time comes from the warping of our 4-dimensional universe (which might be up to 21-dimensional)Time is affected by gravity. Does that mean time has a physical composition? Are there time particles?
I don't know what you mean by 'the current model'. Time dilation has been empirically demonstrated.
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 10:33:45 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 11:23:31 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:43:15 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País, researchers have discovered a way to speed up, slow down, and even reverse quantum time by taking advantage of unusual properties within a quantum world in specific ways. It’s a huge
especially as we’ve seen increasing movements into quantum simulators.The papers were originally published in 2018, and they detail how researchers were able to rewind time to a previous scene, as well as even skip several scenes forward. Being able to reverse and even control quantum time is a huge step forward,
complete the process and reverse quantum time would rely heavily on the amount of data stored in the quantum world at the time.The researchers say that the control they can acquire on the quantum world is very similar to controlling a movie.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system. Unfortunately, scaling up the technique would be nearly impossible, according to the researchers. Much of the time needed to
scalable to, say, controlling aging in human beings, as humans are made up of an enormous amount of information. It might even take millions of years to reverse time just a second.'Additionally, the system would only be able to reverse to the state of a given particle, making it difficult to reverse quantum time for the entire system at the same time. As such, being able to reverse quantum time isn’t going to be easily
https://bgr.com/science/researchers-say-they-can-use-the-quantum-world-to-reverse-time/
~ I don't believe that is in the current model. The effect of gravity on time comes from the warping of our 4-dimensional universe (which might be up to 21-dimensional)Time is affected by gravity. Does that mean time has a physical composition? Are there time particles?
~ The current model of space-time does not have time discretized.I don't know what you mean by 'the current model'. Time dilation has been empirically demonstrated.
Fine. Gravity affects time. Proven.
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:39:04 AM UTC-3, risky biz wrote:breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 10:33:45 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 11:23:31 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:43:15 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País, researchers have discovered a way to speed up, slow down, and even reverse quantum time by taking advantage of unusual properties within a quantum world in specific ways. It’s a huge
forward, especially as we’ve seen increasing movements into quantum simulators.The papers were originally published in 2018, and they detail how researchers were able to rewind time to a previous scene, as well as even skip several scenes forward. Being able to reverse and even control quantum time is a huge step
complete the process and reverse quantum time would rely heavily on the amount of data stored in the quantum world at the time.The researchers say that the control they can acquire on the quantum world is very similar to controlling a movie.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system. Unfortunately, scaling up the technique would be nearly impossible, according to the researchers. Much of the time needed to
easily scalable to, say, controlling aging in human beings, as humans are made up of an enormous amount of information. It might even take millions of years to reverse time just a second.'Additionally, the system would only be able to reverse to the state of a given particle, making it difficult to reverse quantum time for the entire system at the same time. As such, being able to reverse quantum time isn’t going to be
https://bgr.com/science/researchers-say-they-can-use-the-quantum-world-to-reverse-time/
~ I don't believe that is in the current model. The effect of gravity on time comes from the warping of our 4-dimensional universe (which might be up to 21-dimensional)Time is affected by gravity. Does that mean time has a physical composition? Are there time particles?
~ The current model of space-time does not have time discretized.I don't know what you mean by 'the current model'. Time dilation has been empirically demonstrated.
Fine. Gravity affects time. Proven.
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 8:51:58 AM UTC-8, Grunty wrote:breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:39:04 AM UTC-3, risky biz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 10:33:45 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 11:23:31 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:43:15 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País, researchers have discovered a way to speed up, slow down, and even reverse quantum time by taking advantage of unusual properties within a quantum world in specific ways. It’s a huge
forward, especially as we’ve seen increasing movements into quantum simulators.The papers were originally published in 2018, and they detail how researchers were able to rewind time to a previous scene, as well as even skip several scenes forward. Being able to reverse and even control quantum time is a huge step
to complete the process and reverse quantum time would rely heavily on the amount of data stored in the quantum world at the time.The researchers say that the control they can acquire on the quantum world is very similar to controlling a movie.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system. Unfortunately, scaling up the technique would be nearly impossible, according to the researchers. Much of the time needed
easily scalable to, say, controlling aging in human beings, as humans are made up of an enormous amount of information. It might even take millions of years to reverse time just a second.'Additionally, the system would only be able to reverse to the state of a given particle, making it difficult to reverse quantum time for the entire system at the same time. As such, being able to reverse quantum time isn’t going to be
https://bgr.com/science/researchers-say-they-can-use-the-quantum-world-to-reverse-time/
~ I don't believe that is in the current model. The effect of gravity on time comes from the warping of our 4-dimensional universe (which might be up to 21-dimensional)Time is affected by gravity. Does that mean time has a physical composition? Are there time particles?
~ The current model of space-time does not have time discretized.I don't know what you mean by 'the current model'. Time dilation has been empirically demonstrated.
~ I'm left the impression that, in the current context, you don't know what "discretized" means, as well as you didn't know what a "model" is. You could just ask again.Fine. Gravity affects time. Proven.
Your impression is incorrect. Both words are simple.
I don't know what 'the' 'current model' is. There are competing models in the effort to resolve general relativity with quantum mechanics. Perhaps Tim is referring to a different model of different things. He is, typically, not specific.
Do you wish to dispute that gravity affects time? That's what we're dicussing. Or maybe I should say that's what I was discussing.
If you keep swinging you may hit the ball.
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 9:24:19 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:huge breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 8:51:58 AM UTC-8, Grunty wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:39:04 AM UTC-3, risky biz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 10:33:45 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 11:23:31 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:43:15 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País, researchers have discovered a way to speed up, slow down, and even reverse quantum time by taking advantage of unusual properties within a quantum world in specific ways. It’s a
forward, especially as we’ve seen increasing movements into quantum simulators.The papers were originally published in 2018, and they detail how researchers were able to rewind time to a previous scene, as well as even skip several scenes forward. Being able to reverse and even control quantum time is a huge step
to complete the process and reverse quantum time would rely heavily on the amount of data stored in the quantum world at the time.The researchers say that the control they can acquire on the quantum world is very similar to controlling a movie.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system. Unfortunately, scaling up the technique would be nearly impossible, according to the researchers. Much of the time needed
easily scalable to, say, controlling aging in human beings, as humans are made up of an enormous amount of information. It might even take millions of years to reverse time just a second.'Additionally, the system would only be able to reverse to the state of a given particle, making it difficult to reverse quantum time for the entire system at the same time. As such, being able to reverse quantum time isn’t going to be
https://bgr.com/science/researchers-say-they-can-use-the-quantum-world-to-reverse-time/
~ I don't believe that is in the current model. The effect of gravity on time comes from the warping of our 4-dimensional universe (which might be up to 21-dimensional)Time is affected by gravity. Does that mean time has a physical composition? Are there time particles?
