Universe Race

source: Cosmology: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation CMBRCMBR is not a solid science. And were only looking at 5th year data.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

If you want to try to argue Paul Marmet's position here, go ahead (Paul Marmet rejects Einsteinian relativity). In the meantime, the CMBR is solid, peer-reviewed science both observationally and theoretically. Its discovery won the Nobel Prize for Penzias and Wilson and cemented the Big Bang as the only viable theory of cosmological origins.--Percy

http://sci.tech-archive.net/...ativity/2005-10/msg00724.htmlNot exclusively. He "apparently" is pointing out overlooked variables in the equation.My point is the science is not definite, And what i am offering is just as potential given current understanding.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi Tesla,What I said before was that if you want to argue Paul Marmet's position that you should go ahead, but what you instead posted was a link to: Which doesn't have anything to do with Paul Marmet's ideas, in fact seems to be a completely different set of ideas except for the rejection of Einsteinian relativity.Anyway, whoever's position you want to advocate, you have to do more than just post links. This is from the Forum Guidelines:

Keep in mind that you can find any sort of cockamamie idea you want out there on the Internet. Your last two links were to material from message boards. People can post any kind of nonsense they like at message boards, which is pretty much what you're doing here, but which doesn't reflect anything in the published literature. I suggest you seek out some legitimate science sources. If by "not definite" you mean the science is tentative, then of course I agree with you. It is the nature of all science to be tentative.--Percy

Very well. Let this be my final comment and conclusion concerning the origin of the universe.Today science has discovered many new twists and variables, Yet still under scrutiny, Concerning the origin of the universe. I will watch all data with enthusiasm.As many who claim to "know" the science of the origin; There is nothing understood in whole, And it is my hope for individuals to assess the truth of the data that is laid before them from any source, Within the limitations of their ability to understand. That you collectively share and debate the information for clarity with those with greater understanding; As well as affirmation of some understanding by the less studied for the greater good.All i have offered here concerning the big bang and mathematical analysis by our astronomers, cosmologists, astrophysicist, and the like; Have been expressive theory by my ability to understand. This should only be viewed in light of potential with no hard acceptance for fact until the data has been verified within all confines of "solid" undisputed science laws and observations.Any observations that are contrary and are purely speculative or tentative should not be used to enforce for or against this theory without examining the potential for error of the tentative maths. Yet deciding if the proposal would be acceptable in the margin of error possible. (If it is even possible to define the "possible" margin of error).I retain my thoughts on T=0 as fact. Any other conclusion on the state of "existence" impossible. Until i have found conclusive data that would refute, beyond all doubt, the potential of "existence" to have had a self evolution without direction.Any further arguments on this you may wish to have with me, with current data, would be impossible for me to accept under my observations. So then; It would be a useless endeavor.I thank the board administration of this site. As well as all who have debated with me for their insight. Yet also for their productive arguments concerning the origin of the universe.God be with all of us in our continual search for the truth, and Gods will be done forever. so be it.-Tim Brown

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Tesla, when I was a PhD student, my advisor once told me that receives about one email a month from somebody that claims to have a revolutionary theory. There is no arguing with that kind of people. They refuse to accept that there is A LOT about science they don't understand and that is completely unreasonable for them to expect they can revolutionize it from outside. We call these people cranks.What makes you think you are any different? here there is a list (incomplete I'm sure) of cranky websites rated from fringe to crankiest. May be you can find something that looks like your theory somewhere in there?

Not really. It just shows many people understand there are many unexplainable's in current accepted theory and they are attempting to explain it.What I'm doing is first defining the must of the start of "existence" before anything else can be understood. Another words: examine the definite, and apply it to the apparent.Too many attempt to explain in complexity what isn't even understood in simplicity. Theories built on theory. I am attempting to establish what can be said by definite observations on a very heavily tentative science.Here again is the scale:Error 404 | Page Not FoundGiven this, How much is really within mankind's understanding? Besides what men want to "believe" they know? What is truly definite? Because reality is going to be reality, Whether we want it to look the way it does to us or not.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Let me guess, the judeo-christian god is the one true god?Don't get me wrong. We embrace people's ability to think for themselves. What annoy us are people who repeatedly make up crackpot "theories" to explain the world. Anyone with a decent background in science can disprove these theories right off the bat, but the problem is that the audience also need to have some kind of background in science in order to understand the refutation. And I'm sorry to say this but most people I've talked to haven't got a clue what's head and what's tail in these matters.

What is the truth?Evolution: fact.Evolved from? the before.Before that? Something. Before that? etc. etc.As long as 2 things are, Before that will always be a relevant question. When we find the ONE. Its name is "existence". A singular just existed with nothing before, and timeless. With no outside interactions.You have already read my argument about what can or cannot be said of that. Given what is today, after defining that, what would you call that?I can only conclude what reality has shown in the fact WE EXIST. Therefore, so does what we EXIST IN.Now by rehashing this, Which i have already gained extreme resistance or unwillingness to even view the potential; I know saying this now will only result in heavy resistance and even anger.However, What else could be concluded? Given the fact you ARE, Next to the probabilities of something that could evolve with no outside interactions? From a timeless state of existing, without direction? How powerful is chance in the natural order?Its a child's math of probabilities.I do not expect any endorsement, But would rather agree to disagree since any argument will most likely end with me being yet again suspended (potentially indefinitely). Unless Percy would allow true evaluation of this observation. so then i withdraw. with my observation to be left to your own conclusions.Edited by tesla, : forgot a word.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I'm just going to quote Taz from the Humor thread: tesla, if Fractal Wrongness were to be added to an encyclopedia, your face would the at the top of the article. No, tesla, we arent resistant to your ideas. Your ideas are simply wrong, and lack the background knowledge to understand why. You are so far off and so tied to your pet idea that you are Fractally Wrong regarding cosmology - regardless of how general or specific we get, you try to tie it back to your word-salad nonsense.Edited by Rahvin, : Redid basically the whole post.

