Sitting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2013, 07:12 PM
RE: Sitting
(26-11-2013 04:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-11-2013 04:00 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  .... but.... the moon.... isn't green?

... eh, what the hell, if I can suspend disbelief long enough to even consider the claim that an infinitely just God cursed ALL of humanity for the sins of two of its ancestors, but cursed women more than men, despite both women and men being equally descended from Eve.... playing make-believe that the moon is green is actually easier.

You might be unaware that 'green' in this context means 'unripened'. Drinking Beverage

Oh! Even easier! All I have to do now is believe that it's cheese, despite the sheer improbability of it, the spectographic evidence, the lunar samples returned to Earth, and, you know, questions of how it could survive solar exposure with a stable landscape. FAR easier than swallowing Christianity.

((Yes, I AM saying that Christianity is harder to swallow than a cheese-ball 3575 km wide.))
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 03:55 AM
RE: Sitting
want a few billion crackers and a few million bottles of port with that cheese?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 04:38 AM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2013 06:47 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Sitting
I confess I'm not a fan of the Big Bang theory... the rapid expansion bit has always struck me as special pleading.

I like the Big Ripple Theory.

Obviously, I'm no expert so I fully expect to be wrong (if I had the intelligence to understand any explanation I was given) but when people say it's ok to travel faster than light at the rapid expansion, I go WTF? Since when was the speed of light not a constant?

It seems like special pleading to me.

I think the 'Big Ripple Theory' has a ring to it.

I propose that the answer lies in a misinterpretation of the concept of time.

I'm thinking that at the start of the universe, there was no space but there were infinite time options (our time scale and many faster and slower ones too).

I have been pondering upon this one a lot recently.

It occurred to me that Willy L-Craig should not be saying "space-less and time-less" but instead should be saying "space-less, time-full".

By this I mean that in the beginning, there were no dimension of space but all possible dimensions of time.

Given that we know that space and time are relative, can we say that they are also inversely proportional? i.e. space is expanding at an increasing rate (accelerating) therefore time is decelerating proportionally.

At the beginning when there was no matter (and no mass) all possible 'time options' were possible i.e. our time 'scale' and also slower time and/or faster time scales.

As soon as a force or matter and movement through time (acceleration) happened, F=MA was born.

Also, at the other end of the universe, we should see Mass tending to zero as Acceleration tends to infinity (assuming F is constant)... space will reach a maximum and time will reach its minimum. Matter therefore will be spread so thinly that it will appear that nothing is there to be moving.

Like a surface of a lake that becomes still after a storm.

As it will be at the end, so it was in the beginning. It only needs a little force or matter to be thrown into the lake to start the whole thing off again. And maybe next time the time 'scale' could be a different one.

Maybe this lake-disturbance has happened many times and happens all the time (multiverses in the same space-scale but different time-scale).

These disturbances cause waves in space-time. If the lake is the Higgs field then the wave peaks will have the greatest mass and the wave troughs with have the greatest anti-mass (yeah, by now you can tell that I left school in my teens, right?). So, is a black hole one of the points where the waves from different disturbances intersect?

Perhaps this is why some matter (e.g. an electron) that has very tiny mass are thought to be in different places at the same time yet could it be that they are actually in the same place but measurable in more than one time? We can only measure 'now' in our time scale so we think they blink in and out of existence but really they are measured 'now' but we can't measure the 'next' time position in the other time scale(s).

I have been musing over this thought...

A particle is measured in three dimensions but a wave is measured in four dimensions.

The small particle can exist in many time scales but when we measure it, we set the 'now' on all time scales so we think we are seeing different locations in space but really we are seeing different locations in time.

So, back to the OP...
There still needs to be a prime movement or prime force or prime mass to start the ripples on the lake going but there is still no evidence that this force is sentient but...

Here is my preferred theory: In a few billennium's time we work out how to cross over to another time-scale (a faster one) we send something (I dunno, maybe one of Muffsy's socks) over there, (a 'now' point in another time-universe) but that other time-universe has already reached its spaceful/timeless state but the mass we send there triggers waves that kick it off again. A few billennium ago, another species did that to us and that's what started our universe going.

Obvious, really.


So the theists mumbo-jumbo-ise about 'spaceless' and 'timeless' but if they went for 'spaceless' and 'time-full' they would be ok because then they could argue that this 'invisible realm' where their gods live (and presumably unicorns, ghosts and fairies too) exist can be another universe existing in the same space but a faster or slower time.

We cannot observe this other universe(s) except when the 'nows' of both intersect but we can only perceive matter as part of our 'now' because we have no way of measuring the other universe's 'previous' or 'next'.

The theist wants the creator of our universe to be an sentient entity that has mastered the crossover between universes and then does this often to look after us (but not all the 1000's of children who die every day, obviously) via prayer-management.

A more simple answer is that it was just a blip of energy or matter that crossed over from the other 'now' to our first 'now' and caused the first ripple on our Higgs-lake.

Btw, would this not also explain dark matter which we cannot see (because we can only see the matter that exists in our 'now') but we know is there?


I, woo-master. Watch out for a woo-book, coming soon (in some time-scale)

Greater minds than I (everyone here, I guess) can now tear this apart in a few seconds. I am looking forward to it.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
27-11-2013, 06:33 AM
RE: Sitting
(27-11-2013 04:38 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I confess I'm not a fan of the Big Bang theory... the rapid expansion bit has always struck me as special pleading.

I like the Big Ripple Theory.

Obviously, I'm no expert so I fully expect to be wrong (if I had the intelligence to understand any explanation I was given) but when people say it's ok to travel faster than light at the rapid expansion, I go WTF? Since when was the speed of light not a constant?

It seems like special pleading to me.

I think the 'Big Ripple Theory' has a ring to it.

I propose that the answer lies in a misinterpretation of the concept of time.

I'm thinking that at the start of the universe, there was no space but there were infinite time options (our time scale and many faster and slower ones too).

In have been pondering upon this one a lot recently.

It occurred to me that Willy L-Craig should not be saying "space-less and time-less" but instead should be saying "space-less, time-full".

By this I mean that in the beginning, there were no dimension of space but all possible dimensions of time.

Given that we know that space and time are relative, can we say that they are also inversely proportional? i.e. space is expanding at an increasing rate (accelerating) therefore time is decelerating proportionally.

At the beginning when there was no matter (and no mass) all possible 'time options' were possible i.e. our time 'scale' and also slower time and/or faster time scales.

As soon as a force or matter and movement through time (acceleration) happened, F=MA was born.

Also, at the other end of the universe, we should see Mass tending to zero as Acceleration tends to infinity (assuming F is constant)... space will reach a maximum and time will reach its minimum. Matter therefore will be spread so thinly that it will appear that nothing is there to be moving.

Like a surface of a lake that becomes still after a storm.

As it will be at the end, so it was in the beginning. It only needs a little force or matter to be thrown into the lake to start the whole thing off again. And maybe next time the time 'scale' could be a different one.

Maybe this lake-disturbance has happened many times and happens all the time (multiverses in the same space-scale but different time-scale).

These disturbances cause waves in space-time. If the lake is the Higgs field then the wave peaks will have the greatest mass and the wave troughs with have the greatest anti-mass (yeah, by now you can tell that I left school in my teens, right?). So, is a black hole one of the points where the waves from different disturbances intersect?

Perhaps this is why some matter (e.g. an electron) that has very tiny mass are thought to be in different places at the same time yet could it be that they are actually in the same place but measurable in more than one time? We can only measure 'now' in our time scale so we think they blink in and out of existence but really they are measured 'now' but we can't measure the 'next' time position in the other time scale(s).

I have been musing over this thought...

A particle is measured in three dimensions but a wave is measured in four dimensions.

The small particle can exist in many time scales but when we measure it, we set the 'now' on all time scales so we think we are seeing different locations in space but really we are seeing different locations in time.

So, back to the OP...
There still needs to be a prime movement or prime force or prime mass to start the ripples on the lake going but there is still no evidence that this force is sentient but...

Here is my preferred theory: In a few billennium's time we work out how to cross over to another time-scale (a faster one) we send something (I dunno, maybe one of Muffsy's socks) over there, (a 'now' point in another time-universe) but that other time-universe has already reached its spaceful/timeless state but the mass we send there triggers waves that kick it off again. A few billennium ago, another species did that to us and that's what started our universe going.

Obvious, really.


So the theists mumbo-jumbo-ise about 'spaceless' and 'timeless' but if they went for 'spaceless' and 'time-full' they would be ok because then they could argue that this 'invisible realm' where their gods live (and presumably unicorns, ghosts and fairies too) exist can be another universe existing in the same space but a faster or slower time.

We cannot observe this other universe(s) except when the 'nows' of both intersect but we can only perceive matter as part of our 'now' because we have no way of measuring the other universe's 'previous' or 'next'.

The theist wants the creator of our universe to be an sentient entity that has mastered the crossover between universes and then does this often to look after us (but not all the 1000's of children who die every day, obviously) via prayer-management.

A more simple answer is that it was just a blip of energy or matter that crossed over from the other 'now' to our first 'now' and caused the first ripple on our Higgs-lake.

Btw, would this not also explain dark matter which we cannot see (because we can only see the matter that exists in our 'now') but we know is there?


I, woo-master. Watch out for a woo-book, coming soon (in some time-scale)

Greater minds than I (everyone here, I guess) can now tear this apart in a few seconds. I am looking forward to it.

Big Grin


Okay, how in the fuck did Deepak Chopra hack DLJ's account? Dodgy

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
27-11-2013, 06:41 AM
RE: Sitting
(27-11-2013 06:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(27-11-2013 04:38 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I confess I'm not a fan of the Big Bang theory... the rapid expansion bit has always struck me as special pleading.

I like the Big Ripple Theory.

Obviously, I'm no expert so I fully expect to be wrong (if I had the intelligence to understand any explanation I was given) but when people say it's ok to travel faster than light at the rapid expansion, I go WTF? Since when was the speed of light not a constant?

It seems like special pleading to me.

I think the 'Big Ripple Theory' has a ring to it.

I propose that the answer lies in a misinterpretation of the concept of time.

I'm thinking that at the start of the universe, there was no space but there were infinite time options (our time scale and many faster and slower ones too).

In have been pondering upon this one a lot recently.

It occurred to me that Willy L-Craig should not be saying "space-less and time-less" but instead should be saying "space-less, time-full".

By this I mean that in the beginning, there were no dimension of space but all possible dimensions of time.

Given that we know that space and time are relative, can we say that they are also inversely proportional? i.e. space is expanding at an increasing rate (accelerating) therefore time is decelerating proportionally.

At the beginning when there was no matter (and no mass) all possible 'time options' were possible i.e. our time 'scale' and also slower time and/or faster time scales.

As soon as a force or matter and movement through time (acceleration) happened, F=MA was born.

Also, at the other end of the universe, we should see Mass tending to zero as Acceleration tends to infinity (assuming F is constant)... space will reach a maximum and time will reach its minimum. Matter therefore will be spread so thinly that it will appear that nothing is there to be moving.

Like a surface of a lake that becomes still after a storm.

As it will be at the end, so it was in the beginning. It only needs a little force or matter to be thrown into the lake to start the whole thing off again. And maybe next time the time 'scale' could be a different one.

Maybe this lake-disturbance has happened many times and happens all the time (multiverses in the same space-scale but different time-scale).