~ The current model of space-time does not have time discretized.I don't know what you mean by 'the current model'. Time dilation has been empirically demonstrated.
~ I'm left the impression that, in the current context, you don't know what "discretized" means, as well as you didn't know what a "model" is. You could just ask again.Fine. Gravity affects time. Proven.
Your impression is incorrect. Both words are simple.
I don't know what 'the' 'current model' is. There are competing models in the effort to resolve general relativity with quantum mechanics. Perhaps Tim is referring to a different model of different things. He is, typically, not specific.
Do you wish to dispute that gravity affects time? That's what we're dicussing. Or maybe I should say that's what I was discussing.
.
If you keep swinging you may hit the ball.
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
a protist (i.e. one cell, no neurons) that can walk.
How is that possible?
<https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/10/423966/single-celled-organism-uses-internal-computer-walk>
--bks
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:59:07 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
~ Trivial stuff. Here's a better question: There's
a protist (i.e. one cell, no neurons) that can walk.
How is that possible?
<https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/10/423966/single-celled-organism-uses-internal-computer-walk>
You didn't understand that?
...
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:59:07 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
~ Trivial stuff. Here's a better question: There's
a protist (i.e. one cell, no neurons) that can walk.
How is that possible?
<https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/10/423966/single-celled-organism-uses-internal-computer-walk>
You didn't understand that?
...
--bks
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:...
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
~ Trivial stuff. Here's a better question: There's
a protist (i.e. one cell, no neurons) that can walk.
How is that possible?
<https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/10/423966/single-celled-organism-uses-internal-computer-walk>
You didn't understand that?
~ Where's the computer in a creature with no brain, not even one neuron?
Did you look for it in the other thread?
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:...
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
~ Trivial stuff. Here's a better question: There's
a protist (i.e. one cell, no neurons) that can walk.
How is that possible?
<https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/10/423966/single-celled-organism-uses-internal-computer-walk>
You didn't understand that?
~ Where's the computer in a creature with no brain, not even one neuron?
Did you look for it in the other thread?
can actually see Euplotes walking with your own eyes!
--bks
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 4:51:53 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote:...
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
~ Trivial stuff. Here's a better question: There's
a protist (i.e. one cell, no neurons) that can walk.
How is that possible?
<https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/10/423966/single-celled-organism-uses-internal-computer-walk>
You didn't understand that?
~ Where's the computer in a creature with no brain, not even one neuron?
Did you look for it in the other thread?
~ Yeah, it's not there either. It's a mystery and yet you
can actually see Euplotes walking with your own eyes!
Uh, huh. The mystery they demystified in the article. If you keep this
up I'm going to report you to the Senior Coordinator.
Trivial stuff. Here's a better question: There'sHow old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
a protist (i.e. one cell, no neurons) that can walk.
How is that possible?
<https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/10/423966/single-celled-organism-uses-internal-computer-walk>
--bks
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 2:46:33 PM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:huge breakthrough, which the researchers have detailed in a series of six new papers featured in Advancing Physics.
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 9:24:19 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 8:51:58 AM UTC-8, Grunty wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:39:04 AM UTC-3, risky biz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 10:33:45 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 11:23:31 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:43:15 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.'According to reports from Spanish newspaper El País, researchers have discovered a way to speed up, slow down, and even reverse quantum time by taking advantage of unusual properties within a quantum world in specific ways. It’s a
forward, especially as we’ve seen increasing movements into quantum simulators.The papers were originally published in 2018, and they detail how researchers were able to rewind time to a previous scene, as well as even skip several scenes forward. Being able to reverse and even control quantum time is a huge step
needed to complete the process and reverse quantum time would rely heavily on the amount of data stored in the quantum world at the time.The researchers say that the control they can acquire on the quantum world is very similar to controlling a movie.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system.
You can skip forward a few scenes, or even use the remote to rewind and replay certain scenes in the quantum system. Unfortunately, scaling up the technique would be nearly impossible, according to the researchers. Much of the time
easily scalable to, say, controlling aging in human beings, as humans are made up of an enormous amount of information. It might even take millions of years to reverse time just a second.'Additionally, the system would only be able to reverse to the state of a given particle, making it difficult to reverse quantum time for the entire system at the same time. As such, being able to reverse quantum time isn’t going to be
https://bgr.com/science/researchers-say-they-can-use-the-quantum-world-to-reverse-time/
~ I don't believe that is in the current model. The effect of gravity on time comes from the warping of our 4-dimensional universe (which might be up to 21-dimensional)Time is affected by gravity. Does that mean time has a physical composition? Are there time particles?
~ The current model of space-time does not have time discretized.I don't know what you mean by 'the current model'. Time dilation has been empirically demonstrated.
~ I'm left the impression that, in the current context, you don't know what "discretized" means, as well as you didn't know what a "model" is. You could just ask again.Fine. Gravity affects time. Proven.
Your impression is incorrect. Both words are simple.
I don't know what 'the' 'current model' is. There are competing models in the effort to resolve general relativity with quantum mechanics. Perhaps Tim is referring to a different model of different things. He is, typically, not specific.
Do you wish to dispute that gravity affects time? That's what we're dicussing. Or maybe I should say that's what I was discussing.
.
~ One of your life lessons, no doubt...If you keep swinging you may hit the ball.
Great contribution, Jerry. You and Grunty should team up.
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:59:07 PM UTC-8, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
~ Trivial stuff. Here's a better question: There'sHow old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
a protist (i.e. one cell, no neurons) that can walk.
How is that possible?
<https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/10/423966/single-celled-organism-uses-internal-computer-walk>
--bksYou didn't understand that?
