Prev: Consciousness causes WF collapse = god
Next:  I'm tempted to leave Alt.Astronomy to its folly.
From: bert on 11 Apr 2010 13:30
On Apr 11, 12:06 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 6:35 am, "Ala" <alackr...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:hov9l6$a77$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org...
>
> > > "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote in message
> > >news:4bb28119$0$31017$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> > >>> There is a grand total of ZERO evidence that
> > >>> any aliens have ever visited the earth. Belief
> > >>> without evidence is religion.
>
> > >>       $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> > >> Two things to remember as you spout your absolutist
> > >> thoughts... 1) There actually *is* evidence that you
> > >> either close your eyes to or simply do not accept.  The
> > >> evidence that exists can in no way, shape or form be
> > >> construed to be "hard evidence"; however, if there
> > >> were no "soft evidence", then there would not be any
> > >> sheepish believers.
>
> > >> and 2) It is true that "belief without evidence", that
> > >> which must be taken upon faith and faith alone, "is
> > >> religion".  However, not all believers take their ideas
> > >> as being "non-evidence based".  You, for example.
> > >> You believe that there was a "Big Bang" beginning of
> > >> the Universe.  While the prevailing evidence strongly
> > >> suggests that your "belief" is true, this in itself does
> > >> not mean that you are any less "religious" about the
> > >> belief that the Universe must have formed from...
>
> > >>                           N O T H I N G
>
> > >> To prove me wrong, you will have to define "nothing".
> > >> No one has ever been able to do this to my satisfaction.
> > >> So, good luck with that.
>
> > > You start with a false premise and expect me to defend it?
>
> > > This is a classic strawman.
>
> > > The bottom line is that the universe did NOT start from
> > > 'nothing' and I have NEVER stated it did.
>
> > > The universe started from a singularity, from which came
> > > everything that now exists. All space, all time and all energy.
>
> > It was a pleasure to attend.  I would not have missed it for nothing.
>
> > Did you furniture arrive?
>
> So why did your HVAC approved god(s) screw up?
>
>  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Reality is if space was not expanding mother nature would cause 3 of
my best theories to be fiction. Trebert
From: Brad Guth on 11 Apr 2010 14:41
On Apr 11, 10:30 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:06 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 6:35 am, "Ala" <alackr...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:hov9l6$a77$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org...
>
> > > > "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:4bb28119$0$31017$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> > > >>> There is a grand total of ZERO evidence that
> > > >>> any aliens have ever visited the earth. Belief
> > > >>> without evidence is religion.
>
> > > >>       $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> > > >> Two things to remember as you spout your absolutist
> > > >> thoughts... 1) There actually *is* evidence that you
> > > >> either close your eyes to or simply do not accept.  The
> > > >> evidence that exists can in no way, shape or form be
> > > >> construed to be "hard evidence"; however, if there
> > > >> were no "soft evidence", then there would not be any
> > > >> sheepish believers.
>
> > > >> and 2) It is true that "belief without evidence", that
> > > >> which must be taken upon faith and faith alone, "is
> > > >> religion".  However, not all believers take their ideas
> > > >> as being "non-evidence based".  You, for example.
> > > >> You believe that there was a "Big Bang" beginning of
> > > >> the Universe.  While the prevailing evidence strongly
> > > >> suggests that your "belief" is true, this in itself does
> > > >> not mean that you are any less "religious" about the
> > > >> belief that the Universe must have formed from...
>
> > > >>                           N O T H I N G
>
> > > >> To prove me wrong, you will have to define "nothing".
> > > >> No one has ever been able to do this to my satisfaction.
> > > >> So, good luck with that.
>
> > > > You start with a false premise and expect me to defend it?
>
> > > > This is a classic strawman.
>
> > > > The bottom line is that the universe did NOT start from
> > > > 'nothing' and I have NEVER stated it did.
>
> > > > The universe started from a singularity, from which came
> > > > everything that now exists. All space, all time and all energy.
>
> > > It was a pleasure to attend.  I would not have missed it for nothing.
>
> > > Did you furniture arrive?
>
> > So why did your HVAC approved god(s) screw up?
>
> >  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Reality is if space was not expanding mother nature would cause 3 of
> my best theories to be fiction. Trebert

Will that's certainly not good.

However, in order for anything to seemingly forever expand (even if
it's only one atom/km3), has to start from somewhere as having been
less expanded and at least conceivably more dense. As such, starting
from whatever super-massive black/white hole(s) and then going for
broke at expanding near that supposed speed limit of light, still has
to represent a finite beginning, and thereby represents a volumetric
area or zone of matter and energy that's originally extremely
compacted, as well as having to coexist somewhere that such a given
concentration of cosmic mass and energy can safely coexist, along with
perhaps other concentrations of mass and energy.

