Posted on 08/05/2010 12:30:09 PM PDT by LibWhacker
Just a dumb guess on my part, I'll be the first to admit.
But it would tickle me to think maybe, maybe, maybe I'm right!
>>Time was also created in the big bang.
>
>Sorry but that’s idiotic, time is a continuum.
Why is it idiotic? Isn’t time measured in the relative changes between two [or more] objects? If there are less than two objects in the universe then how would time impact that single object? (This singular object would be ‘atomic’ in the absolute sense of the word, nothing smaller or sub-component would exist... otherwise there would be more than one actual object, which we have limited ourselves to.)
>ASSUMING a belief in the idiotic big bang theory, then you might claim that the physical material basis to MEASURE time would have existed only after the big bang, but time stretches to infinity in both directions.
Does it now? Where is your proof of that assertion? Couldn’t time just as well be a straight line segment or [geometrically-speaking] a ray? If time is infinite in both directions, then are there cycles? If there *ARE* cycles wouldn’t it be more convenient/accurate to represent time as a circle? If there are no cycles then doesn’t the second law of thermodynamics guarantee a future-state where the universe is absolutely homogeneous? (And, in that case, what would be the point/purpose of time past that point?)
The guy started turning up examples of combinations of very high and very low redshift objects which were clearly connected and part and parcel of the same things (meaning that the standard interpretation of redshift to mean expansion is garbage) and for that he was given the heave-ho out of American observatories and then was picked up by the Max Planck Institute, sort of like the fairytale of the ugly duckling which turned out to be a swan...
I'm sorry, but if you have to ask that question you really shouldn't be propounding your ideas about science as if they were facts.
The very notion of an idiotic universe makes a tingle go up my node.
We live in Ptolemaic times. Physicists and cosmologists claim to stand on the shoulders of giants, while in fact these pygmies have created a house of cards.
The late Dr. Thomas VanFlandern did a nice job of citing the top ten problems with the Big Bang Theory at http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp
There are also a host of problems with the idea of “black holes,” especially in terms of the unavoidable but inexplicable infinite quantities attached to calculations regarding the singularities that abut these (by definition) invisible objects.
If physics is to escape the trap created by internal power politics and academics’ requirement of conformity to conventional wisdom, radically new paradigms must be explored. And more ideas than just those embraced by the Electric Universe folks deserve consideration.
Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions provided the map for open ended investigations. It will require the serious consideration of heresies like those that Dewey Larson incorporated in his Reciprocal System, in which time and space are cast in radically new roles.
Finding an effective new standard model physics and cosmology will require open minds.
“With all of the problems here on Earth, it is amazing that we can spend so many public dollars on stuff like this. WHO THE HECK CARES?????”
Well, I do for one. But to answer your question more generally, many folks appreciate science in the abstract, as it represents the most tangible search for objective truth we have. It is without a doubt one of the most worthwhile human pursuits, and has had the nice side benefit of improving our technologies in a myriad ways.
Yes, even this type of research potentially has practical applications - dark energy and dark matter are completely new physics.
As the whole Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light (space not being matter, it can do that), any light inside the universe cannot escape the edge.
Therefore, the whole Universe is a Black Hole.
What is so special about a 2 billion LY one?
God, in the beginning created the heavens and the earth, and the earth BECAME without form and void. There is time between the two events. How much time? We don’t know and it doesn’t matter. He will tell us all about it someday, maybe soon.
Hear hear.
Well, I don’t understand any of this stuff but its in one of the 18 Enumerated Powers so... why not. It beats spending it on national health care...
I took this last night.
“why not. It beats spending it on national health care...”
We are in 100% agreement on that point! =:-)
Any idea how Emperor Ming the Merciless came by that much of a case of the ass against you??
I think inflation works well. What´s your take on creation?
Sort of a long story, but evolution has been totally disproved at this point and some version of intelligent design is basically in order.
And I like Divine Design better. But if you´d tear down a good theory, it only seems fair that you should posit another in it´s place.
That tripped me up too. I think they intend that gravitational lensing allows us us see what's behind the black hole, even thought there's no direct line of sight through to the other side.
MICROEVOLUTION is a proven fact of life and nobody argues over it. Microevolution means brown moths changing to white ones, finches with short beaks changing to finches with longer beaks, and that sort of thing.
MACROEVOLUTION is the notion that new KINDS of animals can somehow arise via an accumulation of the changes involved in microevolution and/or via mutations and this is the thing which is normally referred to as the theory of evolution.
There is no evidence supporting macroevolution at all. In fact when scientists tried to prove the concept in the early 1900s, they utterly failed and the failure was so stark and garish that a number of the scientists involved publically renounced evolution at the time, most notably Goldschmidt who devised his "hopeful monster" theory as a possible replacement.
What they did, over a period of about twenty years, involved fruit flies which breed new generations every few days. Twenty years worth of that is equal to tens of thousands of generations of any normal animal, i.e. enough for any possibility of macroevolution to be observed without requiring millions of years.
What they did was to subject those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations, including electricity, chemicals, heat, cold, noise, silence, vibration, shock, blast, and basically just everything, and then recombine like mutants in every possible way.
And all they ever got was what the breeders told Charles Darwin was all he would ever get via mutation when they told him he was full of shit in the 1850s, i.e. fruit flies, sterile mutants, and next generations of mutants which returned, boomarang-like, to the norm for a fruit fly. Basically, all they had to show for their work after 20 years was fruit flies. No wasps, ants, spiders, mantises, beetles, hornets, mosquitos, or any other kind of animal whatsoever; just fruit flies.
When DNA and RNA were discovered in the 1960s, the reason for the failure of those experiments became known.
In other words, our entire living world is based on information and the only information there ever was in the picture for those experiments 100 years ago was the information for fruit flies.
Evolution should have been abandoned at that point as Cohen noted:
"At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt
I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician Member NY Academy of Sciences Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4
Basically, the typical yuppie who believes in evolution does not really understand the meaning of "natural selection" and assumes it to be some sort of magical process which produces new kinds of animals. Natural selection in fact is a destructive process and not a constructive one. You could no more create a new species with natural selection than you could build a skyscraper with a wrecking ball. Natural selection is the conservative process which weeds out everything an iota to the left or right of dead center for the norm of a given animal species. It is an agent of stasis and not of change.
What the theory of evolution actually says is that chance mutations create new kinds of animals and that, amongst these new kinds of animals, natural selection then weeds out the "unfit".
The only problem is that, in real life, mutations all have names, such as "Down's Syndrome", "Tay-Sachs", "cri-du-chat syndrome", phoco-locii etc. etc. etc. Ever notice the women walking door to door collecting money for the Mothers' March of Dimes? Ever notice that they are ALWAYS collecting money for research to PREVENT mutations, and never for money for research to CAUSE them? Think there might be a reason for that??
Charles Darwin's theory demands that these kinds of mutations which are invariably destructive and detrimental, are the root cause of our entire biosphere, starting from one-celled animals. The whole idea is basically idiotic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.