Why don't you start a single-celled organism thread? Grunty and Jerry would probably be interested.
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
<snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
<snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math? >> <snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to directly measurethe exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.' https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
On 3/12/2023 12:05 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
<snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to directly
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.' https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.Some folks need a "religious" explanation that they can believe to be
the "truth" ... there is comfort in such feelings. Words are a bitch too.
The word "table" is not a table.
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
<snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to directly measurethe exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.' https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
On 3/12/2023 12:05 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
<snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to directly
Some folks need a "religious" explanation that they can believe to be
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.' >>> https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
the "truth" ... there is comfort in such feelings. Words are a bitch too.
The word "table" is not a table.
But multiplication tables used to be a cloth put on a table to aid business calculations.
On 3/12/2023 10:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/12/2023 12:05 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote: >>>> <snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to directly
Some folks need a "religious" explanation that they can believe to be
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.'
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/ >>>
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
the "truth" ... there is comfort in such feelings. Words are a bitch too. >>
The word "table" is not a table.
But multiplication tables used to be a cloth put on a table to aid business calculations.Which is a fine illustration of the point ...
table = cloth = table ...
hard is word and words are hard ...
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 12:16:21 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
On 3/12/2023 10:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/12/2023 12:05 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> <snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to directly
Which is a fine illustration of the point ...Some folks need a "religious" explanation that they can believe to be
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.' >>>>> https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/ >>>>>
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
the "truth" ... there is comfort in such feelings. Words are a bitch too. >>>>
The word "table" is not a table.
But multiplication tables used to be a cloth put on a table to aid business calculations.
table = cloth = table ...
hard is word and words are hard ...
Have you ever read Russell's essay on "cat"?
On 3/13/2023 12:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 12:16:21 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/12/2023 10:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/12/2023 12:05 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> <snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to directly
Which is a fine illustration of the point ...Some folks need a "religious" explanation that they can believe to be >>>> the "truth" ... there is comfort in such feelings. Words are a bitch too.
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.'
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/ >>>>>
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
The word "table" is not a table.
But multiplication tables used to be a cloth put on a table to aid business calculations.
table = cloth = table ...
hard is word and words are hard ...
Have you ever read Russell's essay on "cat"?Since "table" is involved, I suppose we are talking about the same
essay. I also do not think that it is a coincidence that the musical
CATS is set in the "Russell Hotel".
[I also have eight cats and even when they are not present, I "know"
they exist! (Just my opinion, of course.)]
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 2:14:59 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
On 3/13/2023 12:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 12:16:21 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/12/2023 10:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/12/2023 12:05 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>> <snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to directly
Since "table" is involved, I suppose we are talking about the sameWhich is a fine illustration of the point ...Some folks need a "religious" explanation that they can believe to be >>>>>> the "truth" ... there is comfort in such feelings. Words are a bitch too.
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.'
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/ >>>>>>>
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
The word "table" is not a table.
But multiplication tables used to be a cloth put on a table to aid business calculations.
table = cloth = table ...
hard is word and words are hard ...
Have you ever read Russell's essay on "cat"?
essay. I also do not think that it is a coincidence that the musical
CATS is set in the "Russell Hotel".
[I also have eight cats and even when they are not present, I "know"
they exist! (Just my opinion, of course.)]
I am most definitely not a post-modernist
On 3/13/2023 6:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 2:14:59 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/13/2023 12:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 12:16:21 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/12/2023 10:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 3/12/2023 12:05 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>> <snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to directly
Since "table" is involved, I suppose we are talking about the sameWhich is a fine illustration of the point ...Some folks need a "religious" explanation that they can believe to be >>>>>> the "truth" ... there is comfort in such feelings. Words are a bitch too.
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.'
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
The word "table" is not a table.
But multiplication tables used to be a cloth put on a table to aid business calculations.
table = cloth = table ...
hard is word and words are hard ...
Have you ever read Russell's essay on "cat"?
essay. I also do not think that it is a coincidence that the musical
CATS is set in the "Russell Hotel".
[I also have eight cats and even when they are not present, I "know"
they exist! (Just my opinion, of course.)]
I am most definitely not a post-modernistNo one would ever suspect you of being "post-modernist".
But opinions are still opinions for all of us ... no matter what "words"
we might use to try and talk about any "thing" at all. Do you have a favorite wine?
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 1:00:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
On 3/13/2023 6:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 2:14:59 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/13/2023 12:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 12:16:21 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/12/2023 10:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/12/2023 12:05 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>>>> <snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to directly
No one would ever suspect you of being "post-modernist".Since "table" is involved, I suppose we are talking about the sameWhich is a fine illustration of the point ...Some folks need a "religious" explanation that they can believe to be >>>>>>>> the "truth" ... there is comfort in such feelings. Words are a bitch too.
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.'
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/ >>>>>>>>>
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
The word "table" is not a table.
But multiplication tables used to be a cloth put on a table to aid business calculations.
table = cloth = table ...
hard is word and words are hard ...
Have you ever read Russell's essay on "cat"?
essay. I also do not think that it is a coincidence that the musical
CATS is set in the "Russell Hotel".
[I also have eight cats and even when they are not present, I "know"
they exist! (Just my opinion, of course.)]
I am most definitely not a post-modernist
But opinions are still opinions for all of us ... no matter what "words"
we might use to try and talk about any "thing" at all. Do you have a
favorite wine?
I drink cheap white and cheap red mostly, but will drink anything except Chardonnay. For a treat, port.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 1:00:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:directly measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
On 3/13/2023 6:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 2:14:59 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/13/2023 12:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 12:16:21 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 3/12/2023 10:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 3/12/2023 12:05 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
<snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to
.Since "table" is involved, I suppose we are talking about the sameWhich is a fine illustration of the point ...Some folks need a "religious" explanation that they can believe to be
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.'
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
the "truth" ... there is comfort in such feelings. Words are a bitch too.
The word "table" is not a table.
But multiplication tables used to be a cloth put on a table to aid business calculations.
table = cloth = table ...
hard is word and words are hard ...
Have you ever read Russell's essay on "cat"?
essay. I also do not think that it is a coincidence that the musical
CATS is set in the "Russell Hotel".