These disturbances cause waves in space-time. If the lake is the Higgs field then the wave peaks will have the greatest mass and the wave troughs with have the greatest anti-mass (yeah, by now you can tell that I left school in my teens, right?). So, is a black hole one of the points where the waves from different disturbances intersect?

Perhaps this is why some matter (e.g. an electron) that has very tiny mass are thought to be in different places at the same time yet could it be that they are actually in the same place but measurable in more than one time? We can only measure 'now' in our time scale so we think they blink in and out of existence but really they are measured 'now' but we can't measure the 'next' time position in the other time scale(s).

I have been musing over this thought...

A particle is measured in three dimensions but a wave is measured in four dimensions.

The small particle can exist in many time scales but when we measure it, we set the 'now' on all time scales so we think we are seeing different locations in space but really we are seeing different locations in time.

So, back to the OP...
There still needs to be a prime movement or prime force or prime mass to start the ripples on the lake going but there is still no evidence that this force is sentient but...

Here is my preferred theory: In a few billennium's time we work out how to cross over to another time-scale (a faster one) we send something (I dunno, maybe one of Muffsy's socks) over there, (a 'now' point in another time-universe) but that other time-universe has already reached its spaceful/timeless state but the mass we send there triggers waves that kick it off again. A few billennium ago, another species did that to us and that's what started our universe going.

Obvious, really.


So the theists mumbo-jumbo-ise about 'spaceless' and 'timeless' but if they went for 'spaceless' and 'time-full' they would be ok because then they could argue that this 'invisible realm' where their gods live (and presumably unicorns, ghosts and fairies too) exist can be another universe existing in the same space but a faster or slower time.

We cannot observe this other universe(s) except when the 'nows' of both intersect but we can only perceive matter as part of our 'now' because we have no way of measuring the other universe's 'previous' or 'next'.

The theist wants the creator of our universe to be an sentient entity that has mastered the crossover between universes and then does this often to look after us (but not all the 1000's of children who die every day, obviously) via prayer-management.

A more simple answer is that it was just a blip of energy or matter that crossed over from the other 'now' to our first 'now' and caused the first ripple on our Higgs-lake.

Btw, would this not also explain dark matter which we cannot see (because we can only see the matter that exists in our 'now') but we know is there?


I, woo-master. Watch out for a woo-book, coming soon (in some time-scale)

Greater minds than I (everyone here, I guess) can now tear this apart in a few seconds. I am looking forward to it.

Big Grin


Okay, how in the fuck did Deepak Chopra hack DLJ's account? Dodgy

Not Deepak, it made too much sense. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
27-11-2013, 06:43 AM
RE: Sitting
(27-11-2013 06:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Okay, how in the fuck did Deepak Chopra hack DLJ's account? Dodgy

Such a thing is trivial for a woo-mastah!

Anyway it was TL; DR, much like most of modern physics Dodgy Therefore deity.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
29-11-2013, 02:43 AM
RE: Sitting
Fucking DLJ...

OK, the inflation bit... Suppose you got a Porsche that tops out at 200kph, and you call that "light speed," but you wanna go faster - 'cause you're like that... so you got a bullet train that can do 200kph, which has a kilometer-long stretch of flatcars separated by millimeters, get on the ass end, and floor it. Kinda what happened.

OK, infinite time streams... you've been watching too much Doctor Who. Tongue

What you got is Planck time, which is a measurement of the smallest happening, change, which is about 5.13 x 10^-41 seconds. Perception of time does not affect this absolute. Like the reason it is hard to swat a fly is because we're moving in slow motion according to that pest, but it doesn't occupy a separate "time stream."

Unless you're talking about disjointed timelines, which is hypothetical whack up there with parallel universes. Such may occur, but such is prohibited from causal interaction with our universe and thus a superfluous detail.

Then there's the sound of silence, the thrilling of the still, which is reminiscent of Penrose's cyclic universe, which may have some merit... but mostly 'cause I like it...

And a buncha whack, but if you wanna peddle it, you missed the most important part:

Because quantum. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: