Re: knowledge is power

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 08/02/04 

Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 09:12:43 GMT

"mostafa dia" <the_apprentice1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b89298e9.0408020051.3a80abc1@posting.google.com...
> Space and time
> -------------------------------
> There are two theories or convictions centered around the existence or
> creation of our present universe,and life altogether:
> The first one is a scientific approach,which is not yet proven,

I consider basing our theories on what we observe to be a lot moor accurate
than any other means.

> and is
> doubted by a great many number of religious and non_religious
> believers.

Without any actual basis.

> The second one is a spiritual belief,that is not scientifically
> logical,and is likewise doubted by as many as those who believe in the
> first theory.
> The first proposition assumes that the universe began with a big
> bang;that space and time emerged with that first universal
> explosion;that this brought about the necessary material elements
> which formed a body of about 100 or more billion galaxies during a
> span of about 10 to 20 billion years of human time;that everyone of
> these galaxies is supposed to contain less or more than 100 billion
> stars each,ranging in size from being close to our solar star,up to
> 100's or 1000's of times larger than that;that most or all of these
> stars might have planets and moons,ranging in numbers according to
> their relative size.
> This assumption has lead to the fuzzy conclusion that there existed
> neither time nor space prior to that big universal show of heavenly
> fireworks.

You obviously know nothing of science or the scientific method. Inflation
is a well defined theory (rather a collection of theories) perfectly in
accord with observation. Your beliefs it is 'fuzzy' or nay other adjectives
you wish to trot out is irrelevant - correspondence with observation is all
that counts - have you any comment regarding that?

> But that left one major flaw in the web of the deductive and logical
> reasoning of the frail human mind:
> Where was that extremely dense mass of the (petite) particle situated
> prior to that bang??? And what form of timeless and spaceless object
> of unknown substance did enclose or surround its relatively (poco)
> size???

It began with something called the false vacuum - not a particle - see
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html. The following
contains so many misunderstandings and misconceptions the poster is strongly
requested to asquint him/herself with the facts.