Mind sharing the math?

Again? *beats head on keyboard*Take energy of singular structure. that existed with no time for all time. (no two points for interaction)Take away all outside variables. no outside environment. and do the math on a chance evolution. the only possible knowns are ordered, or chaotic in nature.Now take the same energy, Add intelligence to the equation, And run the probabilities.chance=?direction(intelligence)=?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

teslaAllow me to offer an inverted model from the one that has been discussed to date.For the sake of argument let us say that space is infinite and has always been so. (remember, this is a model: no more.) Within this model all matter equivalents in the Universe have been very slowly shrinking at a rate of 7.2”10E-9%/year. Being made of matter our rulers also experience this shrinkage, so all matter and energy that we measure seems to be always the same. But space, which does not share in the shrinkage appears to be expanding. How would this appear to observers spread throughout the Universe?Regardless of ones position the Universe appears to be expanding in exactly the same way. When the Universe is viewed from my planet, Mr. Puffy ” don’t sneer, you would not want to know what the E-word means in our language ” a galaxy cluster one gigaparsec distant will seem to be receding at a rate of 2.2 trillion miles every year. And from that galaxy the residents following along my line of sight would see a galaxy a gigaparsec distant moving away from them at 2.2 trillion kilometers per year. And following them another, and following them another, and following them another, and following them another... Note that what I see is those same galaxies moving away at 2.2, 4.4, 6.6, 8.8, 10.1 trillion km/year respectively. Now here a problem lies. The speed of light is only 9.5 trillion km/year. Any galaxy farther away from me than 4.3 gigaparsecs will be moving away from me faster than the speed of light. This would be my horizon at 14 billion light-years away. I’d not be able to communicate with the fifth galaxy nor they with me.That some massive object named galaxy five is moving away at 106% the speed of light is a problem. That is, it’s a problem until one rememberers that in this model the matter in the Universe isn’t moving at all. It is an illusion caused by our shrinking rulers. Because no matter is moving there is no acceleration, no inertia to induce or overcome. Nothing has moved: Only our very slowly shrinking rulers.On the local scale this shrinkage amounts to very little. The space between the planet E-word and Sol appears to expand at the rate of 11 meters per year. This is well below the escape velocity of 1.3 trillion m/year at one AU. Gravity has no problem keeping pace in a crowd, but eventually, as gravity weakens by the square of the distance and the apparent expansion remains constant, the Universe is relentlessly torn to shreds.In the far future our mutual planets well see each the other at the horizon and communications will fail for reasons far far different than the current cross purposes.

---

Kindly******Fishing for complements without bait.

I dont get it...I could understand how increased mass could condense. It would react within its energy conditions into matter of a denser form. But the gravity would be greater. The area around it could appear to be smaller then.When dealing with the distances of the cosmos, and so many yet to be understood interactions.( because our lifetime of mankind and observational ability is very tiny in comparison to how long it takes before a condensing mass was to reject its own form and go supernova.)We can however view a supernova. Just not sure if any of our data has actually seen a supernova in its before state, As well as watch the nova bloom, And then watch another bloomed supernova interact with other masses and see what happens.To me its possible that if a super dense mass was to become unstable it could split apart with such force that some matter will escape, and the time it would take for the matter to rejoin (what didn't escape the field) is still more than likely longer than intelligent man has even existed.I do not have all the answers. But who does? Those claiming i am an utter fool have accepted tentative theory with no doubts of any part of it being wrong? Who would say that? None of you I'm pretty sure. So why is what i have offered, Which explains the universe as a production from a singularity which was intelligent; So hard for anyone to even admit to as a possibility? No science proves God is not. It is just the majority of science that they do not want to add God as a probability. But from my understanding of existing and logic of evolution existing. Yet an un-evolved state being inevitable, That i have provided the details of how it would work with existing theory within my ability to relay it.Who can say what is an understood math on the movement of all things, Unless all movements were taken into account, especially when dealing with data of viewing something so far away that the light from it is older than even the existence of mankind on this planet?I wish what I said could be understood, But you cant see a forest until you stop staring at a tree, and take a step back.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi Percy, Percy this is several times you have made this statement that your conclusions are supported by the evidence.So lets examine a little bit of that evidence.T=O Gr breaks down and can tell us absolutly nothing about what is at T=O.I am told GR says it breaks down and that is a singularity.This is a false statement.If GR breaks down and can't say anything about T=O It can't tell you if a singularity, nothing or The Pink Unicorn is at T=O.http://EvC Forum: Before Big Bang God or Singularity -->EvC Forum: Before Big Bang God or Singularity The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) Hawking said cosmology can not predict anything about the universe.
Unless it makes some assumption. Penrose and Hawking proved there SHOULD be a singularity in our PAST.Notice: They did not prove there was a singularity in our past. Hawking said Gr can't predict the universe.As I look at your evidence Percy there is none.You have to assume there was a singularity at T=O. There is no verifiable evidence that anything was at T=O.You have to assume there was a pea sized universe that expanded into the universe as we know it. There is no verifiable evidence of this pea sized universe that expanded into the universe as we know it.This being the case there is nothing to expand.Could you please present evidence for the above.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."