Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 146

Thread: Physics laws, since Universe began?

  1. #1 Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Most claims about the big bang, or early universe depend on the present laws being in effect. For example, gravity. Or the weak or strong nuclear forces.
    Yet can we really do anything but assume that was the case?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Well at the very beggining there were all 4 forces as one as the grand unifed force. As the energy began to disperse they eventually split up across the universe up to the point of today. However the first forces soon split up into the different ones we see today very quickly. I'm not sure how we can assume it to be true but like all theories such an idea is currently extremeley difficult to test hence it shall remain a theory until some verifiable evidence can be shown this is the case. There have been electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force unifed as the electroweak force and this provides some evidence of the theory, but just suggests that in certain circumstances the unity can occur, and the big bang was certain enough so it seems logical to deduce that conclusion.


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Well at the very beggining there were all 4 forces as one as the grand unifed force.
    That's nice. How do you know that?


    As the energy began to disperse they eventually split up across the universe up to the point of today. However the first forces soon split up into the different ones we see today very quickly. I'm not sure how we can assume it to be true but like all theories such an idea is currently extremeley difficult to test hence it shall remain a theory until some verifiable evidence can be shown this is the case.
    OK. I think I hear you saying you really have no idea. Until you can verify that, I guess that being a theory is the same as being a myth!

    There have been electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force unifed as the electroweak force and this provides some evidence of the theory, but just suggests that in certain circumstances the unity can occur, and the big bang was certain enough so it seems logical to deduce that conclusion.
    Can you slow that down a bit? Where was any weak or strong or mediocre force at the early stages of the (imagined) big bang, and how do you think you know???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I know from others theories, but because they are theories I can't actually prove that those theories are correct. I'm just going with the apparent best COA (Course Of Action).
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Wording is important: 'beginning' and 'early' are not the same. We don't know about the 'beginning' if it is a singularity of time, energy, etc. Physics can, however, consider models of 'early'. Anything that happened post singularity (or whatever existed) is consistent with the physics of the universe today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    the (imagined) big bang
    You had me at 'hello'. What's your superior theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    and how do you think you know???
    How do you think you know your superior theory is correct?
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Most claims about the big bang, or early universe depend on the present laws being in effect. For example, gravity. Or the weak or strong nuclear forces.
    Inflation, which I believe is currently the favored theory for the very early universe, assumes the opposite - that the laws of physics were different.

    Yet can we really do anything but assume that was the case?
    So, yes we can do something different, or at least the physicists who work on this can. It is said inflation is so beautiful as a theory that it must be right. (That's what they said about epicycles too.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Thermal energy at the time of the BB was so high, even the strong nuclear force was unable to hold protons and neutrons together.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    I know from others theories, but because they are theories I can't actually prove that those theories are correct. I'm just going with the apparent best COA (Course Of Action).
    In other words, believe what you want, and call it science? Sounds like fun, guess we all can do that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist
    Wording is important: 'beginning' and 'early' are not the same. We don't know about the 'beginning' if it is a singularity of time, energy, etc. Physics can, however, consider models of 'early'. Anything that happened post singularity (or whatever existed) is consistent with the physics of the universe today.
    Is it really, now? How would you know that? Precisely?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    I know from others theories, but because they are theories I can't actually prove that those theories are correct. I'm just going with the apparent best COA (Course Of Action).
    In other words, believe what you want, and call it science? Sounds like fun, guess we all can do that.
    What? What are you talking about? The theories have some mathematical basis and logical evidence or they would not be accepted. Science is believing something and then trying to explain it and prove it. Einstein had the idea that gravity was because of curved spacetime-that was a belief and he went out to prove that belief.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury

    Inflation, which I believe is currently the favored theory for the very early universe, assumes the opposite - that the laws of physics were different.
    OK. So looks like another vote here for no present laws after all. Fine.



    So, yes we can do something different, or at least the physicists who work on this can. It is said inflation is so beautiful as a theory that it must be right. (That's what they said about epicycles too.)
    No, actually, I do not think so. I think it is a silly and ugly little theory. I find the thought of the sun moon and stars and galaxies all in a little soup speck revoltingly absurd.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer

    What? What are you talking about? The theories have some mathematical basis and logical evidence or they would not be accepted. Science is believing something and then trying to explain it and prove it. Einstein had the idea that gravity was because of curved spacetime-that was a belief and he went out to prove that belief.
    The basis also is that the present laws are the basis. Work on that. If you claim that, prove it. Or at least do more than assume and believe it, will you?? Why would we claim that this universe state was here at all? It is now, and has been since, say at least till recorded history observed things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer

    What? What are you talking about? The theories have some mathematical basis and logical evidence or they would not be accepted. Science is believing something and then trying to explain it and prove it. Einstein had the idea that gravity was because of curved spacetime-that was a belief and he went out to prove that belief.
    The basis also is that the present laws are the basis. Work on that. If you claim that, prove it. Or at least do more than assume and believe it, will you?? Why would we claim that this universe state was here at all? It is now, and has been since, say at least till recorded history observed things.
    My area of expertise is relativity. I believe other theories on different areas of physics, I don't have to prove them because I accept others theories. I be as dumb as a rake if I had to prove everything I believed in.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    I find the thought of the sun moon and stars and galaxies all in a little soup speck revoltingly absurd.
    Really. Can your prove it is absurd? Do you think personal preferences constitute real science? Interesting thoughts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury

    Inflation, which I believe is currently the favored theory for the very early universe, assumes the opposite - that the laws of physics were different.
    OK. So looks like another vote here for no present laws after all. Fine.
    You seem a little confused. Science isn't about voting and I'm not voting for anything here. I merely tried to point out that you are wrong in your initial assumption. There's no need to take umbrage.

    So, yes we can do something different, or at least the physicists who work on this can. It is said inflation is so beautiful as a theory that it must be right. (That's what they said about epicycles too.)
    No, actually, I do not think so. I think it is a silly and ugly little theory.
    I have my doubts too, but since I'm not expert in that field I won't presume to pass judgment on it.

    I find the thought of the sun moon and stars and galaxies all in a little soup speck revoltingly absurd
    What Ophiolite said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    The basis also is that the present laws are the basis.
    you obviously have no idea how science really works : the assumption that the current laws of physics were in place is just an assumption, that's true, but that is a par for the course in science

    science often makes initial assumptions, which in turn lead to predictions which can then be tested - if the predictions test ok, then the assumptions are upheld for the time being, if not, then it's back to the drawing boards + start examining where your assumptions could have gone wrong

    at the present state of knowledge, it would appear that the universe makes sense when you assume that the 4 forces were in place as they are now within a fraction of a second of the big bang (remember that the inflationary period, if it ever existed, only lasted for about 10^(-32) seconds) - hence there is no need to assume differently until evidence arises that this might not be so

    do you have any such evidence ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer



    My area of expertise is relativity. I believe other theories on different areas of physics, I don't have to prove them because I accept others theories. I be as dumb as a rake if I had to prove everything I believed in.

    Believe in relativity, that is fine. So do I. Long as you keep it relative to this present universe state we are in, and Einstein was in. Like a box, it has limits. Relativity is an in box little concept, all very well and goo in the box.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    I find the thought of the sun moon and stars and galaxies all in a little soup speck revoltingly absurd.
    Really. Can your prove it is absurd? Do you think personal preferences constitute real science? Interesting thoughts.
    I think real science does not go there. Only your thoughts go there, riding the present universe state, and assuming this is the key to the past. Not unless and until you solidly evidence that will it be science. This is news??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury

    You seem a little confused. Science isn't about voting and I'm not voting for anything here. I merely tried to point out that you are wrong in your initial assumption. There's no need to take umbrage.
    No, you need to show how you think I was wrong. Not just say it as if it had some meaning.



    I have my doubts too, but since I'm not expert in that field I won't presume to pass judgment on it.
    So you swallow it by faith. OK. That is up to you. I look for a little more than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR

    you obviously have no idea how science really works : the assumption that the current laws of physics were in place is just an assumption, that's true, but that is a par for the course in science
    Not at all is everything so flimsy. Some things are testable and observed, like jumping up, and falling down. Some assumptions are valid, and solidly evidenced.

    science often makes initial assumptions, which in turn lead to predictions which can then be tested - if the predictions test ok, then the assumptions are upheld for the time being, if not, then it's back to the drawing boards + start examining where your assumptions could have gone wrong
    Right. So??

    at the present state of knowledge, it would appear that the universe makes sense when you assume that the 4 forces were in place as they are now within a fraction of a second of the big bang (remember that the inflationary period, if it ever existed, only lasted for about 10^(-32) seconds) - hence there is no need to assume differently until evidence arises that this might not be so
    That really does not make sense at all. You first of all assume that we can extrapolate the present universe laws back toward creation. Then, you crunch the numbers based on that. The result of the crunching is only as valed as the assumption, which is pure pure pure religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    ..., which is pure pure pure religion.
    now how did religion enter the picture here ?
    oh, i forgot, your username is a dead giveaway isn't it ?
    you're trying to say that science doesn't have all the answers, so by default religion must have them
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    ..., which is pure pure pure religion.
    now how did religion enter the picture here ?
    oh, i forgot, your username is a dead giveaway isn't it ?
    you're trying to say that science doesn't have all the answers, so by default religion must have them
    How do you know hes religious based on that marnix? He just seems to be attacking religion by saying that what ou said is what religion is based on-as in valid (he put valed) as the assumption, he is saying that religion is irrational and that your statement is like religion in its purest form, in its purest irrationality. In other words he's not bringing religion into it, he is insulting your idea. Relgion I don't think he meant it as you meant it, just that he thinks someome can be offended if they use religion to offend particularly if you are insulted by being reffered to as religion irrational. But he is being very abrupt isn't he? I've noticed that.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury


    I have my doubts too, but since I'm not expert in that field I won't presume to pass judgment on it.
    So you swallow it by faith. OK. That is up to you. I look for a little more than that.
    Not only are you confused, you have a problem with reading comprehension. An expression of doubt is the opposite of faith.
    Try and slow down and think about what other people are saying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury


    I have my doubts too, but since I'm not expert in that field I won't presume to pass judgment on it.
    So you swallow it by faith. OK. That is up to you. I look for a little more than that.
    Not only are you confused, you have a problem with reading comprehension. An expression of doubt is the opposite of faith.
    Try and slow down and think about what other people are saying.
    'E's a troll with an agenda, mate. Give it up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

    'E's a troll with an agenda, mate. Give it up.
    Right you are, guv.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    ..., which is pure pure pure religion.
    now how did religion enter the picture here ?
    oh, i forgot, your username is a dead giveaway isn't it ?
    you're trying to say that science doesn't have all the answers, so by default religion must have them
    No, actually, nothing like that. I was pointing out that in the absence of evidence and proofs, the claims falsely called science are indeed religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    ..., which is pure pure pure religion.
    now how did religion enter the picture here ?
    oh, i forgot, your username is a dead giveaway isn't it ?
    you're trying to say that science doesn't have all the answers, so by default religion must have them
    How do you know hes religious based on that marnix? He just seems to be attacking religion by saying that what ou said is what religion is based on-as in valid (he put valed) as the assumption, he is saying that religion is irrational and that your statement is like religion in its purest form, in its purest irrationality. In other words he's not bringing religion into it, he is insulting your idea. Relgion I don't think he meant it as you meant it, just that he thinks someome can be offended if they use religion to offend particularly if you are insulted by being reffered to as religion irrational. But he is being very abrupt isn't he? I've noticed that.
    Hey, thanks, it all sounds quite clever. I look at religion as belief without real solid basis in science, or evidence. If we are people of faith, that matter not at all anyhow. But, if we present a case as if it is science, and it is not well backed at all, then what else can we call it but faith, and religion? I think religion is fine, if we admit that is what it is. When we offer religion cross dressed as science, why, that is another matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury


    I have my doubts too, but since I'm not expert in that field I won't presume to pass judgment on it.
    So you swallow it by faith. OK. That is up to you. I look for a little more than that.
    Not only are you confused, you have a problem with reading comprehension. An expression of doubt is the opposite of faith.
    Try and slow down and think about what other people are saying.
    DO BE CLEAR, ARE YOU DOUBTING THE 'EXPERTS' ON BIG BANG, OR BELIEVEING THEM, AS i THOUGHT!??/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Most claims about the big bang, or early universe depend on the present laws being in effect. For example, gravity. Or the weak or strong nuclear forces.
    Yet can we really do anything but assume that was the case?
    From whatr I know about these forces TODAY is that there is a 'force of gravity', a strong force (I am told), a weak force, and the EM Force that I believe to be real because of all the research done on this force to prove its existence.

    I am certain that neutrons exist and are created in the stars when the deuterons are fused. This involves the creation of the strong force to fuse the deuterons.
    So in my opinion, the stars had to be created first before the SF could have been created.
    So by this reasoning, the SF could not have been created before the stars were created.

    Mike C
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    From whatr I know about these forces TODAY is that there is a 'force of gravity', a strong force (I am told), a weak force, and the EM Force that I believe to be real because of all the research done on this force to prove its existence.
    Gravity is not a force according to General Relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    So in my opinion, the stars had to be created first before the SF could have been created.
    What force holds quarks together in a proton I wonder..... :wink:
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    From whatr I know about these forces TODAY is that there is a 'force of gravity', a strong force (I am told), a weak force, and the EM Force that I believe to be real because of all the research done on this force to prove its existence.
    Gravity is not a force according to General Relativity.
    Isn't gravity supposed to 'bend' space?

    This them makes it a force.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    So in my opinion, the stars had to be created first before the SF could have been created.
    What force holds quarks together in a proton I wonder..... :wink:
    Since quarks do not exist in a free state, then I just ignore them as a real particle that has no real role in our universe.

    There are no other real particles beside the electron and the proton as the basic components of our universe.

    Cismo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    So in my opinion, the stars had to be created first before the SF could have been created.
    What force holds quarks together in a proton I wonder..... :wink:
    Since quarks do not exist in a free state, then I just ignore them as a real particle that has no real role in our universe.

    There are no other real particles beside the electron and the proton as the basic components of our universe.

    Cosmo
    But different combinations of different types of quarks make up many particles. Even though they do not last too long on their own, it is not a very good reason to totally dismiss them. They do exist and make up protons where they are held in place by the strong force. Do you think what is thought of as quarks are in fact only broken pieces of a proton, or what?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    DO BE CLEAR, ARE YOU DOUBTING THE 'EXPERTS' ON BIG BANG, OR BELIEVEING THEM, AS i THOUGHT!??/
    Your initial question and my initial response were not about the Big Bang specifically and my initial response still stands. I think it's very clear.

    My position re. the Big Bang is that it seems to be the theory that best fits the currently available evidence, especially the WMAP evidence. So, PROVISIONALLY I tend to believe the BB is true. If evidence comes along to disprove it then I’ll change my PROVISIONAL belief about it. No big deal. I don’t think I’ll go to Hell if I’m wrong.

    Why are you shouting?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Gravity is not a force according to General Relativity.
    According to 'real' experimental physics, gravity is a force.

    Are you familiar with the Cavendish and the Boys experiments?

    How would GR explain that?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    So in my opinion, the stars had to be created first before the SF could have been created.
    What force holds quarks together in a proton I wonder..... :wink:
    Quarks are not real particles. So I would not trouble myself with that.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    According to 'real' experimental physics, gravity is a force.
    No, it's not. Although gravity was incorrectly asserted by Newton to be a force, it was found NOT to be a force using General Relativity. Newton asserted 'action at a distance' in which 'attractive forces' were at play. GR asserted that the paths through space were 'warped' near large objects, therefore anything moving near those objects would have their paths through space 'warped' towards the object.

    Are you familiar with the Cavendish and the Boys experiments?

    How would GR explain that?
    Isn't that the experiment where he wanted to find the Earth's density using a torsion balance and other scientists used the results to determine the value of G?

    In this case, Newtons theories were accurate enough to determine the value of G, however Einsteins derivatives could also be used, and would be more accurate. However, Einsteins derivatives are usually only used where extreme accuracy is required dealing with massive objects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    From whatr I know about these forces TODAY is that there is a 'force of gravity', a strong force (I am told), a weak force, and the EM Force that I believe to be real because of all the research done on this force to prove its existence.

    I am certain that neutrons exist and are created in the stars when the deuterons are fused. This involves the creation of the strong force to fuse the deuterons.
    So in my opinion, the stars had to be created first before the SF could have been created.
    So by this reasoning, the SF could not have been created before the stars were created.

    Mike C
    Great, you have arrived at what I consider the obvious, by the back route. Fine. My opinion is that this universe we see is a temporary state universe. I see no science to suggest anything else. Therefore, how can we look at present laws as if they existed in the far past?? That literally amounts to an assumption of a same state universe in the past. What if it was not the created state we now see?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation; Had not seen this post, before responding to some others.

    A universe, that has always existed, IN ONE STATE OR ANOTHER, will exist forever, although possible not in a way we currently see, is not really a new thought. The reasoning is under our current understandings, many things over eons would be the total. Hydrogen would eventually become none existent, everything else helium or metallic and so on...

    I have argued, that hydrogen could regenerate naturally from helium and probably does during star formations, from heat and pressures. That elements could break down from most anything or back to the basics.
    This said, its probable to me, that what we see is what has always existed and/or will always exist. Add to this, our own solar system, which when formed should have been near total Hydrogen, yet probably formed from some previously burned out star or even space debris. Our star and Jupiter made/make up 99.9% of the systems mass and should have been nearly all Hydrogen at formation...

    Possibly why you think this state could not maintain itself would be of interest...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation; Had not seen this post, before responding to some others.

    A universe, that has always existed, IN ONE STATE OR ANOTHER, will exist forever, although possible not in a way we currently see, is not really a new thought. The reasoning is under our current understandings, many things over eons would be the total. Hydrogen would eventually become none existent, everything else helium or metallic and so on...
    I believe that it always will exist, as will our sun. My opinion is that we are now in a temporary universe state. Therefore, we cannot use it to set the clock on eternity.



    I have argued, that hydrogen could regenerate naturally from helium and probably does during star formations, from heat and pressures. That elements could break down from most anything or back to the basics.
    This said, its probable to me, that what we see is what has always existed and/or will always exist. Add to this, our own solar system, which when formed should have been near total Hydrogen, yet probably formed from some previously burned out star or even space debris. Our star and Jupiter made/make up 99.9% of the systems mass and should have been nearly all Hydrogen at formation...

    Possibly why you think this state could not maintain itself would be of interest...
    I guess I can't avoid bring the bible into it here. The bible says this universe will pass away. This heavens and earth. Therefore it is temporary. Science cannot say either way. All it can do is predict that IF this present state went on, THEN, the sun would burn out in billions of years. Etc.
    [/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    No, it's not. Although gravity was incorrectly asserted by Newton to be a force, it was found NOT to be a force using General Relativity. Newton asserted 'action at a distance' in which 'attractive forces' were at play. GR asserted that the paths through space were 'warped' near large objects, therefore anything moving near those objects would have their paths through space 'warped' towards the object.
    Newtons Gravitational Law uses two bodies approaching each other in a straight line. In this case, there is no curvature to speak of. So GR does not apply.

    Isn't that the experiment where he wanted to find the Earth's density using a torsion balance and other scientists used the results to determine the value of G?
    In this case, Newtons theories were accurate enough to determine the value of G, however Einsteins derivatives could also be used, and would be more accurate. However, Einsteins derivatives are usually only used where extreme accuracy is required dealing with massive objects.
    The Cavendish experiment used two lead balls to measure their attraction to each other.
    The Boys experiment used two gold balls to do the same thing. Boys experiment was considewred to be more accurate.

    Lead is composed of 7 isotopes with 4 that are stable.

    Gold is composed of 4 isotopes that are very short lived. So Gold is considered to be 100% stable.

    Again, as I have said , GR plays no role in these experiments. These elements used are about the heaviest available.
    So gravity is a 'real' force.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Great, you have arrived at what I consider the obvious, by the back route. Fine. My opinion is that this universe we see is a temporary state universe. I see no science to suggest anything else. Therefore, how can we look at present laws as if they existed in the far past?? That literally amounts to an assumption of a same state universe in the past. What if it was not the created state we now see?
    In my idea of a SSU, only the space is fixed to be stable. In other words, a flat non expanding or contracting space.

    The components within this fixed space are undergoing the recycling process like the stars and the galaxies.
    The total matter remains costant and fuses the hydrogen atoms in the star creations that eventually decays back into hydrogen and helium when the elemental ratio of neutrons to protons exceeds the 3 to 2 ratio approximately.

    So the only evolution here is the recycling process IMHO, of course, that is based on current elemental physics.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation; Guess I should have realized where you were going, from your handle. Bible "will pass away", must be from Revelations, meaning the New Testament and some form of Christianity. I will continue to discuss science, as I understand an issue, but make this one observation now; In no way would I mean to or intend to alter your faith by anything written.
    I am what is said to be agnostic, could believe in a higher power, but any similarity to what I could accept or has been written about, is not acceptable...

    I have heard one analogy to what, I think your saying. In short; Life is a book being lived out on earth, by the people and life on it. When the book is complete, the life goes back to someplace until another book is picked up.

    IMO; The sun will burn out, the Universe shows its history and its best the search for knowledge continues.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    [quote="CosmoSo gravity is a 'real' force.[/quote]

    That is incorrect. There is no action-at-a-distance with gravity. Newton also made the same error, hence his equations were not accurate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    [quote=(Q)]
    Quote Originally Posted by "CosmoSo gravity is a 'real' force.[/quote

    That is incorrect. There is no action-at-a-distance with gravity. Newton also made the same error, hence his equations were not accurate.
    Newtons Law of gravity says so. I give more credibility to Newtons math than Einsteins. He even questioned his own math until the BB idea was accepted to save his theory than did not then need the added cosmological constant.

    So besides questioning his own math, his mass/energy formuls is erroneous IMO because the 'forces' create all the energies.
    Another lack of credibility is his refusal to accept the Planckian Quantum Physics that were proven to be a reality.

    Cosmo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    Newtons Law of gravity says so. I give more credibility to Newtons math than Einsteins.
    You're free to ignore evidence to the contrary. Einsteins formulas have been shown to be more accurate than Newtons, although one can still place a capsule on the moon using Newtons laws.

    So besides questioning his own math, his mass/energy formuls is erroneous IMO because the 'forces' create all the energies.
    But, gravity isn't a force. Gravity simply changes the paths in space of which objects move along.

    If Newton was right, then the astronauts in the space station would be up against the wall all the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation; Guess I should have realized where you were going, from your handle. Bible "will pass away", must be from Revelations, meaning the New Testament and some form of Christianity. I will continue to discuss science, as I understand an issue, but make this one observation now; In no way would I mean to or intend to alter your faith by anything written.
    Right, I am not worried about my beliefs anyhow, they have been here since the creation of the earth, and seem to hold up pretty well, thank you very much. What we were looking at here was your beliefs, of a same state past universe based myth. That has not really been around that long, and I can see how you might be a little worried about having it held up to dry.


    I have heard one analogy to what, I think your saying. In short; Life is a book being lived out on earth, by the people and life on it. When the book is complete, the life goes back to someplace until another book is picked up.
    Well, not really, I think we will live right here, although we likely will travel the ends of the universe at leisure as well. What I question is the ability of science to address the future, or far past, in any meaningful way, since they simply base everything on this current state universe norm we live in now. No anology, you really cannot use science to prove, or solidly evidence that this universe was in this state in the far past. Really. So I have not the slightest reason to believe anything based on that myth, now do I??

    IMO; The sun will burn out, the Universe shows its history and its best the search for knowledge continues.
    That is a pure statement of faith, as my faith says it will never ever ever burn out. Your claim is based on how processes NOW work, and what woulda coulda shoulda happen IF it continued like this for imaginary billions and billions of years. That is a hunch, a belief, and assumption, with no science at all behind it. Face it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    In my idea of a SSU, only the space is fixed to be stable. In other words, a flat non expanding or contracting space.

    The components within this fixed space are undergoing the recycling process like the stars and the galaxies.
    The total matter remains costant and fuses the hydrogen atoms in the star creations that eventually decays back into hydrogen and helium when the elemental ratio of neutrons to protons exceeds the 3 to 2 ratio approximately.

    So the only evolution here is the recycling process IMHO, of course, that is based on current elemental physics.

    Cosmo
    But also on the assumption present laws applied long long ago. Right? Too bad there is no science to support that foundational assumption the theory is solely based on. Is there? Do you think you can prove this universe as it is was the universe state in the far past?? If not, you too have a myth. Nothing wrong with a nice myth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation;

    On faith/myth; I find it interesting you accuse science of unprovable expectation, then base existence on considerably less provable ideology.
    I sit in a chair, with faith it will hold me and based on quite a few established facts. "Travel at leisure to the ends of the Universe" in my mind is unsubstantiated faith, based on myth at best. That is the faith is in the person...

    Billy Graham, has said as much "travel" but used the spirit...

    On the Sun; No, there are reason, these expectation can be justified. In driving your car, you fuel it knowing the fuel will go so far. Strike a match and when the fuel is gone the match goes out and so on. The sun has just so much fuel, can not burn forever and will go out.

    You are welcome to feel what you like, but to ignore science, which I'll add technology, we would be back to waring over which God was correct, cooking food over wood fires, living in those proverbial caves dieing horrible deaths from countless causes at 30-35, while waiting around for some divine interference.

    MODERATORS; I know this is off topic and apologize. I do feel however the topic deserves addressing, with religious influence in science and to many of us who feel this influence has taken some science in the wrong direction. Not being critical to *Creation*, as many hold his/her view on the universe, his/her has an interesting twist...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Too bad there is no science to support that foundational assumption the theory is solely based on. Is there? Do you think you can prove this universe as it is was the universe state in the far past?? If not, you too have a myth. Nothing wrong with a nice myth.
    Besides the current Laws of Physics and the other expariments and observations, my evaluation of the HDF's North, South and the Ultra, they do not show any difference from what we see here now.

    Galaxies of all types that appear to have different ages than others such as those with a larger number of 'blue giant stars like the spirals as compared to the elipticals.
    Also the number of Galactic clusters that one mathematician said would take hundreds of billions of years to form. I believe his name was Anthony Perrault if I remember correctly.

    The DF's exhibit the same quality and galaxy densities throughpout space.
    According to one researcher, there have been discovered some DF galaxies that exhibit iron rich stars that the BB cannot justify during the time of their creation.

    In the meantime the BBU has so many unanswered questiosw that that proves it is unscientific,

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    You're free to ignore evidence to the contrary. Einsteins formulas have been shown to be more accurate than Newtons, although one can still place a capsule on the moon using Newtons laws.
    Spiritual forces can influence the physical realm, I am certain of this because I've seen these influences in other areas of life.

    But, gravity isn't a force. Gravity simply changes the paths in space of which objects move along.
    Then how does the Earth keep us glued to its surface? Is space pushing down on us?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    Spiritual forces can influence the physical realm, I am certain of this because I've seen these influences in other areas of life.
    You lost me there, pal.

    Then how does the Earth keep us glued to its surface? Is space pushing down on us?
    It doesn't. We, and everything else are in constant free-fall, and the "pressure" you feel on your feet is the Earth accelerating up towards you.

    You can experience this yourself by jumping off a high point. You won't feel any forces acting upon you as you're in free-fall, no forces whatsoever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation;

    On faith/myth; I find it interesting you accuse science of unprovable expectation, then base existence on considerably less provable ideology.
    That is nonsense. Untold millions do not embrace the realities of the spiritual for no reasons, it is tested and observed in effects, and proven over and over, and has been for millennia. The sorts of proofs we look for in spiritual things are quite different than what we look for for physical things.
    We do not have the kind of absolute nothing you do, for the premise of your old age claims.

    I sit in a chair, with faith it will hold me and based on quite a few established facts. "Travel at leisure to the ends of the Universe" in my mind is unsubstantiated faith, based on myth at best. That is the faith is in the person...
    Well, no, it is an observation of the risen body of a man, that demonstrated how it works! He walked through walls, ate food, dissapeared, flew up in the air, etc. There are no physical law limits to a spiritual also material eternal state body.


    On the Sun; No, there are reason, these expectation can be justified. In driving your car, you fuel it knowing the fuel will go so far. Strike a match and when the fuel is gone the match goes out and so on. The sun has just so much fuel, can not burn forever and will go out.
    Completely false, one cannot drive a car back to the future! If you drive one billions of years, then you can talk. Meanwhile, it is myth.

    You are welcome to feel what you like, but to ignore science, which I'll add technology, we would be back to waring over which God was correct, cooking food over wood fires, living in those proverbial caves dieing horrible deaths from countless causes at 30-35, while waiting around for some divine interference.
    I do not ignore any any any evidence at all. Neither do I ignore you have none for the foundational premise of all your old age claims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56 Re: Physics laws, since Universe began? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    Besides the current Laws of Physics and the other expariments and observations, my evaluation of the HDF's North, South and the Ultra, they do not show any difference from what we see here now.
    Looking far away, we still look at our universe. A universe change includes far away. The seeming fact that the distant Hubble observations have the universe the same far away means nothing. Why would it not be?? Only when you filter that fact through your assumptive glasses, that say the universe always was in this state does that mean what you think it does. If all the universe was different thousands of years ago, science of the present woulld have no way of knowing.

    Galaxies of all types that appear to have different ages than others such as those with a larger number of 'blue giant stars like the spirals as compared to the elipticals.
    Appear is a good word. I guess a lot of different sorts of stars were out there, even if they were created. That they would be caught in that difference, and start reacting according to the universe state they found themselves in is expected. All you have done, is assume they GOT that way also in and by a present state.

    Also the number of Galactic clusters that one mathematician said would take hundreds of billions of years to form. I believe his name was Anthony Perrault if I remember correctly.
    Assuming what? That they started in a little hot soup so small, we couldn't see it with the naked eye? So small, a drop of sneeze might be a million times bigger? Assuming they 'formed' rather than were formed??

    The DF's exhibit the same quality and galaxy densities throughpout space.
    According to one researcher, there have been discovered some DF galaxies that exhibit iron rich stars that the BB cannot justify during the time of their creation.
    Got that right, there was no big bang.

    In the meantime the BBU has so many unanswered questiosw that that proves it is unscientific,
    Well, apparently some disagree with you here on that. I consider science to be a study of the natural world, and universe. Unless it was the same nature in the past, this nature simply cannot be used to set the clocks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Moderator Statement:
    Creation, this is a science forum, not a location for you to promote unscientific nonsense under the pretence of a scientific stance. Your opening question was, superficially, a good one. The angle you are adopting in answering it is pseudoscience and will not be tolerated. You have two choices - cease the pseudoscientific content of your posts in this thread, or see this the thread moved to pseudoscience, or the trash can. Your choice.
    Here is a selection of the nonsense you have been spouting.
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    That is nonsense. Untold millions do not embrace the realities of the spiritual for no reasons, it is tested and observed in effects, and proven over and over, and has been for millennia.
    Provide a single peer reviewed piece of research to substantiate this claim. Certainly millions embrace the spirtitual for many reasons, but these are either a) bad reasons, or b) not at all the reasons you imagine.
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    The sorts of proofs we look for in spiritual things are quite different than what we look for for physical things.
    But this is a science forum, where we adhere to the scientific method. If you are going to offer up proofs, they had better meet the standards of science.
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Well, no, it is an observation of the risen body of a man, that demonstrated how it works! He walked through walls, ate food, dissapeared, flew up in the air, etc. There are no physical law limits to a spiritual also material eternal state body.
    Superstitious twaddle. This is the astronomy section of the forum, not the 'Believe and thou shalt be saved' forum.
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    The sun has just so much fuel, can not burn forever and will go out.
    Completely false, one cannot drive a car back to the future! If you drive one billions of years, then you can talk. Meanwhile, it is myth.
    This betrays a comprehensive ignorance of the nature of science and the scientific method. You are correct that science is based upon certain axioms. One of these is that, broadly, the same processes, laws and constants are in effect today, as in the remote past. Observation strongly supports these assumptions. Science is ready to abandon these particular assumptions when appropriate. (Lyell's Principle of Uniformity in geology, for example, has been amended to recognise the importance of catastrophic events in shaping the landscape and the biosphere.) To describe these validated assumptions as myth is, as noted, pure ignorance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Moderator Statement:
    Creation, this is a science forum, not a location for you to promote unscientific nonsense under the pretence of a scientific stance.
    I was trying to stop that sort of thing, you misunderstood. I pointed out that the state of the past is unknowable to science. If you want to toss the word 'nonsense' around, why not put that notion to rest? Otherwise you have the nonsense. Really.

    Your opening question was, superficially, a good one. The angle you are adopting in answering it is pseudoscience and will not be tolerated. You have two choices - cease the pseudoscientific content of your posts in this thread, or see this the thread moved to pseudoscience, or the trash can. Your choice.
    You forgot the other one. I might be done here already.

    Provide a single peer reviewed piece of research to substantiate this claim.
    My peers are believers in the spiritual, and those that experienced it. You really want to go there? Remember, Mickey mouse physical only science is limited to the physical. You may not hold the entire universe to it's pitiful, handicapped, limited, little standards. This is news?
    Tell you what. You strike me as such an irreligious bigot, I may not post here again, I will give you a chance to humanize, however. Let's see you put on you best behavior here. Otherwise, bye bye.
    Certainly millions embrace the spirtitual for many reasons, but these are either a) bad reasons,
    Says you. What being a mod means your silly opinion matters more than others??
    or b) not at all the reasons you imagine.
    Prove it. Let's see your peer reviewed stuff on that puppy. What a crock.

    But this is a science forum, where we adhere to the scientific method. If you are going to offer up proofs, they had better meet the standards of science.
    If you want to discuss spiritual things, better get your little turd science up to snuff. As it is, it is in a fishbowl. Don't blame me. If anyone is that thick, as to ask the scientific method to deal with the known, proved, evidenced, tested spiritual, go after them. What mod school did you go to again????

    Superstitious twaddle.
    No, unlike most cosmo fairy tales,- that was observed by us. If you claim it is twaddle, prove it, or you are a twaddler.

    This is the astronomy section of the forum, not the 'Believe and thou shalt be saved' forum.
    Good, then prove the same state past you need, or stop big bang thumping.

    This betrays a comprehensive ignorance of the nature of science and the scientific method. You are correct that science is based upon certain axioms. One of these is that, broadly, the same processes, laws and constants are in effect today, as in the remote past.
    Right, since I pointed it out, you claiming it is ignorant is moronic. Work on that.

    Observation strongly supports these assumptions.
    Bull. Too bad you likely don't have the guts to actually discuss it, and be really exposed and beaten here. You likely will try to silence me.

    Science is ready to abandon these particular assumptions when appropriate.
    Great. Meanwhile don't pawn them off as science, they are assumptions, that are unprovable, unsupportable, untestable, unobserved, and anything but science.

    (Lyell's Principle of Uniformity in geology, for example, has been amended to recognise the importance of catastrophic events in shaping the landscape and the biosphere.) To describe these validated assumptions as myth is, as noted, pure ignorance.
    I see you have no clue as to what the thread is even about. Whatever events happened after the universe was as it is now, is not any issue at all.

    Bye all. I can see this mod has a spiritual helper I don't care to have fire me. I quit first. (Unless the mod here tucks his fangs in, and tail between his legs fast)

    Cheers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Tell you what. You strike me as such an irreligious bigot, I may not post here again, I will give you a chance to humanize, however. Let's see you put on you best behavior here. Otherwise, bye bye.
    We have religious members (dayton tuner and Mitchell McKain spring to mind) who offer reasoned, sober contributions on all manner of subjects, including the spiritual ones. They do this within the context of a scientific forum. It does not seem to create any special problems for them. Obviously a simple request to adhere to sound scientific principles generates a near hysterical response in you. Did I hit that close to the mark?

    An examination of my posts will reveal many wherein I condemn attacks upon religion, as well as my oft stated commitment to agnosticism. Characterising me as an irreligious bigot is, therefore, simply laughable. However, please don't let this misinterpretation of my character halt your plans. And make sure the door does not hit you in the back on the way out.

    I wil take time to deal with one point you raised in your otherwise infantile diatribe. In relation to the constancy of process from the past to the present I observed:
    Observation strongly supports these assumptions.
    You responded:
    Bull. Too bad you likely don't have the guts to actually discuss it, and be really exposed and beaten here. You likely will try to silence me.
    On the contrary, I am quite happy to allow you to speak and publicly reveal your ignorance.

    I'll take a single example, already touched on in my previous post: Lyell's Principle of Uniformity, often expressed as The Present is the Key to the Past.
    And from the huge range of geological data I shall choose a single concept. Sea floor spreading. The notion is that oceanic crust is generated at the mid-ocean ridges and destroyed in subduction zones. From the reversals of polarity known to take place in the Earth's magnetic field we can estimate when, for example, South America split from Africa. And, knowing the distance involved we can calculate the rate of spreading.
    If processes in the past were different from today we would expect that the former rate would be much slower, or much faster than at present. Guess what? When we measure with satellites, the actual rate of movement it is right there where we predicted it would be, based upon what you have chosen to call a mythical assumption. Some myth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    We have religious members (dayton tuner and Mitchell McKain spring to mind) who offer reasoned, sober contributions on all manner of subjects, including the spiritual ones.
    And, of course there is folks like you as well, who prefer to call it science, for some reason.

    They do this within the context of a scientific forum. It does not seem to create any special problems for them. Obviously a simple request to adhere to sound scientific principles generates a near hysterical response in you. Did I hit that close to the mark?
    No, I am not hysterical in the least. You missed by a country mile. The spiritual, newsflash, does not in any way adhere to physical only science principles. get a grip.

    An examination of my posts will reveal many wherein I condemn attacks upon religion, as well as my oft stated commitment to agnosticism. Characterising me as an irreligious bigot is, therefore, simply laughable. However, please don't let this misinterpretation of my character halt your plans. And make sure the door does not hit you in the back on the way out.
    No problem, Have fun howling at the moon, and whistling in the dark, now. You like to call respected and supportable beliefs 'Superstitious twaddle' and come out with threats.


    On the contrary, I am quite happy to allow you to speak and publicly reveal your ignorance.
    Good. We shall see who reveals what. (Assuming your word is of any worth.)

