Give ‘em the Silent Treatment

Status
Not open for further replies.
taoist

taoist

New member
Good grief, GS!

15 billion years
Eternity

If you can't see a difference between these two, between finite and infinite, I don't think I can help you. The BB theory stops at 15 billion years, it doesn't go on. Anything beyond that is suitable for fantasy publishers, not science journals. Between those two figures, 15 billion and eternity, there's an awfully, awfully, awfully, awfully .... awfully big gap. Awfully, as in full of awe, squared, cubed and higher-order exponentiated.

But I'm thinking you're confused about the nature of matter. Whatever it was blowing up 15 billion years ago, it bore little relation to the stuff we see around us today. It wasn't just itty-bitty atoms and photons and bosons and whatnot. In the first place, depending on which version of string theory you favor, if any, it was something swimming around in a 9 or 10 dimensional space composed of "particles" if you can even call them that, on the order of 10^-WOW ... aka "goshawful small". And whatever that stuff was, it wasn't eternal.

And I would like to see a theory about a natural origin of the universe. I took plenty of calculus so dont worry (not as much as you probably, but who has? :)
Click to expand...
Like I said, so would I. But it hasn't been done yet. You still have the chance to be the first on your block to discover it. The great thing about science is it's a book without a last page, just a latest one. If ever there was a contest for a real life model for an open view theology, science and scientific discovery have to be in the finals.

Who has, you ask. Thousands certainly, tens of thousands probably. I moved into the pure math side after doing my master's work. And yeah, I've taught the lower level calculus series, and I did well in the advanced series, but it's not my specialty. In any case, I'll tell you a secret. Topology is a LOT more fun. We don't tell that to the math dudes going in for applied, cause it would just make them jealous.

So hush!
 
taoist

taoist

New member
I don't know, way to go. The BB theory doesn't say. You tell me. Maybe you can find the answer in the bible. Personally, I'd check E. E. Smith before Zelazny. And Zelazny before I'd look to Moses. But there's no accounting for taste in literature.
 
S

servent101

New member
Taoist
The great thing about science is it's a book without a last page, just a latest one. If ever there was a contest for a real life model for an open view theology
Click to expand...

That is somewhat true, and believe it or not that statement is true of religion as well, and duely recorded in the English language the canon is similar in spelling to the cannon - which is used for war.

Any source, if it is closed, is interpreted in a way which makes it's adherers monsters. Today's Wisdom is not canonised - though this does not mean that yesterday's Wisdom is not worth contemplating... it just is that there is so much in the realm of "Creation" about us and the Infanite - that when one culture starts to say they are the only ones that their God ever spoke too,,, well there are problems.

As far as the page science is on now, well you know my view, but possibly you want to hear it again..... (just joking)


With Christ's Love

Servent101
 
taoist

taoist

New member
Not as we know it in our degenerate universe today, way2go.

This "stuff" existed in a fully functioning 9 or 10 dimensional space if the proponents of string theory are correct. More, the forces we measure today as wildly disparate in effect, from gravity to electromagnetism, are thought to have been in parity at the time, separated today due to the collapse of extra dimensions. Calling this "stuff" matter/energy is an inappropriate extrapolation. If you wish a simple word for these complex entities, I'd suggest just calling them strings.

I've also considered your other question more fully. If you wish to understand what can be said about the universe as it existed 15 billion years ago and one more second further into the past, consider the following. Describe what you can you see as far as you can see across space. Now imagine describing what lies beyond what you can see. This is the conundrum. As far as you can see, your description will have a firm meaning. But just beyond that, your description takes on an entirely different value.

And now, as I've been reading and writing far too late again, the clock has passed 3 am once more, and I'm for bed. Goodnight.
 
S

servent101

New member
Taoist
Not as we know it in our degenerate universe today, way2go.

This "stuff" existed in a fully functioning 9 or 10 dimensional space if the proponents of string theory are correct. More, the forces we measure today as wildly disparate in effect, from gravity to electromagnetism, are thought to have been in parity at the time, separated today due to the collapse of extra dimensions. Calling this "stuff" matter/energy is an inappropriate extrapolation. If you wish a simple word for these complex entities, I'd suggest just calling them strings.