Thanks
Bill

> Three possible alternatives stand out before our very scrutinizing
> eyes of our logical petty minds:
> 1-This particle might have been immersed in a limited timeless and
> spaceless object of unknown substance,slightly bigger than the
> particle's size.
> 2-It might have been enclosed by a timeless and spaceless object of
> unknown substance that fit exactly its size;In both cases nothing was
> supposed to exist beyond that.
> 3-It was floating in an infinite timeless and spaceless object of
> unknown substance.
> If we hang on to the first alternative,we would conclude that the
> boundaries of that small particle coincided with the beginning of the
> timeless and spaceless limited substance that certainly has an
> end,because it was not infinite.That substance could not have ended
> nowhere!!!But had to coincide with the beginning of something
> else;Otherwise,it could not have been limited'with an end.
> Following that same route of deductive reasoning,we would conclude
> that that something else of timeless and spaceless nature had to be
> limited,with an end;or infinite,with no end.
> If it were the first,it had to coincide with still another thing of
> timeless and spaceless nature,and so on and so forth,up to an endless
> chain of infinite number of limited objects of timeless and spaceless
> natures to no end.
> If it were the latter,it should have been one infinite timeless and
> spaceless object of unknown nature that occupied everything outside
> the boundaries of that particle and its compartments.
> If we stick to the second alternative,we would have to run the same
> chain of beginnings and ends of infinite number of timeless and
> spaceless objects of unknown natures.
> If we settle with the last alternative,we would get the same results
> without having to go over the same repititive cycle of beginnings and
> ends.
> But,in everyone of these three alternatives,there arises the one and
> same obstacle :
> This particle could not have expanded beyond its limited boundaries
> if it were surrounded by some form of infinite unknown substance or
> substances,whose infinite size might have hindered the expansion of
> that little particle beyond its restricted boundaries;that infinite
> body of unknown nature could not have been pushed or moved beyond its
> infinite boundaries,in order to give room for the expansion of that
> particle;there were supposed to exist no empty space in the first
> place,before or after that substance,or any other substance or
> particle,remember!!!
> This final analysis leaves us with one and only logical solution:
> There should have existed an empty space beyond the boundaries of
> that tiny particle of dense mass,in order to facilitate its expansion
> beyond anything imaginable.
> That space should have been infinite,or else it would have ended
> somewhere and coincided with another body of unknown substance of
> timeless and spaceless nature,existing beyond that limited space.
> That timeless and spaceless substance should not have existed in the
> first place,because it should have been infinite and could not have
> left any more room of empty space for any particle to expand beyond
> its restricted boundaries!!!
> Now,if we suppose that there existed no time before the big bang,we
> would have to ask ourselves the only one simple and logical question:
> How long did it take the particle to condense??How long did it remain
> in a static state before its explosion??How long did it take the
> material of its substance to be formed before that
> condensation?????And how long!!?? And how long!!??And so on and so
> forth of many how longs!!!!!
> If we assume that this particle came as a result of the condensation
> of some scattered material of unknown substance;or the scattered
> remnants of a previous dead universe,and had moved towards some
> universal gravitational centre of absolute force to condense into one
> tiny particle of dense mass,it would be logical to conclude that that
> movement of those scattered material took place within the frame of
> time and space axis,and not otherwise!!Movement does not exist outside
> the time and space frame.
> That particle could not have popped out of nowhere,outside the axis
> of time and space,and condensed without any further movement inside
> that frame towards an absolute force of gravitation!!!That would be
> scientifically absurd!!!
> In the final analysis,time and space are infinite entities that have
> existed for an eternity,and will continue to exist for another
> eternity.
> Time and space have always been the workshops of infinity to mold
> endless structures of endless matrial and non_material existences all
> through eternity!!!
> On the other hand,if we acknowledge the second conviction,and believe
> that existence was created by a super deity of heavenly powers,we
> would have to consider one very important possibility:
> That time and space had existed long before the creation of our
> present universe,because there existed a powerful and mighty heavenly
> force prior to that creation,which had an infinite form,and had
> existed for an eternity long before the present creation:that creation
> which is but one small link in an infinite chain of endless creations
> that have been going on and will go on for ever and ever??!!
> If there exists other theories regarding the formation of our
> universe,or other universes,for that matter,they have to follow the
> same line of deductive reasoning that leads to none other conclusions
> than what has already been presented so far,concerning time and place:
> Nothing exists outside the frame of infinte time and
> space;Otherwise,that would only be only mere speculations issuing from
> a frail and limited human mind of limited and ignorant nature!!!
> ------------------------------------------------
> Matter And The Void
> --------------------------
> Everything that exists,including us sentient beings,is only a
> void,that has no material essence whatsoever.
> For matter,is just a three dimensional effect of the void;and
> sentient material existence is nothing more than an awareness,that
> feels the effect of the void,that takes a material form of color,and
> shape,by the deductive foreign mind of the first attention,in a three
> dimensional space,and time.
> Matter,as science defined it,is made up of atoms;and these atoms are
> composed of protons,neutrons,and electrons;the nucleus of the atom
> comprises the proton,and the neutron,which is surrounded by rotating
> electrons.
> Molecules are made up of atoms,joined by the bond between the
> electrons;the molecule of water,for example,is composed of 2 hydrogen
> atoms,and 1 oxygen atom;a drop of water is made up of
> millions of combined water molecules;any body of water is comprised of
> millions of water drops.
> Suppose now that we travel deep into the atom,and view it from
> the inside;the atom would look like something,that resembles the solar
> system:the sun being the nucleus,and the planets,that are rotating
> around it,being the electrons.
> If we measure the volume of the space,that the solar system
> occupies,and compare this volume with the actual volume of the sun and
> its 9 planets,the ratio would be,something like 1 : 1000000.
> The majority of this solar space would be a void,which comprises
> about 99 percent of this volume.
> Now if we take a water molecule,and measure its volume,it would
> be like measuring the space,that the sun occupies with its two nearest
> stars.
> After comparing the volume of this space,with the actual volume
> of the sun,and these two stars,we would get a ratio of much more than
> 1 :1000000000 .
> The majority of the volume,would be a void,which comprises about 99
> percent or more .
> If we take a drop of water,and compare its volume with the volume of
> the atoms,that comprise the drop of water,this would be like comparing
> the volume of the space, that the milky way galaxy occupies
> with the volume of all the stars,that comprises this galaxy.
> In this case,the ratio would be extremely more than
> 1:1000000000000,and the void forms about 99.5 percent.
> Now,if we take the Atlantic Ocean and compare its volume with the
> volume of the corrosponding atoms,the comparison would cover
> the whole universe,with all the stars in all the 12000000000 galaxies
> .
> The ratio would jump to 1 versus an infinite number;the majority of
> the volume would be about 99.9 percent of void this time.
> Now,if we try to analyze this 1% of the supposed material volume,the
> trip would take us,still further into the depth of the atom, into
> where the nucleus lies.
> By travelling into the nucleus,and take the proton,for example,and
> compare the volume of this proton,with the volume of its components
> the quarks,the ratio would be something comparable to what has been
> presented up to now in this analysis;the proton would also comprise a
> 99 percent of void too.
> And if we go still deeper,and analyze the quarks in turn,we would
> get the same result;the quark would form more than 99 percent of void
> also.
> If we go still to a much deeper level,and reach an infinitesimal
> dimension,we would find out,that matter doesn't exist in the first
> place .
> And in analyzing the neutron and the electron in the same deductive
> method,we would be more convinced than ever,that what really exist is
> only a void,and that matter,is only an effect of the flux of energy of
> this void,which is but one infinite whole,comprised of no other part,
> but itself,and that everything that exists,is just part of the flux of
> energy of this infinite void;and the flux is none other than the
> infinite field of energy of the of the circle of light,that comprises
> an infinite number of infinitesimal points of awareness attached to
> that infinite flux of live energy.
> This void and its flux of energy,has no description in the deductive
> foreign mind of the first attention;for who can pinpoint the void and
> give it a reasonable and sound description?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ____________________________________________
> If our present material universe is 10 to 20 billion years of age,and
> if we compare that age with the infinite age of the endless space that
> houses this universe,we would conclude that the age of the present
> existing material universe is nill in comparison to the age of the
> endless and everlasting space,that has been standing since eternity
> and will stand still for another eternity.
> And if the present universe is just 10 to 20 billion years of
> age,then what was there 50,or100,or1000 billion years ago?Or a
> trillion years ago?Or a zillion years ago? Or what had existed an
> infinite years ago?
> Was there nothing prior to the present existence of our material
> universe?And if that was the case,why hasn't the universe come into
> existence long before that period?And why 10 to 20 billion years ago
> in particular,when it could have existed 50,or100,or1000,or10,000
> billion or less or more years ago?Or it will have come into existence
> a 1000,or a zillion trillion or more or less years away from now!
> If the universe is going to survive for another 50,or 100 billion or
> less or more years away in the distant future,then would existence
> come to an end after the death of our mortal universe?And would this
> endless and everlasting wide space become empty and steril for
> another eternity,as it is assumed to have been prior to the inception
> of our new born professed universe?
> If the factors that prompted the birth of our universe had been
> appropriate only 10 to 20 billion years ago,then couldn't they have
> been appropriate a zillion or a 1000 zillion or more or less years ago
> before the conception with our beloved universe?Or wouldn't they be
> appropriate too a 1000 trillion zillion or more or less years in the
> future?
> Or if this material existence was created by a heavenly
> deity,couldn't it have created another one long before it had created
> the present one?And wouldn't that divine and almighty creator
> originate another universe shortly or long after the death of ours?And
> why create only one universe,when it could create infinite ones?
> Wouldn't it like to be worshiped by as many universes as there could
> be in existence?
> And wouldn't you like to have more than one baby if you just could
> support them and provide them with their livley needs?
> Or wouldn't you like to become the emperor of the universe instead of
> being only the ruler of planet earth?Oh!!!! I guess you are mighty
> humble to settle only with governing your own country??!!!??!!!??Or
> city???!!! Or village??!! Or street?! Or may be just your own
> temper!right?
> If the universe is 10 to 20 billion cubic light years in volume,why
> would that infinite space be void of any other material universe
> beyond the existing one?
> And if we compare the volume of the present universe with the
