Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??
From: glbrad01 (glbrad01_at_insightbb.com)
Date: 12/31/04
- Next message: Richard Henry: "Re: 40M for Bush Inauguration and 15M for Tsunami Disaster WAS Re: Bush accused of undermining the UN with aid coalition"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle"
- Maybe in reply to: Dean Elliot: "Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:23:56 GMT
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:33ii6cF40kmhkU2@individual.net...
>
>
> glbrad01 wrote:
>
>> "robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:33g673F3vfvo8U2@individual.net...
>>
>>>
>>>Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>However, there might also be other kinds of "self-evident" statements.
>>>>For example, would it be self-evident that the probability of the
>>>>universe existing is ALWAYS a 100% certainty. I think this is the same
>>>>as saying that the universe existing is "self-evident", but this might
>>>>not actually be a tautology.
>>>
>>>Probability does not apply here. We are not talking about frequency over
>>>large or infinite ensambles. It is contingent fact the the universe
>>>exists. If the Big Bang had fizzled it would not be the case. We do not
>>>have a sample set (other than the singleton) to see how well existence
>>>"takes".
>>>
>>>Bob Kolker
>>>
>>
>>
>> There was no Big Bang.
>
> Have it your way. The universe has existed forever. So why do we have
> radioactive elements. Forever is a long time and they all should have
> changed to lead by now.
>
> Forever is such a long time that the universe, which is a closed
> thermodynamic system should be at maximum entropy. Or do we reject the
> seond law of thermodynamics because you don't like creation ex nihilo?
>
> Bob Kolker
>
The Universe is not a closed system. The universe may be, but the Universe
is not. There is no such thing as 'closed' without fully equal and opposite
'open' just as there is no such thing as determinate without indeterminate
or certainty without uncertainty.
You are presupposing a one-dimensional arrow of time rather than a
four-dimensional wheel of time. I indicated time turns over constantly upon
a central constant of zero. There is a cliche that "the only constant is
change" but there is no "change" without "constant."
Even in the Universe as you would have it, you lose your argument. I have
several times pointed out the constancy of space to time in your so-called
"accelerating expansionism" of your so-called "Big Bang" Universe. In
observation of it there is also another constancy I have not mentioned but
have implied. The constancy of matter and energy staying precisely
proportional, as their proportion of the total pie, to the constancy of
space to time "accelerating expansionism." That constancy with regard to
your version of the Universe forces expansion to 'infinity', forever,
accelerating to 'infinity', forever. The constant of matter and the constant
of energy, and the constant of exact proportionality in accelerating
expansion. If at any time matter and energy were to lose out to space and
time in the so-called "accelerating expansionism" of the Universe,
deceleration would immediately begin and the expansion would slow to a stop.
So physicists have spawned the ideas of "dark matter" and "dark energy" now
to explain the look of ever continuing acceleration in expansion. They have
to have something to fill in the would be propulsive blanks that would have
prevented such an ever continuing acceleration, an ever continuing pulse to,
explosion in, expansion.
Astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, are stunned to discover that
galaxies are just forming, just being conceived and/or just birthing,
extreme youth existing almost immediate to us in space and time so to speak,
in the observable universe (u) right now. That is not supposed to be
happening in your version of the Universe. Your version of an "arrow of
time" and evolution. Such implies a far more primitive or course universe
being mixed right in with what is, or was, thought to be the more civilized,
refined, sophisticated, or more evolved, universe. In your version of
Universe these newly discovered new formations would have to be formations
forming from a later Big Bang, several billions of years later along your
arrow of time, than our Big Bang. Their arrow of time then being shorter in
length of time than ours. Their expanding Universe being less...expanded
(less expansive to date)...than ours. Effectively, the matter and the
energy, and the space and the time, involved in these new formations has to
be younger, so to speak, than our matter and energy, our space and time, as
ridiculous as that might seem (as ridiculous as that should be!).
If the expansion of your version of the Universe is to be "forever,"
explain why the 'expanse' of that same Universe has not already been
"forever". Explain these newly discovered new formations. Explain, from your
version of the scheme of things Universe, why our galaxy could not possibly
have been in the same [relative] situation as these formations just
discovered just coming into being. I mean, explain why there could not have
been galaxies around much older than ours when our own was just then in
formation: Why no generational aspect running backward in time as well as
forward.
Brad
- Next message: Richard Henry: "Re: 40M for Bush Inauguration and 15M for Tsunami Disaster WAS Re: Bush accused of undermining the UN with aid coalition"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: electrons & magnetic fields, a puzzle"
- Maybe in reply to: Dean Elliot: "Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