Even the average cosmic density that's outside of our known universe,
if this were given an average of no greater than one atom/m3 is
seriously substantial mass when we're talking about a 100e9 light year
radii, as being worth 3.547e81 atoms (including our universe).

Subtract the 1.6e60 kg or 1e81 atoms as the upper most mass of our
universe, leaves room for 3.547 universes to coexist within that 100e9
light year radii.

At least I agree with Alan Guth that our universe has gotten
substantially larger than we can possibly detect, which isn't
excluding or otherwise preventing the loop or recycling that goes on.

~ BG
From: Double-A on 11 Apr 2010 14:52
On Apr 11, 10:30 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:06 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 6:35 am, "Ala" <alackr...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:hov9l6$a77$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org...
>
> > > > "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:4bb28119$0$31017$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> > > >>> There is a grand total of ZERO evidence that
> > > >>> any aliens have ever visited the earth. Belief
> > > >>> without evidence is religion.
>
> > > >>       $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> > > >> Two things to remember as you spout your absolutist
> > > >> thoughts... 1) There actually *is* evidence that you
> > > >> either close your eyes to or simply do not accept.  The
> > > >> evidence that exists can in no way, shape or form be
> > > >> construed to be "hard evidence"; however, if there
> > > >> were no "soft evidence", then there would not be any
> > > >> sheepish believers.
>
> > > >> and 2) It is true that "belief without evidence", that
> > > >> which must be taken upon faith and faith alone, "is
> > > >> religion".  However, not all believers take their ideas
> > > >> as being "non-evidence based".  You, for example.
> > > >> You believe that there was a "Big Bang" beginning of
> > > >> the Universe.  While the prevailing evidence strongly
> > > >> suggests that your "belief" is true, this in itself does
> > > >> not mean that you are any less "religious" about the
> > > >> belief that the Universe must have formed from...
>
> > > >>                           N O T H I N G
>
> > > >> To prove me wrong, you will have to define "nothing".
> > > >> No one has ever been able to do this to my satisfaction.
> > > >> So, good luck with that.
>
> > > > You start with a false premise and expect me to defend it?
>
> > > > This is a classic strawman.
>
> > > > The bottom line is that the universe did NOT start from
> > > > 'nothing' and I have NEVER stated it did.
>
> > > > The universe started from a singularity, from which came
> > > > everything that now exists. All space, all time and all energy.
>
> > > It was a pleasure to attend.  I would not have missed it for nothing.
>
> > > Did you furniture arrive?
>
> > So why did your HVAC approved god(s) screw up?
>
> >  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Reality is if space was not expanding mother nature would cause 3 of
> my best theories to be fiction. Trebert


That's too bad Bert, but do you think mother nature should be
stretching the whole universe just so your pet theories can all be
right?

Double-A

From: Brad Guth on 11 Apr 2010 14:57
On Apr 11, 11:52 am, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:30 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 12:06 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 6:35 am, "Ala" <alackr...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:hov9l6$a77$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org...
>
> > > > > "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:4bb28119$0$31017$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> > > > >>> There is a grand total of ZERO evidence that
> > > > >>> any aliens have ever visited the earth. Belief
> > > > >>> without evidence is religion.
>
> > > > >>       $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> > > > >> Two things to remember as you spout your absolutist
> > > > >> thoughts... 1) There actually *is* evidence that you
> > > > >> either close your eyes to or simply do not accept.  The
> > > > >> evidence that exists can in no way, shape or form be
> > > > >> construed to be "hard evidence"; however, if there
> > > > >> were no "soft evidence", then there would not be any
> > > > >> sheepish believers.
>
> > > > >> and 2) It is true that "belief without evidence", that
> > > > >> which must be taken upon faith and faith alone, "is
> > > > >> religion".  However, not all believers take their ideas
> > > > >> as being "non-evidence based".  You, for example.
> > > > >> You believe that there was a "Big Bang" beginning of
> > > > >> the Universe.  While the prevailing evidence strongly
> > > > >> suggests that your "belief" is true, this in itself does
> > > > >> not mean that you are any less "religious" about the
> > > > >> belief that the Universe must have formed from...
>
> > > > >>                           N O T H I N G
>
> > > > >> To prove me wrong, you will have to define "nothing".
> > > > >> No one has ever been able to do this to my satisfaction.
> > > > >> So, good luck with that.
>
> > > > > You start with a false premise and expect me to defend it?
>
> > > > > This is a classic strawman.
>
> > > > > The bottom line is that the universe did NOT start from
> > > > > 'nothing' and I have NEVER stated it did.
>
> > > > > The universe started from a singularity, from which came
> > > > > everything that now exists. All space, all time and all energy.
>
> > > > It was a pleasure to attend.  I would not have missed it for nothing.
>
> > > > Did you furniture arrive?
>
> > > So why did your HVAC approved god(s) screw up?
>
> > >  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Reality is if space was not expanding mother nature would cause 3 of
> > my best theories to be fiction. Trebert
>
> That's too bad Bert, but do you think mother nature should be
> stretching the whole  universe just so your pet theories can all be
> right?
>
> Double-A

Now your faith-based assignment is showing us those true colors.

How many Double-A spook/mole minions does the Pope have?

~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 12 Apr 2010 13:25
On Apr 11, 10:30 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:06 pm, BradGuth<bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 6:35 am, "Ala" <alackr...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:hov9l6$a77$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org...
>
> > > > "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:4bb28119$0$31017$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> > > >>> There is a grand total of ZERO evidence that
> > > >>> any aliens have ever visited the earth. Belief
> > > >>> without evidence is religion.
>
> > > >>       $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> > > >> Two things to remember as you spout your absolutist
> > > >> thoughts... 1) There actually *is* evidence that you
> > > >> either close your eyes to or simply do not accept.  The
> > > >> evidence that exists can in no way, shape or form be
> > > >> construed to be "hard evidence"; however, if there
> > > >> were no "soft evidence", then there would not be any
> > > >> sheepish believers.
>
> > > >> and 2) It is true that "belief without evidence", that
> > > >> which must be taken upon faith and faith alone, "is
> > > >> religion".  However, not all believers take their ideas
> > > >> as being "non-evidence based".  You, for example.
> > > >> You believe that there was a "Big Bang" beginning of
> > > >> the Universe.  While the prevailing evidence strongly
> > > >> suggests that your "belief" is true, this in itself does
> > > >> not mean that you are any less "religious" about the
> > > >> belief that the Universe must have formed from...
>
> > > >>                           N O T H I N G
>
> > > >> To prove me wrong, you will have to define "nothing".
> > > >> No one has ever been able to do this to my satisfaction.
> > > >> So, good luck with that.
>
> > > > You start with a false premise and expect me to defend it?
>
> > > > This is a classic strawman.
>
> > > > The bottom line is that the universe did NOT start from
> > > > 'nothing' and I have NEVER stated it did.
>
> > > > The universe started from a singularity, from which came
> > > > everything that now exists. All space, all time and all energy.
>
> > > It was a pleasure to attend.  I would not have missed it for nothing.
>
> > > Did you furniture arrive?
>
> > So why did your HVAC approved god(s) screw up?
>
> >  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Reality is if space was not expanding mother nature would cause 3 of my best theories to be fiction. Trebert

Will that's certainly not good for Bert or Rudy.

However, in order for anything to seemingly forever expand (even if
it's in places only worth one atom/km3), has to start from somewhere
as having been less expanded and at least conceivably more dense. As
such, starting this universe from whatever super-massive black/white
hole(s) and then going for broke at expanding near that supposed speed
limit of light, still has to represent a finite beginning, and thereby
represents a volumetric area or zone of intense matter and energy
that's originally extremely compacted, as well as having to coexist
somewhere that such a given concentration of cosmic mass and energy
can safely coexist along with perhaps other similar concentrations of
mass and energy.

Even the average cosmic density that's outside of our known universe,
if this were given an average of no greater than one atom/m3 is
seriously substantial mass when we're talking about a 100e9 light year
radii, as being worth 3.547e81 atoms (including our universe). By
somewhat recent standards of physics and astronomy interpretation it’s
supposedly worth on average 1.5~2 atoms/m3 = 7.1 coexisting universes
per 100 ly radii.

Subtract the 1.6e60 kg or 1e81 atoms as representing the upper most
mass of our known universe, leaves room for 3.5<7 universes to coexist
within that 100e9 light year radii.

At least I agree with Alan Guth that our perception of this universe
has gotten substantially larger than we can possibly detect, which
isn't excluding or otherwise preventing the loop or recycling of mass
and energy that goes on.

~ BG

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Consciousness causes WF collapse = god
Next:  I'm tempted to leave Alt.Astronomy to its folly.