> infinite volume of the endless space that surrounds this limited
> nill,we would only conclude that this tiny volume of material
> existence is nothing more than a mere infinitesimal point in
> comparison with that endless and wide_open space that has no limits
> even to measure it with!!!
> Why would that endless space bring forth a tiny bush,while it can
> become swerving with infinite blossoming flowers throughout its
> endless expanse of unlimited space?
> And if the factors were appropriate for material existence to occupy
> a limited portion of that endless ocean of void space,couldn't they
> have also been appropriate for other material volumes to occupy
> endless portions in that limitless expansion of never_ending space?
> And if those same factors were appropriate for material existence to
> occupy a limited portion 10 to 20 billion years ago,then couldn't they
> have been appropriate for matter to occupy that same space a zillion
> or more or less years ago?And wouldn't they be also appropriate for
> any other existence to occupy that same space a trillion or less or
> more years after this universe is long gone?
> Couldn't the physical laws of this universe and the atomic structure
> of its matter have been different from what they are in the present
> existence?And if that was all true,couldn't there have existed other
> material occupations with different physical laws and atomic
> structures before the existence of the present one?Or wouldn't there
> have existed other different ones during the existence of the present
> one?And won't there exist more different ones after the death of the
> present one???
> And couldn't there have existed other material volumes with similar
> laws and atomic structures before the existence of the present one?Or
> wouldn't there have existed other similar ones during the existence of
> the present one?And won't there exist other similar ones after the
> death of the present one????
> Has the beginning of the present universe started 10 to 20 billion
> years ago,after the big bang of that extremely heavy particle of dense
> matter took place?Or has it started before that,when that dense matter
> began to unite and condense?And how long did it take that particle of
> dense matter to condense and explode as a result of the huge pressure
> that had become too large to keep its particles together any longer??
> Or wouldn't it be possible to assume that that dense and heavily
> condensed particle were the remnants of another previous deceased
> universe,which had expended its potential energy of atomic bonding,and
> had decomposed into loose matter,that had reassembled and aligned
> itself because of an inherent factor,that had enabled it to
> reconstruct itself again into one heavily condensed particle,under an
> extreme field of gravitational force?
> Or wouldn't it be possible that the huge force of gravity that had
> attracted and condensed the matter of the big bang in the first
> place,would also attract and condense the dead matter of this universe
> after its fading away 50 or 100 billion years from now? And wouldn't
> that be similar to what happens in an underwater explosion,when the
> sucking pressure of the vaccumed sphere resulting from the explosion
> crumbles down and redirects the pressure to the centre of the
> explosion??
> And last but not least,couldn't it be possible that this same matter
> of the present universe may have undergone an infinite process of
> expanding and condensing,before the existence of the present form of
> our universe?And wouldn't it be feasible and sane to think that that
> process will go on for another infinite period of intensity of
> composition and decomposition??
> And could there have also been other processes of intensity with
> other material occupations of a different order before,during,and
> after this present occupation,and other intensity processes with other
> material occupations of similar orders before,during,and after the
> present occupation too???
> That is the big question???????????????????????????????????????????
>
>
> In the year 1960,a universal being revealed the mysteries and magical
> wonders of existence and awareness.learn about the second and third
> attentions that human beings can attain at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Path_Of_Eternity/
> http://groups.msn.com/ThePathOfEternity
> http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/ThePathOfEternity
> Thank you for your patience and understanding.Peace be with you.
> Notice:To join a yahoo group,you must use a yahoo ID.And to join an
> msn group,you must use an msn ID.But to join a smart group,you can use
> any ID.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: knowledge is power
    ... | chain of infinite number of limited objects of timeless and spaceless ... | that existence was created by a super deity of heavenly powers,we ... | the inside;the atom would look like something,that resembles the solar ... | If our present material universe is 10 to 20 billion years of age,and ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]
    ... Run that but me again - how does induction show that the universe is ... so much so that scientists fooled themselves into ... I believe existence exists, but that is a belief on my part - it is not ... > discussions of the concepts of existence, continuity, and infinity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]
    ... Run that but me again - how does induction show that the universe is ... so much so that scientists fooled themselves into ... I believe existence exists, but that is a belief on my part - it is not ... > discussions of the concepts of existence, continuity, and infinity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • knowledge is power
    ... Where was that extremely dense mass of the particle situated ... chain of infinite number of limited objects of timeless and spaceless ... that existence was created by a super deity of heavenly powers,we ... If our present material universe is 10 to 20 billion years of age,and ...
    (sci.geo.meteorology)
  • knowledge is power
    ... Where was that extremely dense mass of the particle situated ... chain of infinite number of limited objects of timeless and spaceless ... that existence was created by a super deity of heavenly powers,we ... If our present material universe is 10 to 20 billion years of age,and ...
    (sci.physics.particle)