    I'll take a single example, already touched on in my previous post: Lyell's Principle of Uniformity, often expressed as The Present is the Key to the Past.
    And from the huge range of geological data I shall choose a single concept. Sea floor spreading. The notion is that oceanic crust is generated at the mid-ocean ridges and destroyed in subduction zones. From the reversals of polarity known to take place in the Earth's magnetic field we can estimate when, for example, South America split from Africa.
    No, you can't do any such thing. All you can do is use superstitious twaddle to assume that the universe was in this same state, and then assign dates, by the clock set to that fairy tale! Polarity reversals are not something only explained using your premise of the present is the be all end all, not at all. You simply assume that present reversals are the way it always was, when, in actually, if the universe was different, and changed, such reversals also would be par for the course. Also, if there was no decay in the created former state, then, present decay cannot be used to apply to the past either. So your ages are utterly meaningless unless you prove that this universe state we live in existed.
    And, knowing the distance involved we can calculate the rate of spreading.
    Absurd. You talk religion there, as pure as any could be. If the continents separated fast, and we have a little residual movement still going on, we could NOT use that to set the rates. If you claim that they always had to move slow, because they now do, you again need a same state past. You don't have one. Let's see you prove one, or solidly evidence it.

    If processes in the past were different from today we would expect that the former rate would be much slower, or much faster than at present. Guess what? When we measure with satellites, the actual rate of movement it is right there where we predicted it would be, based upon what you have chosen to call a mythical assumption. Some myth.
    But the prediction involves a fantasy world, you seem to forget. All you really do is observe how it now works, and work from there. Guess what, when I measure with satellites, the rate of movement is also where I predict it will be. So??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    We have religious members (dayton tuner and Mitchell McKain spring to mind) who offer reasoned, sober contributions on all manner of subjects, including the spiritual ones.
    And, of course there is folks like you as well, who prefer to call it science, for some reason.
    Prefer to call what science? You are not making any sense. You are also being extremely and persistently rude in the way you are addressing me. If I valued your opinion I would be offended.
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    No, I am not hysterical in the least. You missed by a country mile. The spiritual, newsflash, does not in any way adhere to physical only science principles. get a grip.
    I did not say that it did. I pointed out - and I do so again - that this is a science forum. We shall discuss matters here in a scientific fashion. The two indviduals I cited (dayton and Mitchell) are two spiritual individuals, in any sense of the word. They have no difficulty discussing spiritual and scientific matters in a logical, thoughtful, scientific context. Unless you have some mental limitations we are unaware of I expect the same from you.
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    No problem, Have fun howling at the moon, and whistling in the dark, now. You like to call respected and supportable beliefs 'Superstitious twaddle' and come out with threats.
    It is my immense respect for the spiritual that causes me characterise belief in Christ's physical resurection, or walking on water, etc superstitious twaddle. You will not proselytise your minority religion in a thread on astronomy. I am not issuing a threat. I don't threaten. I'm simply telling you how it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Good. We shall see who reveals what. (Assuming your word is of any worth.)
    I am allowing you to continue you with these ad hominems since they show you in a much worse light than they show me.
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    No, you can't do any such thing. All you can do is use superstitious twaddle to assume that the universe was in this same state, and then assign dates, by the clock set to that fairy tale! Polarity reversals are not something only explained using your premise of the present is the be all end all, not at all. You simply assume that present reversals are the way it always was, when, in actually, if the universe was different, and changed, such reversals also would be par for the course. Also, if there was no decay in the created former state, then, present decay cannot be used to apply to the past either. So your ages are utterly meaningless unless you prove that this universe state we live in existed.
    My apologies. I hadn't realised just how thick you are. The above nonsense simply reveals a total failure to understand anything and a determination not to risk understanding anything. Your mind is closed.
    Please do honour your commitment to leave this forum. It is unlikely I shall waste anymore time on you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Prefer to call what science? You are not making any sense. You are also being extremely and persistently rude in the way you are addressing me. If I valued your opinion I would be offended.
    Prefer to call what this thread was discussing science. Let me see, you say I am rude, then proceed to say you disrespect my opinion OK.

    I did not say that it did. I pointed out - and I do so again - that this is a science forum. We shall discuss matters here in a scientific fashion.
    Good, then why not discuss how you can evidence a same state past universe?? And do so in a scientific fashion.


    The two indviduals I cited (dayton and Mitchell) are two spiritual individuals, in any sense of the word. They have no difficulty discussing spiritual and scientific matters in a logical, thoughtful, scientific context. Unless you have some mental limitations we are unaware of I expect the same from you.
    You seem to feel that science is well justified in claiming a same state universe in the past. Such claims should be evidenced, as many on science forums do. Unless you have some mental limitations we are unaware of I expect the same from you.

    It is my immense respect for the spiritual that causes me characterise belief in Christ's physical resurection, or walking on water, etc superstitious twaddle.
    Excuse me? This is a science forum. What are you going on about religion for? And in a negative way at that? If you claim someone walked on water, or not, show us the science.

    You will not proselytise your minority religion in a thread on astronomy. I am not issuing a threat. I don't threaten. I'm simply telling you how it is.
    Belief in the spiritual, for your information is the majority belief. That is how it is. Unless you back up your so called science claims of a same state universe in the past, you are proselytizing your minority religion in a thread on astronomy. And did I hear you are a mod??? Hang your head in shame.

    I am allowing you to continue you with these ad hominems since they show you in a much worse light than they show me.
    Hey, what is with the personal attacks here???? Just stick to science please, and support that same past universe claim.


    My apologies. I hadn't realised just how thick you are.
    There you go again with the ad hominems. If you claim that the universe was the same, simply prove it. No need to try and get personal.


    The above nonsense simply reveals a total failure to understand anything and a determination not to risk understanding anything. Your mind is closed.
    Not to the facts, despite your petty insults. Can't you be a man, and back up your own claims, and cut the insults?

    Please do honour your commitment to leave this forum. It is unlikely I shall waste anymore time on you.
    No. I prefer to expose whether your word is any good. I already said my goodbyes, so why not leave in a way that shows you have no case as I said here? Obviously, or you could discuss it reasonably, and support it. I also was tempted to 'quit before I got fired', but, since you claimed to be so fair minded, and said you would not cut me off, why not let it play out, so all can see what is really going on here???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    You are making absolutely no sense whatsoever. Arrividerci.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    You are making absolutely no sense whatsoever. Arrividerci.
    Great. C ya. Not that you addressed the topic much anyhow, but thanks for stopping in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Good, then why not discuss how you can evidence a same state past universe?? And do so in a scientific fashion.
    What do you mean by a 'same state universe'? Are you referring to a SSU?

    I believe is a SSU that has more evidence for its existence than a BBU that has no 'real' evidence for its wide spread acceptence among the credited scientists. The BBU is 'power science' in my opinion.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66 Duplicate port. Delete 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    This was a duplicate post. So I deleted it.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Cosmo; Am sure he/she means Steady or as in Same, to him/her.

    In case don't talk at you for awhile...An early Happy Birthday wish for you in a few days...."another 90" not realistic, but get as many as you can....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Good, then why not discuss how you can evidence a same state past universe?? And do so in a scientific fashion.
    What do you mean by a 'same state universe'? Are you referring to a SSU?

    I believe is a SSU that has more evidence for its existence than a BBU that has no 'real' evidence for its wide spread acceptence among the credited scientists. The BBU is 'power science' in my opinion.

    Cosmo
    No. I meant that we now have a certain fabric of the universe, and laws, and forces, etc. Let's call it the present state. I have never seen anyone prove that the far past universe was this state at all.

    Some people of faith believe for example, that there will one day be a new universe, or heavens, and that this universe will be no more. Yet they still envision trees, and people, the earth, sun, etc etc. But in an eternal state, not one, for example, in decay as this state universe matter generally is.
    How would science know if the past also was in some sort of created state that was far different fundamentally than ours?? All science does is ASSUME it was the same. They assume that the present is the key to the past. I assume that it is not. Assumptions aside, what can we solidly evidence? The answer, as far as I can tell, is NOT a present state in the far past. We by science, basically do not know. Period. Therefore, making claims based only on assuming it was the same, not being able to prove it, amounts to myth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Cosmo; Am sure he/she means Steady or as in Same, to him/her.

    In case don't talk at you for awhile...An early Happy Birthday wish for you in a few days...."another 90" not realistic, but get as many as you can....
    Thanks. I hope to pass a hundred years. That would give me an oppor tunity to see the NGST (or is that the JWST?) and any subsequent observations.
    I am certain that those observations will debunk the BBU for good.
    The Hubble Deep Fields are already creating problems such as giant galaxies with redshifts of 6+ and other galaxies having iron cntent
    (another poster on another site) that the BB cannot explain at those time periods.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70 This is another duplicate post 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Duplicate post again. I deleted it.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Well, I too hope to make 2013 or see results from the James Webb. Fear it will be delayed.

    Yes I have seen the reports on distant thought make up of matter. In short it infers a much older age. I like to use our solar system, which was nearly 100% hydrogen when formed, yet had to be debris from other stars, which infers regeneration of helium and other matter. Regeneration a prime argument against SSU...stability of elements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation; You continue to confuse me on which faith you could possibly be expressing. I am only vaguely familiar with a couple Hindu philosophies which could be where your coming from. Is that it??? The problem here would be your stance on Social issues, which could not come from them...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation; You continue to confuse me on which faith you could possibly be expressing. I am only vaguely familiar with a couple Hindu philosophies which could be where your coming from. Is that it??? The problem here would be your stance on Social issues, which could not come from them...
    It doesn't matter what faith if any I have or not. What matters is that the claims of science are faith based, concerning the distant past, unless you can prove a same state past. Since it can't, we should remember to call it a myth.
    Real science is confined to the present.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation; You continue to confuse me on which faith you could possibly be expressing. I am only vaguely familiar with a couple Hindu philosophies which could be where your coming from. Is that it??? The problem here would be your stance on Social issues, which could not come from them...
    It doesn't matter what faith if any I have or not. What matters is that the claims of science are faith based, concerning the distant past, unless you can prove a same state past. Since it can't, we should remember to call it a myth.
    Real science is confined to the present.
    You either are incredibly ignorant or you don't have a shred of academic integrity. How do you think SCIENCE WORKS AT ALL if not based on the fact that the laws of the universe do not change. Science is BASED on repeatability and the fact that science's track record is so outstanding with results you can see, hear, smell, and type on speaks for itself. Your position is classic Last Thursdayism which no one with an ounce of intellect takes seriously. Including most creationists.
    When I drop a ball one million times, record the results, deduct the law it follows, and observe the planets and realize they follow the same law - it is not FAITH that enables me to "believe" that when I drop the ball for the million-and-first time, it'll drop again. It's called having a brain.
    Your definition of "faith" shoehorns in absolutely every possible belief about all things, making it as useless as your opinion is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Creation

    See this site from page 4 of Astronomy and Cosmology:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Stead...erse-1351t.php

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation; You continue to confuse me on which faith you could possibly be expressing. I am only vaguely familiar with a couple Hindu philosophies which could be where your coming from. Is that it??? The problem here would be your stance on Social issues, which could not come from them...
    It doesn't matter what faith if any I have or not. What matters is that the claims of science are faith based, concerning the distant past, unless you can prove a same state past. Since it can't, we should remember to call it a myth.
    Real science is confined to the present.
    Technology is confined to the present and built on science, which by nature must have a past to confirm the present.

    On cosmology; We have already gone over the images offered by NASA which gives a clear picture of what thing were in fact 1-2-8-10 BILLION years ago. Other instruments using X-rays and other energy have offered additional history. What more do you require to see at least some historical value to what exist today and then...

    Science is not faith based, people in science may be and often do look for and evaluate evidence to prove a personal point. Think half my post have argued this point, but this doesn't mean by any means, all go this route.

    Just in case; Steady State Universe, has several understandings, no less than Big Bang Theory. Personally I prefer to track and accept SSU, for a number of reasons based on what makes sense to what I was taught which admittedly was pre BBT acceptance. Cosmo has offered his view which under his previous handle (name). The number one issue, that the Universe known or not (known being observable) has always existed. That stars form from the old debris of dead stars, galaxy are always evolving (Adding or joining another), elements can regenerate and gravity controls the flow of all, which by the way is very fast flow. We can and do disagree on some issues. Fred Hoyle, mentioned by Cosmo, was one of the first to argue BBT, using SSU. In fact he gave the name Big Bang to the theory. He did feel the Universe was increasing in size, but used inflationary, not expansion the reaction of the action BB. Personally I have no guess at this time, but feel it could be expanding similar to the reasons any single galaxy does..Its said there are 2 billion known galaxy with untold unknown and thats a lot of mass in motion to be contained...IMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation; You continue to confuse me on which faith you could possibly be expressing. I am only vaguely familiar with a couple Hindu philosophies which could be where your coming from. Is that it??? The problem here would be your stance on Social issues, which could not come from them...
    It doesn't matter what faith if any I have or not. What matters is that the claims of science are faith based, concerning the distant past, unless you can prove a same state past. Since it can't, we should remember to call it a myth.
    Real science is confined to the present.
    Not really: you have to remember that science is actually peering into the past as other posters have mentioned. And let's start with hyperfine split spectral lines for example. Astronomers can use spectroscopy on multiaged stars and in all cases these hyperfine split spectral lines will give the speed of light. And, as you might guess, the speed of light is the same from all stars! In other words, in all stars, whether they are a few light years away or millions, you get that the speed of light is the speed of light. Astronomers would have noticed years and years ago if there was variability through time and space on constants such as these...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Whisper9999

    Not really: you have to remember that science is actually peering into the past as other posters have mentioned.
    Obviously, but, as I mentioned, how far into the past?
    And let's start with hyperfine split spectral lines for example. Astronomers can use spectroscopy on multiaged stars and in all cases these hyperfine split spectral lines will give the speed of light. And, as you might guess, the speed of light is the same from all stars! In other words, in all stars, whether they are a few light years away or millions, you get that the speed of light is the speed of light. Astronomers would have noticed years and years ago if there was variability through time and space on constants such as these...
    Thanks for expounding your misunderstanding of what I think. I think that the universe is now in this state. The far away universe falls into that category, unless evidence indicated otherwise. Why would it be a surprise how light speed is in this present universe, close or far?? If the universe was different, then, you need to look at when it was different, and how fast the light of the time got around then. Not now, close or far away.
    That means your point is moot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Whisper9999

    Not really: you have to remember that science is actually peering into the past as other posters have mentioned.
    Obviously, but, as I mentioned, how far into the past?
    And let's start with hyperfine split spectral lines for example. Astronomers can use spectroscopy on multiaged stars and in all cases these hyperfine split spectral lines will give the speed of light. And, as you might guess, the speed of light is the same from all stars! In other words, in all stars, whether they are a few light years away or millions, you get that the speed of light is the speed of light. Astronomers would have noticed years and years ago if there was variability through time and space on constants such as these...
    Thanks for expounding your misunderstanding of what I think. I think that the universe is now in this state. The far away universe falls into that category, unless evidence indicated otherwise. Why would it be a surprise how light speed is in this present universe, close or far?? If the universe was different, then, you need to look at when it was different, and how fast the light of the time got around then. Not now, close or far away.
    That means your point is moot.
    My apologies. If you were talking about a different universe, then you're right: we can speculate almost anything...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Whisper9999
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Whisper9999

    Not really: you have to remember that science is actually peering into the past as other posters have mentioned.
    Obviously, but, as I mentioned, how far into the past?
    And let's start with hyperfine split spectral lines for example. Astronomers can use spectroscopy on multiaged stars and in all cases these hyperfine split spectral lines will give the speed of light. And, as you might guess, the speed of light is the same from all stars! In other words, in all stars, whether they are a few light years away or millions, you get that the speed of light is the speed of light. Astronomers would have noticed years and years ago if there was variability through time and space on constants such as these...
    Thanks for expounding your misunderstanding of what I think. I think that the universe is now in this state. The far away universe falls into that category, unless evidence indicated otherwise. Why would it be a surprise how light speed is in this present universe, close or far?? If the universe was different, then, you need to look at when it was different, and how fast the light of the time got around then. Not now, close or far away.
    That means your point is moot.
    My apologies. If you were talking about a different universe, then you're right: we can speculate almost anything...
    Well, yes, such as speculate it was and will be the same as now. Just don't call it science, and we'll be alright.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Obviously, but, as I mentioned, how far into the past?
    Billions of years - that not good enough for ya?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Obviously, but, as I mentioned, how far into the past?
    Billions of years - that not good enough for ya?
    That is ridiculous. Circular reasoning, and logic. The claims that say things are old are based on a same state of the universe, that no one has a clue about. So, no, that myth is certainly not good enough for me, any more than saying the toothfairydidit.
    If you, on the other hand, had some evidence that was solid, and testable, and repeatable, and actually observed, that would be science. Do you have any such things for a claim of what the universe state in the future, or past was or will be like?
    Remember, we don't just assume, and proceed from there, in a present based state extrapolation backwards, into the mystic. If that is all you do, you have a myth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Obviously, but, as I mentioned, how far into the past?
    Billions of years - that not good enough for ya?
    That is ridiculous. Circular reasoning, and logic. The claims that say things are old are based on a same state of the universe, that no one has a clue about. So, no, that myth is certainly not good enough for me, any more than saying the toothfairydidit.
    If you, on the other hand, had some evidence that was solid, and testable, and repeatable, and actually observed, that would be science. Do you have any such things for a claim of what the universe state in the future, or past was or will be like?
    Remember, we don't just assume, and proceed from there, in a present based state extrapolation backwards, into the mystic. If that is all you do, you have a myth.
    Like I said, this is classic Last Thursdayism bullshit. For all you know the universe was created last Thursday. For all you know your parents are aliens. For all you know the God you worship is actually a piece of bacon I shat out 3 weeks ago. You open quite a can of worms when you toss out the "You can't just ASSUME the universe is in the "same state" it used to be". It's intellectually bankrupt as is your entire position for that reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino


    Like I said, this is classic Last Thursdayism bullshit.
    That's nice. Try to sound debonair, when you have no idea what you are talking about. The only last week type BS, is your old age falsely called science myth. There is a lot more proof of last week, than the BS same state universe you preach. Go play in the minor leagues. They might be impressed with stuff of your caliber.


    For all you know the universe was created last Thursday.
    Please. There are adults here. Many of us know lots of evidences that there was a last week. I know a lot better than that kindergarten nonsense. There are observations, which is something you don't have for your myth.

    For all you know your parents are aliens.
    Nonsense, many of us have met our parents. Just because I question the unproven mother of all assumptions, that you base a fantasy world on, is no reason to question things that are actually known. Learn the difference.



    For all you know the God you worship is actually a piece of bacon I shat out 3 weeks ago.
    I know a lot better than that, as do billions of others over time. But thanks for showing us all where you are coming from. Really.

    You open quite a can of worms when you toss out the "You can't just ASSUME the universe is in the "same state" it used to be".
    Thank you. You are busted.

    It's intellectually bankrupt as is your entire position for that reason.
    Great. Glad to hear that. Now then, so end the thing fast here, and prove that BS same state universe in the past, now will you???

    I guarantee you can't. Maybe you should start hunting for aliens, or some such, where actual facts doesn't mess up your claims. I mean that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    If you want to include some content in your post that'd be nice, it's hard to respond to "u r teh stoopid" 4-5 times in one post. I'll try though -
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    The only last week type BS, is your old age falsely called science myth. There is a lot more proof of last week, than the BS same state universe you preach. Many of us know lots of evidences that there was a last week.
    Well if the universe were created last Thursday you wouldn't know any better. It was created complete with memories, unless you don't consider those part of the universe. But there's no reason to speculate such nonsense seriously which is where I draw a comparison with your position.
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Now then, so end the thing fast here, and prove that BS same state universe in the past, now will you???
    I guarantee you can't.
    Again you betray your ignorance of science. I can't prove that the speed of light or other constants have remained constant throughout the history of the universe. In fact I concede that certain constants may have changed slightly over time. But the slight changes that reality and observation allow for are nowhere near the kind of changes you imply if your "point" is to have any validity. If the speed of light for example changed by a factor of a million, it would leave evidence. There is none.
    So I ask you - what reason is there to think that massive changes to reality may have occured? What mechanism could there possibly be to account for such a change?
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    For all you know the God you worship is actually a piece of bacon I shat out 3 weeks ago.
    I know a lot better than that, as do billions of others over time.
    Oh really? You know better than that? Hypocrite alert! You sit here asking me for PROOF that the laws of the unvierse have not massively changed at some point (mere observational evidence isn't good enough, you require some impossible burden of proof) yet you refuse to admit that your own personal speculation about God could possibly be incorrect. Because you know better. Well, where's YOUR proof?
    Or is it only science (which doesn't usually deal in proof) that requires it?
    I'll take science - observational evidence without proof - ANYDAY over your pure speculation without proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Well if the universe were created last Thursday you wouldn't know any better. It was created complete with memories, unless you don't consider those part of the universe.
    Baloney. Those that don't know reality from the tooth fairy might find that a challenge.


    But there's no reason to speculate such nonsense seriously which is where I draw a comparison with your position.
    The comparison is lame, because we have proof of last week in thousands of real ways. At least reasonable proofs. You have nothing for your same state universe in the past claim. Nothing at all. Think about it.

    Again you betray your ignorance of science. I can't prove that the speed of light or other constants have remained constant throughout the history of the universe.

    No one asked you to. I assume that out light in this universe state was constant since it came to be. The question is, when was that? The change is not IN our universe, but our universe is the change.

    In fact I concede that certain constants may have changed slightly over time. But the slight changes that reality and observation allow for are nowhere near the kind of changes you imply if your "point" is to have any validity. If the speed of light for example changed by a factor of a million, it would leave evidence. There is none.

    My point as well. So? Try to focus here. Our light has nothing to do with the state of the universe in the far past. We have assumed it does.

    So I ask you - what reason is there to think that massive changes to reality may have occured? What mechanism could there possibly be to account for such a change?
    Whatever it was, the fact is, science can't know, because it is a creature of this present universe only. Therefore, we must admit science is ignorant about either a change in the state of the universe, or no change in it, either one. It is merely assumed that it was and will be the same. Since this is a science forum, it may not be the place to see which myth among men best fits the evidences, where science cannot go. (here are a few ideas on the matter, you should see what I mean, that I don't want to bring them into a science forum http://www.geocities.com/heddidit/ )

    Oh really? You know better than that? Hypocrite alert! You sit here asking me for PROOF that the laws of the unvierse have not massively changed at some point (mere observational evidence isn't good enough,
    Name calling aside, you HAVE no observational evidence! Remember, that all you can observe is in this universe, and is, far as we know, in the same state, and under the same laws. Therefore you do not observe the past universe state, or the future.
    you require some impossible burden of proof) yet you refuse to admit that your own personal speculation about God could possibly be incorrect.
    Why would God enter the picture here? How is He to blame all of a sudden for your false science claims??? If this were not a science forum, we could discuss how the world abounds in proofs, and observations, and testings, and knowledge of God. But, here, we simply display your severe limitations about what you can test, observe, and know about the universe state out of the little fishbowl of the present. If you could prove it, you would. You can't. That suits me just fine, I have my own myths, thank you very much.


    Because you know better. Well, where's YOUR proof?
    Science can't prove either one. So I need no science proof, unless I, like you do, make a science claim. You must pony up. Or admit your so called science claims of the past are bogus, and mere myth.
    Or is it only science (which doesn't usually deal in proof) that requires it?
    It deals in knowing. It knows by testing, and being able to repeat that test. Also by observations, and other evidences. You have nothing at all for the foundational assumption upon which ALL old age claims rests.
    I think anyone that can read here should begin to realize I am absolutely correct on that. You don't. Now, go do the right thing.

    I'll take science - observational evidence without proof - ANYDAY over your pure speculation without proof.
    You don't know anything about the history of our universe, save for the present state of it. You have only assumed it was the same. Observations of man began with the Sumerians, and Egyptians, more or less, no?? Anything you say before that, unless the universe was the same then as well, is speculation. Looking at Sumer records, it seems they talk of long lifespans, and a few things, that sound different than today. Why not admit we don't know?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    I assume that out light in this universe state was constant since it came to be. The question is, when was that? The change is not IN our universe, but our universe is the change. Our light has nothing to do with the state of the universe in the far past. We have assumed it does.
    Wait a second - the speed of light is DIRECTLY related to what you're talking about. If you believe that the speed of light has been constant then HOW CAN YOU NOT ALSO CONCEDE that we have direct observational evidence of the past universe? Do you not understand the connection? If the speed of light isn't what you're talking about stop saying such meaningless, generic things like "universe state" and BE MORE SPECIFIC.
    Whatever it was, the fact is, science can't know, because it is a creature of this present universe only. Therefore, we must admit science is ignorant about either a change in the state of the universe, or no change in it, either one. It is merely assumed that it was and will be the same. Since this is a science forum, it may not be the place to see which myth among men best fits the evidences, where science cannot go.
    Again, I am forced to believe that you don't understand the implications of what you are saying. If you believe the SOL is constant - how exactly is it an assumption that things work the same now as they used to, if we're staring at it every day.

    2 questions - can you define exactly what you mean by "present universe"? You claim that's the only thing we're able to actually observe but that doesn't make any sense. Please define it for me. Also you keep saying "the universe state" or something like that and saying we assume it's the same as in the past. What the hell do you mean by that exactly, if not for the values of constants like the speed of light?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino

    Wait a second - the speed of light is DIRECTLY related to what you're talking about.
    Nope, not the speed of our light.

    If you believe that the speed of light has been constant then HOW CAN YOU NOT ALSO CONCEDE that we have direct observational evidence of the past universe?
    Easy. It has only been constant SINCE it came to exist. That would be at the time this state of universe started to exist. If there was a different state universe, with it's different light, before that, then we can't hold it to our laws, and speed limits.


    Do you not understand the connection? If the speed of light isn't what you're talking about stop saying such meaningless, generic things like "universe state" and BE MORE SPECIFIC.
    The speed of our light is not an issue, unless it was our light here at the time. If the universe was different, then the light was different. We don't know. Historical documentary evidences of the bible, for example, record how light supposedly reached man very fast, from far stars.



    Again, I am forced to believe that you don't understand the implications of what you are saying. If you believe the SOL is constant - how exactly is it an assumption that things work the same now as they used to, if we're staring at it every day.
    Because if we were left in this temporary state universe, from another state, where there was a different light, that had near unlimited speeds compared to our light today, then how our present form of light works, in this present time and space fabric universe, doesn't matter. That is why it would be essential to your case to be able to prove there was a same state universe, if you base all claims on it. Otherwise, you have mere myth.

    2 questions - can you define exactly what you mean by "present universe"?
    Sure. The universe we live in, and it's physics laws, fundamental forces, gravity, light, etc. The only universe man has known, it seems since recorded history began, thousands of years ago. This is our present universe. Before that, who knows? Back in the time some call pre flood, or others call pre history.

    You claim that's the only thing we're able to actually observe but that doesn't make any sense.
    What else could we observe but the universe we live in? We can't observe the future universe state, or the far past state of the universe. Even science appeals to different laws, when they get down to the so called singularity. If they can do it, so can I.

    Please define it for me. Also you keep saying "the universe state" or something like that and saying we assume it's the same as in the past. What the hell do you mean by that exactly, if not for the values of constants like the speed of light?
    I tried to clear that up a while ago, by some comparisons with the bible future. But a mod had a kiniption, at the mention of God, or anything of that nature, I guess. So I try to avoid that now.
    Briefly, the different future new universe described there, as an example has very different laws than this universe state. I have wondered why not have it's past created universe also different? I looked at all that science can say about it, I think, and found, that they have nothing at all to say about it. They have simply assumed the universe was the same and will be. If you don't believe me, google 'the sun will burn out billion years'

    Science does say our sun will cease to exist, because they assume the future is the same. Here is the first link I got with that.

    "The stars, the sun and the earth will die -- evaporating into radiation -- and there will be no light, only a vast soup of subatomic particles."

    http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9701/15/end.universe/

    To me, that is silly prophesy. No more than a pure statement of blind faith and religion, that this universe will always only be as we have known it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    If you believe that the speed of light has been constant then HOW CAN YOU NOT ALSO CONCEDE that we have direct observational evidence of the past universe?
    Easy. It has only been constant SINCE it came to exist. That would be at the time this state of universe started to exist. If there was a different state universe, with it's different light, before that, then we can't hold it to our laws, and speed limits.
    Well there's shit entering our telescopes from billions of years ago and from the oldest to the newest there sure doesn't seem to be anything different. Are you suggesting the light, en route already, changed properties?

    What else could we observe but the universe we live in? We can't observe the future universe state, or the far past state of the universe. Even science appeals to different laws, when they get down to the so called singularity. If they can do it, so can I.
    Yeah...that's how science works...it's based on repeatability. If mankind had your attitude we'd get absolutely nowhere because there'd be no use doing science. No sense studying the stars - no sense making predictions - it's all based on assumptions and things might change tomorrow, or may have changed years ago. That's a 100% useless way of looking at things.
    Fortunately most people are rational and realize that observation is consistent with a universe which does seem to behave consistently, and we've made the progress that we have.
    You only seem to be happy with something you can hold directly in your hands and see directly with your own eyes.
    Which makes your belief in God rather curious, I must say.
    You'd probably have been much happier living in the dark ages.
    So where do you draw the line exactly? You obviously don't like the data we gather from stars which are millions of light years away. Too much assumption there. What about stars 100,000 light years away, is that recent enough to rely on? What about 5 light years? How about our own sun, whose light takes 8 minutes to reach us?
    So wherever you draw the line, what do you make of the fact that data seems consistent across the board?

    Science does say our sun will cease to exist, because they assume the future is the same
    Yeah stellar evolution is pretty well understood. What reason do we have to think the sun won't follow the same behavior we observe in other stars and observe in the sun itself?
    I tell you one thing though, if we were living at the point where our sun did start to go red giant on us I bet you'd be the first person on the shuttlecraft to our neighboring star system. I suppose you *could* be dumb enough to say "We just ASSUME the sun will run out of fuel, I'm staying put. Jesus <3's me".
    Have fun turning into a crispy critter
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino

    Well there's shit entering our telescopes from billions of years ago and from the oldest to the newest there sure doesn't seem to be anything different.
    Only the stuff you make up. All that really enters it is light.

    Are you suggesting the light, en route already, changed properties?
    No. Our light never changed properties, since it came to be. The stuff that did change was beyond present science, and we were left with what part of light could exist in a temporal universe that was physical only.


    Yeah...that's how science works...it's based on repeatability.
    You have none of that for the same state past myth. Pity, that.

    If mankind had your attitude we'd get absolutely nowhere because there'd be no use doing science.
    Nonsense, we would get a lot further, because we wouldn't be weighed down with the false science mixed with the actual science. Like a runner without the weights.

    No sense studying the stars - no sense making predictions -
    Well, you can study how our universe works now, but keep your silly predictions based only on myth. Long as your predictions are within the little fishbowl of the present, fine. Thus far, and no further, you shall not pass. You can't Buzz Lightyear your myth to infinity and beyond, as much as you would like to.
    it's all based on assumptions and things might change tomorrow, or may have changed years ago.
    Yours is all based on assumptions and things might not change tomorrow, or may not have changed years ago. How useless, and absolutely not science.

    That's a 100% useless way of looking at things.
    I agree. When it is based on nothing, as your myth is! Unlike other beliefs, more well founded.

    Fortunately most people are rational and realize that observation is consistent with a universe which does seem to behave consistently, and we've made the progress that we have.
    Don't blame progress on your myth now, that is insane. Progress was made in this present state, understanding how it works, and that info is good here, in the real world. Not in your made up la la land past, which is nothing but the stuff of dreams.


    You only seem to be happy with something you can hold directly in your hands and see directly with your own eyes.
    Dealing in reality is a fault in your philosophy then. Fine. No wonder your myth has the entire universe in a speck o soup so small, it could fit in a pore on your nose.


    Which makes your belief in God rather curious, I must say.
    You'd probably have been much happier living in the dark ages.
    People in the dark ages thought they were clever, no doubt, as you do. I say this is the darkest age of man. I suppose I am happy enough here. Not wallowing in that darkness, mind you, but exposing it.

    So where do you draw the line exactly? You obviously don't like the data we gather from stars which are millions of light years away. Too much assumption there. What about stars 100,000 light years away, is that recent enough to rely on? What about 5 light years? How about our own sun, whose light takes 8 minutes to reach us?
    Distance has nothing at all to do with it! Our universe apparently close or far has our present slow light.

    So wherever you draw the line, what do you make of the fact that data seems consistent across the board?
    Why would it NOT be????? We live in a certain state universe now, all of it changed, far as we can tell.


    Yeah stellar evolution is pretty well understood. What reason do we have to think the sun won't follow the same behavior we observe in other stars and observe in the sun itself?
    There is no reason to say it will. Stellar evolution is a crock. Taking a few dying stars, and assuming that all will die, because this state is forever is baseless religion.

    I tell you one thing though, if we were living at the point where our sun did start to go red giant on us I bet you'd be the first person on the shuttlecraft to our neighboring star system.
    Baseless fears. Balderdash. Our sun is fine, and always will be.

    I suppose you *could* be dumb enough to say "We just ASSUME the sun will run out of fuel, I'm staying put. Jesus <3's me".
    Have fun turning into a crispy critter
    Only in your dreams. That is funny. Not only do you puplit pound your myth, but offer prophesies of a dying universe, and hell fire of a dying sun. Get serious. Try and stick to facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    If I may interject, Creation, are you saying that our understanding of how stars work is fundamentally flawed? Do you have an alternative explanation or do you go with "we don't and can't know"?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    If I may interject, Creation, are you saying that our understanding of how stars work is fundamentally flawed? Do you have an alternative explanation or do you go with "we don't and can't know"?
    That depends on what you mean by how they work. If you mean how they now work, why, we may have a bit of a handle on that. The problem is in the assuming it always worked like that.
    Therefore, if it all, say, started as a created universe, in some state or other, then changed, we would not know, cause we measure all from here. That means that we really should not extrapolate present processes, etc all the way back in our mind, as if they were responsible for, or part of, the actual creation.
    We may see them work just fine now, the error comes in trying to apply that to infinity and beyond just because we figure it is all we know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Ok. So if we have a "handle on it" of how the stars work now, would that not suggest that our sun will run out of fuel sometime in the future? Also, the light we get from stars that are billions of light years away: Do you contend that they are in fact not that far distant and the light we receive and by extension the information we are able gather about them, are more recent than we have assumed up to now? Or are they maybe that distant, but that the properties of light might have changed recently for all we know and we may be interpreting the information wrong?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7
    Heres an idea to think about. Suns attract time. Once you have left the milky way galaxy you then enter a time with no change or a slower decreasing change rate. With less light and radiation the less space for heat and steady increasing change.

    When astronauts go into space they need to exercise more then an hour in space time. Are their bodies changing at different rates or is space just having a different affect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Your bones lose mass in space, because there is no net gravity effect. It works in a positive reinforcement kind of way. If your bones bare weight, your body strengthens them to be able to carry the weight. So when you exercise in space, you put a load on the skeleton, so it stays dense. It does not work 100% though, so you can’t stay in zero gravity for ever.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Ok. So if we have a "handle on it" of how the stars work now, would that not suggest that our sun will run out of fuel sometime in the future?
    Not at all, that is simply assuming it will work this way for billions of years. There is no evidence of that any more than reading tea leaves.

    Also, the light we get from stars that are billions of light years away: Do you contend that they are in fact not that far distant and the light we receive and by extension the information we are able gather about them, are more recent than we have assumed up to now? Or are they maybe that distant, but that the properties of light might have changed recently for all we know and we may be interpreting the information wrong?
    [/quote]
    The latter is closer to it. I think that our universe has a certain light, and a different universe stat has another light. Not the same stuff, or the same universe laws to get around in. So, the question is was the universe different or the same? The answer, as far as science goes, is, we have no idea. Therefore all claims, like big bang, universe expansion, stellar evolution, etc etc are based on only a myth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Are you suggesting then that all research concerning the distant past and distant future be stopped? Has any evidence come to light (excuse the pun) recently to suggest that such a change in the laws has happened in the past? Do you think that light en-route to us for a billion years might have changed it’s nature halfway through?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Are you suggesting then that all research concerning the distant past and distant future be stopped?
    First it needs to get started. That means it needs to deal with the state of the future, or the far past, and have some inkling what that is! You ain't got there yet.

    Has any evidence come to light (excuse the pun) recently to suggest that such a change in the laws has happened in the past?

    What are "the laws"??? Present laws? No one says there was a change IN them.
    Do you think that light en-route to us for a billion years might have changed it’s nature halfway through?
    No. Our light was not anywhere doing anything, or going anywhere. The different universe light of the time was. Our light IS the change. It is all science knows, and has assumed that this was more than a temporary state. Yet, when it suits them, they do call this a temporary state universe, although they try and fit it in the same past myth.

    Example..

    "The universe as we know it, with stars and planets and life, is only temporary..."

    http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9701/15/end.universe/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7
    I'm carious as to what the space in between galaxies is called because I believe without rotation of planets and the simply laws of attraction there is no law, there is only the fourth dimension. The fourth dimension is anti-life, without the correct amount of light and radiation, no matter can live. Unless the o-so bending gravity is made of some type particle matter that can sustain lifeforms with tampered technology. Hence Space ships are tampered biotechnology. But the rations can only last so long in a space ship. I wonder if molecules can be reproduced in the chemical reaction that takes energy and reverses its effect, but if energy is an example of time then it can't be reversed. Freezing is the anti-energy. So maybe gravity is a type of freezing particle pushing against the heat the plants and sun produce and eventually is life span will fail like a space ship would, it's just the matter of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by GreeneggsanHam
    I'm carious as to what the space in between galaxies is called because I believe without rotation of planets and the simply laws of attraction there is no law, there is only the fourth dimension. The fourth dimension is anti-life, without the correct amount of light and radiation, no matter can live. Unless the o-so bending gravity is made of some type particle matter that can sustain lifeforms with tampered technology. Hence Space ships are tampered biotechnology. But the rations can only last so long in a space ship. I wonder if molecules can be reproduced in the chemical reaction that takes energy and reverses its effect, but if energy is an example of time then it can't be reversed. Freezing is the anti-energy. So maybe gravity is a type of freezing particle pushing against the heat the plants and sun produce and eventually is life span will fail like a space ship would, it's just the matter of time.
    Freezing is anti energy? So I guess strange things go on in your fridge?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •