Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (14209)	6/7/2007 2:50:18 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

”Yes, that's exactly what I think...... That helps to explain why you get so easily confused. You make stuff up as it suits your agenda rather than rely on the facts. What evidence do you have that I don't know what I wrote? What I wrote is sound and logical and easy to understand, if one attempts to follow the logic rather than engage in rhetorical dissembling. ”...do your religious brethren understand you?” Who? From the first line of my response to you I tried to clue you in to your fundamental mistake “"You seem to be confusing religious dogma with faith". I am not attempting to make myself a spokesperson for a religion or for religious people. ”Nothing comes from nothing......evolution describes the process of the development of a species by the action of the survival of the fittest. Evolution doesn't start with the presumption of nothingness.....” There is a presumption whether stated or not. Evolution either presumes a beginning point or it presumes an eternity. It either presumes infinity or it presumes limitation. The term ‘Temporal Universe’ by definition presumes temporary state(s). Some evolutionists may be uncommitted or unconcerned about those presumptions, others are quite declared on the matter. Theories and the science of evolution are not limited to changes in species caused by adaptations; they are far more holistic with reference also to the changes of Earth, atmosphere and the physical Universe beyond. I am on record as having declared my belief in eternity and my willingness to explain that intelligently in response to your challenge/allegation and claim that morality is not bound in faith. We’ve got a long way to go but so far you haven’t demonstrated the ability to deal with some very basic logic and facts of existence. ”The universe is collapsing???? I thought it was expanding....” Why is it everytime you declare what you think about something, it exposes more of your determination to remain ignorant? Black holes are current examples of collapse. Black holes are places where ordinary gravity has become so extreme that it overwhelms all other forces in the Universe. Once inside, nothing can escape a black hole's gravity — not even light. The oscillatory universe is a cosmological model, originally derived by Alexander Friedman in 1922 and developed by Richard Tolman from 1934, in which the universe undergoes a series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce. ””Science cannot describe nothingness..... “ So you agree with me. Now if you would learn to follow along logically you would be able to understand my description of nothingness. ”Science says there was a "Big Bang" but cannot say what was "banged". This model is virtually undisputed in the scientific world. I am sure you believe that but it’s not true. Hubble’s ideas are being modified. The following was recently published in Discovery Magazine as the modern view of things. Dark Energy puts a wrinkle in the Big Bang By MATT CRENSON, AP NEW YORK (Nov. 17) - The Hubble Space Telescope has shown that a mysterious form of energy first conceived by Albert Einstein, then rejected by the famous physicist as his "greatest blunder," appears to have been fueling the expansion of the universe for most of its history. This so-called "Dark energy" has been pushing the universe outward for at least 9 billion years, astronomers said Thursday. "This is the first time we have significant, discrete data from back then," said Adam Riess, a professor of astronomy at Johns Hopkins University and researcher at NASA's Space Telescope Science Institute. He and several colleagues used the Hubble to observe 23 supernovae - exploding white dwarf stars - so distant that their light took more than half the history of the universe to reach the orbiting telescope. That means the supernovae existed when the universe was less than half its current age of approximately 13.7 billion years. Because the physics of supernova explosions is extremely well-known, it is possible for the astronomers to gauge not just their distance, but how fast the universe was expanding at the time they went off. "This finding continues to validate the use of these supernovae as cosmic probes," Riess said. He and his colleagues describe their research in a paper that is scheduled for publication in the Feb. 10 issue of Astrophysical Journal. The idea of Dark energy was first proposed by Einstein as a means of explaining how the universe could resist collapsing under the pull of gravity. But then Edwin Hubble - the astronomer for whom the NASA telescope is named - demonstrated in 1929 that the universe is expanding, not a constant size. That led to the big-bang theory, and Einstein tossed his notion on science's scrap heap. There it languished until 1998, when astronomers who were using supernova explosions to gauge the expansion of the universe made a shocking observation. It appeared that older supernovae, whose light had traveled a greater distance across space to reach the Hubble telescope, were receding from Earth more slowly than simple big-bang theory would predict. Nearby supernovae were receding more quickly than expected. That could only be true if some mysterious force were causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate over time. Cosmologists dubbed the force "Dark energy," and ever since they've been trying to figure out what it is. "Dark energy makes us nervous," said Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology who was not involved in the supernova study. "It fits the data, but it's not what we really expected." Answers may come once NASA upgrades the Hubble Space Telescope in a space shuttle mission scheduled for 2008. NASA and the Department of Energy are also planning to launch an orbiting observatory specifically designed to address the mystery in 2011. DARK energy could be some property of space itself, which is what Einstein was thinking of when he proposed it. Or it could be something akin to an electromagnetic field pushing on the universe. And then there's the possibility that the whole thing is caused by some hitherto undiscovered wrinkle in the laws of gravity. ” With the universe constantly expanding at ever increasing speed, how can it become a oneness???? There are several competing ‘scientific’ theories about how that would happen. Do you need me to list them, or are you just as comfortable declaring your ignorance of them to be a basis of fact? ”Black holes are noticed and have been detected at the center of every galaxy..... Right. Which is why I mentioned it to help you understand the logic being presented. You, of course, took some alternative meaning, which escapes me. re:"For time to end material and space must return to this singular uniformity allowing for zero occupation in space. " There is no reason to conclude this.......” Sure there is. I explained the reason to conclude this, which you chose to dissemble rather than study. For time to end it must happen exactly as I have described it unless you think there is some sort of cosmic freezer that could do the job. <sarcasm> ”WOW.....!!! I assume* you have mathematical models that support this or at least have the Christian Fundamentist's accepting your theory.....* Another example of your determination to expose your ignorance. A set of laws created by us????? Are you nuts? Scientific laws are not created.....theories may eventually become laws after constant observation and experimentation that can find no flaw in the theory.... Created my not be the best choice of words. We do create the definitions and books that help explain physical phenomenon but we actually are discovers of natures laws, not creators of it. We create the schools of science but the phenomenon and rules governing it exist regardless of what we do. "Created to help understand".....that's laughable!!! I missed the joke. Why do you thing we established laws of physics and created schools of science? ”A lab cloak cleric would not claim physics (science)is the answer to all inquiry. Apparently, and not surprisingly you missed the point. Cleric is used for a person who claims to be a spokesperson of truth about everything. ”Such a person would not be so arrogant.” Yes they would be and are arrogant enough to claim they have proven other theories of creation to be false.