I've also considered your other question more fully. If you wish to understand what can be said about the universe as it existed 15 billion years ago and one more second further into the past, consider the following. Describe what you can you see as far as you can see across space. Now imagine describing what lies beyond what you can see. This is the conundrum. As far as you can see, your description will have a firm meaning. But just beyond that, your description takes on an entirely different value.

And now, as I've been reading and writing far too late again, the clock has passed 3 am once more, and I'm for bed. Goodnight.
Click to expand...

What Taoist is saying is that the world is flat,,, and you really ought to do some "good" in the world that you live in - that nine or ten block area that you spend most of your time - as this will effect your dimension more than anything else, also it will affect your ability to comprehend what sound vibrations are that make up the matter that comprise this physical manifestation of material energy. So if you fall through your chair, don't blame me that I did not tell you something to try to make you think... and if you can't figure it out, well it is all taoist's fault.

With Christ's Love

Servent101
 
S

servent101

New member
Mustard seed - I re-read the last pages of the thread - and thank you for your effort - for me I agree with the principles of Science, it is not Science that I am pointing out anything wrong with, it is the general populous who claim certain assertations which they claim are based on Science - which they are not - their logic is faulty, and it seems that everyone is well and happy with that, that Science for the most part has created a dogma - a sort of witch burning that the church did in the 1500's ... and all is quiet on the Western Front or is it?

With Christ's Love

Servent101
 
K

koban

New member
Bump all you like, you won't get Taoist or ThePhy to respond. Maybe Mustard Seed or one of the others.
 
Mustard Seed

Mustard Seed

New member
servent101 said:
Mustard seed - I re-read the last pages of the thread - and thank you for your effort - for me I agree with the principles of Science, it is not Science that I am pointing out anything wrong with, it is the general populous who claim certain assertations which they claim are based on Science - which they are not - their logic is faulty, and it seems that everyone is well and happy with that, that Science for the most part has created a dogma - a sort of witch burning that the church did in the 1500's ... and all is quiet on the Western Front or is it?

With Christ's Love

Servent101
Click to expand...

On a related stem of thought (not exactly regarding dogma, but the institutionalizing of science and reductionism) see the following thread and it's link. It's an incredible talk and most of it I agree with. It's also quite entertaining. James Burke is quite the presenter and innovative mind.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22494
 
Mustard Seed

Mustard Seed

New member
koban said:
Bump all you like, you won't get Taoist or ThePhy to respond. Maybe Mustard Seed or one of the others.
Click to expand...


If you deny or refuse to confront a problem then it either dosen't exist (in your view, anyway) or it is made (to the one ignoring) irrelevant. A version of the head in the sand techinique. Thus even the failure to respond enforces my observations of there being dogma and it's accomanying irrational allegiance even within the most stalwart ranks of the scientific/rational/logic based communities.
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
Mustard Seed said:
If you deny or refuse to confront a problem then it either dosen't exist (in your view, anyway) or it is made (to the one ignoring) irrelevant. A version of the head in the sand techinique. Thus even the failure to respond enforces my observations of there being dogma and it's accomanying irrational allegiance even within the most stalwart ranks of the scientific/rational/logic based communities.
Click to expand...
Their failure to respond is because they were banned (speaking of the head in the sand dogma ...).
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
PureX said:
Their failure to respond is because they were banned (speaking of the head in the sand dogma ...).
Click to expand...
Never bother a religionist with the facts, PureX. Remember these are the same type of folks who dug up John Wycliffe's bones in 1428, burned them and scattered the ashes in the Swift River as a punishment for his role in publishing an English translation of their precious scriptures.

The minor fact that he was dead seems to have escaped those in charge of his punishment. :rolleyes:
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
koban said:
Was he ever quoted as to how unhappy he was? :chuckle:
Click to expand...
Who Wycliffe? After they dug him up? :think:

From what I've read about the Inquisitors they'd only quote him if he recanted; which, considering his advanced decomposition (he'd died 44 years previously), he was highly unlikely to do. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top