[I also have eight cats and even when they are not present, I "know"
they exist! (Just my opinion, of course.)]
I am most definitely not a post-modernistNo one would ever suspect you of being "post-modernist".
But opinions are still opinions for all of us ... no matter what "words" we might use to try and talk about any "thing" at all. Do you have a favorite wine?
I drink cheap white and cheap red mostly, but will drink anything except Chardonnay. For a treat, port.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:25:11 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:directly measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 1:00:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/13/2023 6:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 2:14:59 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/13/2023 12:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 12:16:21 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 3/12/2023 10:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 3/12/2023 12:05 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
<snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to
Since "table" is involved, I suppose we are talking about the sameWhich is a fine illustration of the point ...Some folks need a "religious" explanation that they can believe to be
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.'
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
the "truth" ... there is comfort in such feelings. Words are a bitch too.
The word "table" is not a table.
But multiplication tables used to be a cloth put on a table to aid business calculations.
table = cloth = table ...
hard is word and words are hard ...
Have you ever read Russell's essay on "cat"?
essay. I also do not think that it is a coincidence that the musical >> CATS is set in the "Russell Hotel".
[I also have eight cats and even when they are not present, I "know" >> they exist! (Just my opinion, of course.)]
I am most definitely not a post-modernistNo one would ever suspect you of being "post-modernist".
.But opinions are still opinions for all of us ... no matter what "words" we might use to try and talk about any "thing" at all. Do you have a favorite wine?
I drink cheap white and cheap red mostly, but will drink anything except Chardonnay. For a treat, port.
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote: <snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to directly
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.' https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
<snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to directly
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.' >>> https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
~ No, because there are no articles of faith that I know.
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'
-Tim https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ
But:
'There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective.'
-Stephen Hawking
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
'If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God'..'
-Stephen Hawking
Surah Al-Baqara
To Allah belongs the East and the West; whithersoever ye turn, there is Allahs countenance. For Allah is All-Embracing All-Knowing. (115)
Further:body, but only one part..'
In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.
'The parable of the blind men and an elephant is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 11:43:06 AM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:directly measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:25:11 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 1:00:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/13/2023 6:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 2:14:59 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/13/2023 12:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 12:16:21 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/12/2023 10:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2023 12:05 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
<snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to
.No one would ever suspect you of being "post-modernist".Since "table" is involved, I suppose we are talking about the same >>>>>> essay. I also do not think that it is a coincidence that the musical >>>>>> CATS is set in the "Russell Hotel".Which is a fine illustration of the point ...Some folks need a "religious" explanation that they can believe to be
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.'
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
the "truth" ... there is comfort in such feelings. Words are a bitch too.
The word "table" is not a table.
But multiplication tables used to be a cloth put on a table to aid business calculations.
table = cloth = table ...
hard is word and words are hard ...
Have you ever read Russell's essay on "cat"?
[I also have eight cats and even when they are not present, I "know" >>>>>> they exist! (Just my opinion, of course.)]
I am most definitely not a post-modernist
But opinions are still opinions for all of us ... no matter what "words" >>>> we might use to try and talk about any "thing" at all. Do you have a
favorite wine?
I drink cheap white and cheap red mostly, but will drink anything except Chardonnay. For a treat, port.
~ All I drink is Chardonnay. Where have I gone wrong?
Thunderbird isn't 'Chardonnay'.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 11:43:06 AM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:directly measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:25:11 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 1:00:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/13/2023 6:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 2:14:59 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/13/2023 12:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 12:16:21 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 3/12/2023 10:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/12/2023 12:05 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
<snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to
Since "table" is involved, I suppose we are talking about the same >> essay. I also do not think that it is a coincidence that the musicalWhich is a fine illustration of the point ...Some folks need a "religious" explanation that they can believe to be
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.'
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
the "truth" ... there is comfort in such feelings. Words are a bitch too.
The word "table" is not a table.
But multiplication tables used to be a cloth put on a table to aid business calculations.
table = cloth = table ...
hard is word and words are hard ...
Have you ever read Russell's essay on "cat"?
CATS is set in the "Russell Hotel".
[I also have eight cats and even when they are not present, I "know"
they exist! (Just my opinion, of course.)]
I am most definitely not a post-modernistNo one would ever suspect you of being "post-modernist".
~ All I drink is Chardonnay. Where have I gone wrong?.But opinions are still opinions for all of us ... no matter what "words"
we might use to try and talk about any "thing" at all. Do you have a favorite wine?
I drink cheap white and cheap red mostly, but will drink anything except Chardonnay. For a treat, port.
Thunderbird isn't 'Chardonnay'.
On 3/14/2023 2:22 PM, risky biz wrote:directly measure the exact same number. Those two approaches, one based on theory and one on observations, should agree.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 11:43:06 AM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:25:11 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 1:00:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/13/2023 6:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 2:14:59 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 3/13/2023 12:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 12:16:21 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/12/2023 10:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2023 12:05 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
<snip>
Is religion a description of the unknown that is just as accurate as math?<snip>
~ Which religion? If you mean the Genesis account, it explains precisely nothing, so no. I am not as familiar with the Hindu account, nor others.
'm not saying religion 'explains' anything in a way subject to scientific confirmation. I'm saying it's no less accurate than the math of physics.
Are you kidding? The math in physics has as many denominations as religion. It's particularly enlightening when the theoretical math of the cosmos turns out to be 180° out from belated observations.
'We also know from quantum mechanics how much energy is in the vacuum; it’s a number we can calculate from our theories. And if dark energy is caused by this vacuum energy effect, then we can use the observed accelerated expansion to
.No one would ever suspect you of being "post-modernist".Since "table" is involved, I suppose we are talking about the same >>>>>> essay. I also do not think that it is a coincidence that the musical >>>>>> CATS is set in the "Russell Hotel".Which is a fine illustration of the point ...Some folks need a "religious" explanation that they can believe to be
They don’t. In fact, they disagree by roughly 120 orders of magnitude.'
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a42825918/what-is-dark-energy/
'Scientific' cosmological theory is so far, an article of faith, or should I say competing articles of faith. They're religions.
And, it seems that some cosmologists are coming around to a realization that reality may not be subject to apprehension by math as we know it.
the "truth" ... there is comfort in such feelings. Words are a bitch too.
The word "table" is not a table.
But multiplication tables used to be a cloth put on a table to aid business calculations.
table = cloth = table ...
hard is word and words are hard ...
Have you ever read Russell's essay on "cat"?
[I also have eight cats and even when they are not present, I "know" >>>>>> they exist! (Just my opinion, of course.)]
I am most definitely not a post-modernist
But opinions are still opinions for all of us ... no matter what "words"
we might use to try and talk about any "thing" at all. Do you have a >>>> favorite wine?
I drink cheap white and cheap red mostly, but will drink anything except Chardonnay. For a treat, port.
~ All I drink is Chardonnay. Where have I gone wrong?
Thunderbird isn't 'Chardonnay'.Mad Dog 20/20
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:<snip>
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:<snip>
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'
-Tim https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.<snip>
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'
Further:<snip>
In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:21:20 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:<snip>
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'<snip>
-Tim https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ
Exactly, based on data, which is the antithesis of faith. If you cannot understand something so elementary, we have no basis for discussion.
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'<snip>
And yet the Christians claim and pretend that nothing has ever changed.
Further:
In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.<snip>
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:21:20 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:<snip>
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
Exactly, based on data, which is the antithesis of faith. If you cannot understand something so elementary, we have no basis for discussion.
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'
-Tim
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ >> <snip>
<snip>
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'
And yet the Christians claim and pretend that nothing has ever changed.
Further:
In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.<snip>
~ No. Particles are ignored in the first, gravity in the second. There is no claim that they don't exist.
Of course, they exist in the real world. Maybe that's why the model of each does not harmonize with the other.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:21:20 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:<snip>
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'<snip>
-Tim https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ
Exactly, based on data, which is the antithesis of faith. If you cannot understand something so elementary, we have no basis for discussion.
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'<snip>
And yet the Christians claim and pretend that nothing has ever changed.
Further:
~ No. Particles are ignored in the first, gravity in the second. There is no claim that they don't exist.In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.<snip>
Of course, they exist in the real world. Maybe that's why the model of each does not harmonize with the other.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:30:51 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:21:20 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:<snip>
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'<snip>
-Tim https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ
Exactly, based on data, which is the antithesis of faith. If you cannot understand something so elementary, we have no basis for discussion.
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'<snip>
And yet the Christians claim and pretend that nothing has ever changed.
Further:
~ No. Particles are ignored in the first, gravity in the second. There is no claim that they don't exist.In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.<snip>
Of course, they exist in the real world. Maybe that's why the model of each does not harmonize with the other.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:10:07 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:30:51 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:21:20 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:<snip>
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'<snip>
-Tim https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ
Exactly, based on data, which is the antithesis of faith. If you cannot understand something so elementary, we have no basis for discussion.
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'<snip>
And yet the Christians claim and pretend that nothing has ever changed.
Further:
~ No. Particles are ignored in the first, gravity in the second. There is no claim that they don't exist.In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.<snip>
~ Or do they? The basic particles might be our models of something else entirely.Of course, they exist in the real world. Maybe that's why the model of each does not harmonize with the other.
Do you mean, like .. God?
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 4:57:41 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:10:07 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:30:51 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:~ Or do they? The basic particles might be our models of something else entirely.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:21:20 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:~ No. Particles are ignored in the first, gravity in the second. There is no claim that they don't exist.
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote: >>>>> <snip><snip>
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'
-Tim
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ
Exactly, based on data, which is the antithesis of faith. If you cannot understand something so elementary, we have no basis for discussion.
<snip>
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'
And yet the Christians claim and pretend that nothing has ever changed. >>>>>>
Further:
In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.<snip>
Of course, they exist in the real world. Maybe that's why the model of each does not harmonize with the other.
Do you mean, like .. God?
Likely not.
On 3/17/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 4:57:41 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:10:07 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:30:51 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:21:20 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
~ Or do they? The basic particles might be our models of something else entirely.<snip>~ No. Particles are ignored in the first, gravity in the second. There is no claim that they don't exist.
<snip>
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'
-Tim
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ
Exactly, based on data, which is the antithesis of faith. If you cannot understand something so elementary, we have no basis for discussion.
<snip>
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'
And yet the Christians claim and pretend that nothing has ever changed.
Further:
In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.<snip>
Of course, they exist in the real world. Maybe that's why the model of each does not harmonize with the other.
Do you mean, like .. God?
Likely not.
be the best we can do at present.
On 3/17/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 4:57:41 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:10:07 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:30:51 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:21:20 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
~ Or do they? The basic particles might be our models of something else entirely.<snip>~ No. Particles are ignored in the first, gravity in the second. There is no claim that they don't exist.
<snip>
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'
-Tim
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ
Exactly, based on data, which is the antithesis of faith. If you cannot understand something so elementary, we have no basis for discussion.
<snip>
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'
And yet the Christians claim and pretend that nothing has ever changed.
Further:
In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.<snip>
Of course, they exist in the real world. Maybe that's why the model of each does not harmonize with the other.
Do you mean, like .. God?
Likely not.Maybe "god" ... definitions like words are difficult, but they seem to
be the best we can do at present.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:25:15 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/17/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 4:57:41 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:10:07 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:30:51 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:21:20 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Or do they? The basic particles might be our models of something else entirely.~ No. Particles are ignored in the first, gravity in the second. There is no claim that they don't exist.<snip>On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
<snip>
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'
-Tim
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ
Exactly, based on data, which is the antithesis of faith. If you cannot understand something so elementary, we have no basis for discussion.
<snip>
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'
And yet the Christians claim and pretend that nothing has ever changed.
Further:
In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.<snip>
Of course, they exist in the real world. Maybe that's why the model of each does not harmonize with the other.
Do you mean, like .. God?
Likely not.Maybe "god" ... definitions like words are difficult, but they seem to
be the best we can do at present.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:25:15 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/17/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 4:57:41 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:Maybe "god" ... definitions like words are difficult, but they seem to
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:10:07 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:30:51 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:21:20 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
~ Or do they? The basic particles might be our models of something else entirely.<snip>~ No. Particles are ignored in the first, gravity in the second. There is no claim that they don't exist.
<snip>
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'
-Tim
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ
Exactly, based on data, which is the antithesis of faith. If you cannot understand something so elementary, we have no basis for discussion.
<snip>
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'
And yet the Christians claim and pretend that nothing has ever changed.
Further:
In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.<snip>
Of course, they exist in the real world. Maybe that's why the model of each does not harmonize with the other.
Do you mean, like .. God?
Likely not.
be the best we can do at present.
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:25:15 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/17/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 4:57:41 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:10:07 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:30:51 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:~ Or do they? The basic particles might be our models of something else entirely.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:21:20 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:~ No. Particles are ignored in the first, gravity in the second. There is no claim that they don't exist.
<snip>On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
<snip>
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'
-Tim
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ
Exactly, based on data, which is the antithesis of faith. If you cannot understand something so elementary, we have no basis for discussion.
<snip>
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'
And yet the Christians claim and pretend that nothing has ever changed.
Further:
In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.<snip>
Of course, they exist in the real world. Maybe that's why the model of each does not harmonize with the other.
Do you mean, like .. God?
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.Likely not.Maybe "god" ... definitions like words are difficult, but they seem to be the best we can do at present.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:25:15 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
On 3/17/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 4:57:41 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:10:07 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:30:51 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:21:20 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 8:55:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:06:02 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 9:18:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:Maybe "god" ... definitions like words are difficult, but they seem to >>>> be the best we can do at present.
~ Or do they? The basic particles might be our models of something else entirely.~ No. Particles are ignored in the first, gravity in the second. There is no claim that they don't exist.<snip>On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:07:49 PM UTC-5, risky biz wrote:
<snip>
I recall having seen you expressing an article of faith:
'lol @ big bang theory'
-Paul
'The show, or the well-supported scientific theory?'
-Tim
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/ANbK92KdSEU/m/mxJnc_WuBQAJ
Exactly, based on data, which is the antithesis of faith. If you cannot understand something so elementary, we have no basis for discussion.
<snip>
~ There is also the matter that theories get changed/abandoned based on data.
'The original Nicene Creed (/ˈnaɪsiːn/; Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας; Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople.'
And yet the Christians claim and pretend that nothing has ever changed.
Further:
In General Relativity theory, there are no particles. In the Standard Model of particle physics, there’s no gravity.<snip>
Of course, they exist in the real world. Maybe that's why the model of each does not harmonize with the other.
Do you mean, like .. God?
Likely not.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
"theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem
to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real
scientific "stuff".
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit theNo one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
"theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seemQuite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.
to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real
scientific "stuff".
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 2:27:40 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 7:11:15 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit theNo one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
"theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real scientific "stuff".Quite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit the
"theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem
to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real
scientific "stuff".
Quite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.
On 3/19/2023 6:11 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit the
"theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem
to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real
scientific "stuff".
Quite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.
because it only answers another beginning of another end. Almost
religious at heart ... after all, only God was there at "creation" ...
bang ... there He goes again.]
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:36:50 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 3/19/2023 6:11 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit the >>>> "theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem >>>> to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real
scientific "stuff".
Quite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.
~ Experts disagree ... who knew? [I always thought Big Bang was weak
because it only answers another beginning of another end. Almost
religious at heart ... after all, only God was there at "creation" ...
bang ... there He goes again.]
I find eternal and unending the most sensible. With the universe expanding at an ever faster rate it cannot be disproved. We will never see any edge of the universe nor will we ever see where it supposedly 'started'.
On 3/19/2023 6:11 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit the
"theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem
to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real
scientific "stuff".
Quite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.Experts disagree ... who knew? [I always thought Big Bang was weak
because it only answers another beginning of another end. Almost
religious at heart ... after all, only God was there at "creation" ...
bang ... there He goes again.]
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 5:10:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 2:27:40 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Au contraire. There is the background cosmic radiation, predicted before it was observed.No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
That is proof of cosmic microwave background radiation. 'big bang' has been inferred from that, not proven.
~ There is also the measured Red Shift, with correlations from actual parallax measurements,
Yes. Proof that the universe is expanding. But expanding faster now than it was billions of years ago. That's a weird bang.
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:36:50 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/19/2023 6:11 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit the
"theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem >> to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real
scientific "stuff".
Quite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.Experts disagree ... who knew? [I always thought Big Bang was weak
because it only answers another beginning of another end. Almost
religious at heart ... after all, only God was there at "creation" ... bang ... there He goes again.]
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 3:25:53 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 5:10:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 2:27:40 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Au contraire. There is the background cosmic radiation, predicted before it was observed.No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
That is proof of cosmic microwave background radiation. 'big bang' has been inferred from that, not proven.
~ There is also the measured Red Shift, with correlations from actual parallax measurements,
Yes. Proof that the universe is expanding. But expanding faster now than it was billions of years ago. That's a weird bang.
It was Fred Hoyle who coined the term to make fun of it.
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:36:50 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/19/2023 6:11 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:Experts disagree ... who knew? [I always thought Big Bang was weak
On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit the >>>> "theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem >>>> to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real
scientific "stuff".
Quite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.
because it only answers another beginning of another end. Almost
religious at heart ... after all, only God was there at "creation" ...
bang ... there He goes again.]
The model suggests that our physical dimensions + time began then, so talking about what happened 'before' may well be meaningless.
On 3/20/2023 8:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:36:50 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/19/2023 6:11 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:Experts disagree ... who knew? [I always thought Big Bang was weak
On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit the >>>> "theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem >>>> to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real
scientific "stuff".
Quite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.
because it only answers another beginning of another end. Almost
religious at heart ... after all, only God was there at "creation" ...
bang ... there He goes again.]
The model suggests that our physical dimensions + time began then, so talking about what happened 'before' may well be meaningless.The model might not be correct. I am surprised your chose the word "meaningless" to end your comment. Do you really "believe" it is
meaningless or you just do not have an opinion?
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 8:57:59 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/20/2023 8:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:36:50 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:The model might not be correct. I am surprised your chose the word
On 3/19/2023 6:11 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:Experts disagree ... who knew? [I always thought Big Bang was weak
On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit the >>>>>> "theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem >>>>>> to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real
scientific "stuff".
Quite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.
because it only answers another beginning of another end. Almost
religious at heart ... after all, only God was there at "creation" ... >>>> bang ... there He goes again.]
The model suggests that our physical dimensions + time began then, so talking about what happened 'before' may well be meaningless.
"meaningless" to end your comment. Do you really "believe" it is
meaningless or you just do not have an opinion?
It could be as meaningless as asking what the smallest positive number is.
On 3/21/2023 11:51 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 8:57:59 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/20/2023 8:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:36:50 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:The model might not be correct. I am surprised your chose the word
On 3/19/2023 6:11 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:Experts disagree ... who knew? [I always thought Big Bang was weak
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit the
"theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem
to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real
scientific "stuff".
Quite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.
because it only answers another beginning of another end. Almost
religious at heart ... after all, only God was there at "creation" ... >>>> bang ... there He goes again.]
The model suggests that our physical dimensions + time began then, so talking about what happened 'before' may well be meaningless.
"meaningless" to end your comment. Do you really "believe" it is
meaningless or you just do not have an opinion?
It could be as meaningless as asking what the smallest positive number is.Depending on your use of the word number ...
1 2 3 Infinity/or many
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 1:30:22 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/21/2023 11:51 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 8:57:59 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/20/2023 8:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:36:50 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:The model might not be correct. I am surprised your chose the word
On 3/19/2023 6:11 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:Experts disagree ... who knew? [I always thought Big Bang was weak >>>> because it only answers another beginning of another end. Almost
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit the
"theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem
to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real >>>>>> scientific "stuff".
Quite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.
religious at heart ... after all, only God was there at "creation" ...
bang ... there He goes again.]
The model suggests that our physical dimensions + time began then, so talking about what happened 'before' may well be meaningless.
"meaningless" to end your comment. Do you really "believe" it is
meaningless or you just do not have an opinion?
It could be as meaningless as asking what the smallest positive number is.Depending on your use of the word number ...
1 2 3 Infinity/or manyThose are positive integers. Real numbers include the rational and irrational ones.
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 6:27:07 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 1:30:22 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/21/2023 11:51 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 8:57:59 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/20/2023 8:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:36:50 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 3/19/2023 6:11 PM, risky biz wrote:The model might not be correct. I am surprised your chose the word
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:Experts disagree ... who knew? [I always thought Big Bang was weak >>>> because it only answers another beginning of another end. Almost >>>> religious at heart ... after all, only God was there at "creation" ...
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit the
"theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem
to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real >>>>>> scientific "stuff".
Quite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.
bang ... there He goes again.]
The model suggests that our physical dimensions + time began then, so talking about what happened 'before' may well be meaningless.
"meaningless" to end your comment. Do you really "believe" it is
meaningless or you just do not have an opinion?
It could be as meaningless as asking what the smallest positive number is.Depending on your use of the word number ...
And the letter "i"1 2 3 Infinity/or manyThose are positive integers. Real numbers include the rational and irrational ones.
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 1:30:22 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/21/2023 11:51 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 8:57:59 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 3/20/2023 8:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:36:50 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:The model might not be correct. I am surprised your chose the word
On 3/19/2023 6:11 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/19/2023 1:27 PM, risky biz wrote:Experts disagree ... who knew? [I always thought Big Bang was weak >>>>>> because it only answers another beginning of another end. Almost
~ On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:06:44 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>
~ Generally, gods are defined as at least having agency. What we think of as particles do not seem to do so.
Maybe particles are only God's 'breath'.
~ Provide some serious evidence for the existence of something supernatural, and we can start talking.
No one has any evidence for the 'big bang' but it's repeated like an article of religious faith.
~ Ah, words again ... what "evidence" would be enough? I will admit the >>>>>>>> "theory" is a bit above my pay grade, but some pretty smart folks seem >>>>>>>> to "think" the Big Bang is a good theory ... supported by real >>>>>>>> scientific "stuff".
Quite a few pretty smart folks (as in theoretical physicists) think it is an incorrect theory.
religious at heart ... after all, only God was there at "creation" ... >>>>>> bang ... there He goes again.]
The model suggests that our physical dimensions + time began then, so talking about what happened 'before' may well be meaningless.
"meaningless" to end your comment. Do you really "believe" it is
meaningless or you just do not have an opinion?
It could be as meaningless as asking what the smallest positive number is. >> Depending on your use of the word number ...
1 2 3 Infinity/or many
Those are positive integers. Real numbers include the rational and irrational ones.
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
'Does the Universe have an edge?
Cosmologists have tried to measure the large-scale curvature of space over the past few decades, and the most recent results combined with theoretical arguments seem to indicate that we live in a geometrically flat Universe.
..this means that our Universe is infinitely large, and that our observable Universe – the part within our cosmological horizon – is only an infinitesimally small fraction of an unimaginably large whole.'
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-have-edge/
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
'Does the Universe have an edge?
Cosmologists have tried to measure the large-scale curvature of space over the past few decades, and the most recent results combined with theoretical arguments seem to indicate that we live in a geometrically flat Universe.
..this means that our Universe is infinitely large, and that our observable Universe – the part within our cosmological horizon – is only an infinitesimally small fraction of an unimaginably large whole.'
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-have-edge/
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:05:04 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
'Does the Universe have an edge?
Cosmologists have tried to measure the large-scale curvature of space over the past few decades, and the most recent results combined with theoretical arguments seem to indicate that we live in a geometrically flat Universe.
..this means that our Universe is infinitely large, and that our observable Universe – the part within our cosmological horizon – is only an infinitesimally small fraction of an unimaginably large whole.'
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-have-edge/
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:05:04 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
.'Does the Universe have an edge?
Cosmologists have tried to measure the large-scale curvature of space over the past few decades, and the most recent results combined with theoretical arguments seem to indicate that we live in a geometrically flat Universe.
..this means that our Universe is infinitely large, and that our observable Universe – the part within our cosmological horizon – is only an infinitesimally small fraction of an unimaginably large whole.'That would take care of one of the arguments about origins.
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-have-edge/
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:50:56 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:05:04 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
'Does the Universe have an edge?
Cosmologists have tried to measure the large-scale curvature of space over the past few decades, and the most recent results combined with theoretical arguments seem to indicate that we live in a geometrically flat Universe.
..this means that our Universe is infinitely large, and that our observable Universe – the part within our cosmological horizon – is only an infinitesimally small fraction of an unimaginably large whole.'
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-have-edge/
~ That would take care of one of the arguments about origins.
What origin? No origin. Always was and always will be. If we can't determine where or when something originated and never will then it's eternal and infinite.
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:50:56 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:05:04 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
'Does the Universe have an edge?
Cosmologists have tried to measure the large-scale curvature of space over the past few decades, and the most recent results combined with theoretical arguments seem to indicate that we live in a geometrically flat Universe.
~ That would take care of one of the arguments about origins...this means that our Universe is infinitely large, and that our observable Universe – the part within our cosmological horizon – is only an infinitesimally small fraction of an unimaginably large whole.'
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-have-edge/
What origin? No origin. Always was and always will be. If we can't determine where or when something originated and never will then it's eternal and infinite.
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:50:56 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:05:04 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
'Does the Universe have an edge?
Cosmologists have tried to measure the large-scale curvature of space over the past few decades, and the most recent results combined with theoretical arguments seem to indicate that we live in a geometrically flat Universe.
~ That would take care of one of the arguments about origins...this means that our Universe is infinitely large, and that our observable Universe – the part within our cosmological horizon – is only an infinitesimally small fraction of an unimaginably large whole.'
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-have-edge/
What origin? No origin. Always was and always will be. If we can't determine where or when something originated and never will then it's eternal and infinite.
On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 2:04:00 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:50:56 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:05:04 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
'Does the Universe have an edge?
Cosmologists have tried to measure the large-scale curvature of space over the past few decades, and the most recent results combined with theoretical arguments seem to indicate that we live in a geometrically flat Universe.
~ That would take care of one of the arguments about origins...this means that our Universe is infinitely large, and that our observable Universe – the part within our cosmological horizon – is only an infinitesimally small fraction of an unimaginably large whole.'
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-have-edge/
What origin? No origin. Always was and always will be. If we can't determine where or when something originated and never will then it's eternal and infinite.
On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 2:04:00 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:50:56 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:05:04 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>> How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
'Does the Universe have an edge?
Cosmologists have tried to measure the large-scale curvature of space over the past few decades, and the most recent results combined with theoretical arguments seem to indicate that we live in a geometrically flat Universe.
..this means that our Universe is infinitely large, and that our observable Universe – the part within our cosmological horizon – is only an infinitesimally small fraction of an unimaginably large whole.'
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-have-edge/ >> ~ That would take care of one of the arguments about origins.
What origin? No origin. Always was and always will be. If we can't determine where or when something originated and never will then it's eternal and infinite.
We don't know that. If the standard model is correct, then what you wrote is correct, merely because there simply was no time "before".
On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 5:57:23 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 2:04:00 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:50:56 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:05:04 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote: >>>>>> How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
'Does the Universe have an edge?
Cosmologists have tried to measure the large-scale curvature of space over the past few decades, and the most recent results combined with theoretical arguments seem to indicate that we live in a geometrically flat Universe.
..this means that our Universe is infinitely large, and that our observable Universe – the part within our cosmological horizon – is only an infinitesimally small fraction of an unimaginably large whole.'
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-have-edge/ >>> ~ That would take care of one of the arguments about origins.
What origin? No origin. Always was and always will be. If we can't determine where or when something originated and never will then it's eternal and infinite.
~ That's a huge leap. Do you have any actual evidence, other than an argument from ignorance?
That's exactly my point. Ignorance. Big Bang is a theory for which, due to recent scientific observation, they're now just having to invent things like dark matter and dark energy to make the theory still plausible. And other theories are arising thatdeny either all or part of Big Bang.
The entirety of accepted cosmology is called into question when galaxies that should have formed quite soon after the theoretical birth of the universe are massively large when they should, by the accepted cosmology, be much, much smaller.accept that some things may be unknowable. You can call that ignorance if you want to.
The expansion rate of the universe was supposed to be more or less stabilized but we now know that it's accelerating. So 'dark energy' was invented to account for that.
It's fine with me if cosmologists are eventually able to incorporate these heterogenous aspects into a more all-encompassing theory that's convincing. But, as of now, I have my doubts that they will be able to do that. So it makes sense to me to just
And I haven't even mentioned quantum mechanics.
On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 5:57:23 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 2:04:00 AM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:50:56 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:05:04 PM UTC-4, risky biz wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
How old is the universe?
How big is the universe?
How did the universe begin?
What is the universe?
The more science learns the more it learns that it doesn't know what it's talking or thinking about.
Contact with other life in the universe? If the universe is expanding we would need to travel or project a means of contact that is faster and further in range than the expansion rate of the universe.
'Does the Universe have an edge?
Cosmologists have tried to measure the large-scale curvature of space over the past few decades, and the most recent results combined with theoretical arguments seem to indicate that we live in a geometrically flat Universe.
~ That would take care of one of the arguments about origins...this means that our Universe is infinitely large, and that our observable Universe – the part within our cosmological horizon – is only an infinitesimally small fraction of an unimaginably large whole.'
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-have-edge/
~ That's a huge leap. Do you have any actual evidence, other than an argument from ignorance?What origin? No origin. Always was and always will be. If we can't determine where or when something originated and never will then it's eternal and infinite.
That's exactly my point. Ignorance. Big Bang is a theory for which, due to recent scientific observation, they're now just having to invent things like dark matter and dark energy to make the theory still plausible. And other theories are arising thatdeny either all or part of Big Bang.
The entirety of accepted cosmology is called into question when galaxies that should have formed quite soon after the theoretical birth of the universe are massively large when they should, by the accepted cosmology, be much, much smaller.accept that some things may be unknowable. You can call that ignorance if you want to.
The expansion rate of the universe was supposed to be more or less stabilized but we now know that it's accelerating. So 'dark energy' was invented to account for that.
It's fine with me if cosmologists are eventually able to incorporate these heterogenous aspects into a more all-encompassing theory that's convincing. But, as of now, I have my doubts that they will be able to do that. So it makes sense to me to just
And I haven't even mentioned quantum mechanics.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 16:22:57 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,351,251 |