Prev: Consciousness causes WF collapse = god
Next:  I'm tempted to leave Alt.Astronomy to its folly.
From: Brad Guth on 12 Apr 2010 18:52
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 ofmy best theoriesto be fiction. Trebert

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

I had to revise my accounting of atoms in our universe, <1e84.

In order for anything to seemingly forever expand (even if it's in
places only worth one atom/km3), as such it has to have started from
somewhere as having been less expanded and at least conceivably a
whole lot more dense than anything imaginable. As such, when 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 or birth origin, and thereby
represents a volumetric area or zone of intense matter and energy
that's originally extremely compacted, as well as its having to exist
somewhere that such a given concentration of cosmic mass and energy
can safely coexist along with perhaps other similar concentrations of
mass and energy, and so on until God or whatever says enough is
enough.

Even the average cosmic density that's outside of our known universe,
if this medium were given an average value of no greater than a
thousand atoms or protons/m3 is seriously substantial mass when we're
talking about a 100e9 light year radii, as being worth 3.547e84 atoms
(including our universe). By somewhat recent standards of physics and
astronomy interpretation the IGM is supposedly worth on average 0.1
atom/cm3, or 1e5 protons(atoms)/m3 = 3.547e86 atoms, giving room for
3.547e2 coexisting (invisible to us) universes per 100 ly radii.

As some local basis of further appreciating how sparse this IGM is,
our moon supposedly offers 2e5 atoms/cm3, or 2e11/m3 (2e6 fold greater
molecular saturation than our specified IGM). Perhaps Selene L1
(Earth-moon L1) is worth as few as 2e5/m3 on a zero solar wind given
day, or roughly a million fold less populated than the lunar surface,
and therefore worth at least twice what the IGM has to offer.

Subtract the 1.6e60 kg or 1e84 atoms as representing the upper most
mass of our known universe, that’s so far only detectable out to
13.75e9 light years, which leaves elbow room for <355 similar
universes to coexist within that 100e9 light year radii, and all
except for a portion of our universe remains as undetectable.

At least I still 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.

This interpretation of the multiverse obviously needs further thought,
such as how large of radii should this multiverse or MBB volume
occupy, because ours seems observation limited as to 14e9 light years.

~ BG
From: Ala on 12 Apr 2010 20:05

"bert" <herbertglazier79(a)msn.com> wrote in message
news:2d52580a-54c1-47cd-8900-742535669ad7(a)u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...

>Reality is if space was not expanding mother nature would cause 3 of
>my best theories to be fiction.


Heh. Indeed.

From: bert on 13 Apr 2010 08:33
On Apr 12, 8:05 pm, "Ala" <alackr...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> "bert" <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2d52580a-54c1-47cd-8900-742535669ad7(a)u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Reality is if space was not expanding mother nature would cause 3 of
> >my best theories to be fiction.
>
> Heh. Indeed.

Heh Indeed Means what? TreBert
From: Brad Guth on 13 Apr 2010 16:44
On Apr 13, 5:33 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 8:05 pm, "Ala" <alackr...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "bert" <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2d52580a-54c1-47cd-8900-742535669ad7(a)u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com....
>
> > >Reality is if space was not expanding mother nature would cause 3 of
> > >my best theories to be fiction.
>
> > Heh. Indeed.
>
> Heh Indeed  Means what?   TreBert

It's probably Jewish or similar faith-based slang, and stands for "up
yours"

~ BG
From: Ala on 15 Apr 2010 20:28

"bert" <herbertglazier79(a)msn.com> wrote in message
news:994d4fe0-d63d-4e74-8b75-d7e25bd3722c(a)j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

>Heh Indeed Means what? TreBert


heh
half laugh, semi-cynical connotation, used on IRC by those too cool to say
lol or roflmao
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=heh

indeed

Without a doubt; certainly:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indeed

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.