Universe Race

Tesla I implore you to read it. It is about string theory in only one chapter; I guess you are thinking about 'The Elegant Universe'. Again you degenerate into unsubstantiated assertion.Why do you resist the education that is on hand here.Get the book from a library and read it. Pay particular attention to the chapter on inflation cosmology and the chapter on the big bang being the result of 2 three dimensional branes colliding.It may simply put the question further from our reach but it pisses over your childlike interpretation of origins.You are giving me ulcers, tesla: please educate your self.

the math is for the singularity.no outside interactions, and a singular timeless energy. evolves.by chance "math here" variables: chaotic, ordered
environment: nonechance of evolution of a timeless singular energy no other variables (by chance): (odds here)same energy: timeless, no outside interactions, variables: chaotic or ordered, no environment, evolution with direction(intelligence):odds: 100%

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

larni!!!there theories! and incomplete truths.im not dealing with something you can go find in a book. you need to think about it. the books and past learning's are guides. we have a better understanding today than what they did of science in the past. use that knowledge as guides, apply it to the reality of today, and look for the truth of reality.if we were debating a science that was understood, it would have been a short debate.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Is that supposed to mean anything? To me it sounds like "yadda-yadda-yadda". -- A sure sign that you have no idea what you're talking about...

so, your a physicists, but have low reading comprehension?lets see. do this math fallacycop:choose a singular item with no multiplicity, an atom has points to measure from, so you "see" them indirectly.but a force with no two points in no environment, cannot be seen (yet)take a singular item, with ZERO environment. and do the math on a chance evolution.then do the math on the same singular item, with a self directed evolution (intelligence)what are the odds?chance:?directed by self intelligence: ?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

My complements to everyone for making a great effort to engage constructively with Tesla, but I've suspended him for 48 hours because EvC Forum prefers to discourage members from participating in topics with which they are completely unfamiliar, unless they're just asking questions, of course. Tesla has established this as his modus operandi, and so I will tend to act early when I see it happening.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

you believe i am ignorant?here, lets view the racers:Error 404 | Page Not Foundnow lets view the most accepted theory:here:http://math.ucr.edu/...s/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.htmlThere is one final twist in the answer to this question. It has been suggested by Stephen Hawking that once quantum effects are accounted for, the distinction between black holes and white holes is not as clear as it may seem. This is because of Hawking radiation which shows that black holes can lose matter. (See the relativity FAQ article on Hawking radiation .) A black hole in thermal equilibrium with surrounding radiation might have to be time symmetric in which case it would be the same as a white hole. This idea is controversial, but if true it would mean that the universe could be both a white hole and a black hole at the same time. Perhaps the truth is even stranger. In other words, who knows?and this:This should not be utterly shocking, just pretty darn shocking. The vacuum, after all, can be thought of as the state of least energy. If we are using really different co-ordinate systems, we'll have really different notions of time, hence really different notions of energy--since energy is defined in quantum theory to be the operator H such that time evolution is given by exp(-itH). So on the one hand, it's quite conceivable that we'll have different notions of positive and negative frequency solutions in classical field theory--a solution that's a linear combination of those with time dependence exp(-i?t) is called positive or negative frequency depending on the sign of ?--but of course this depends on a choice of time co-ordinate t. And on the other hand, it's quite conceivable that we'll have different notions of the lowest-energy state.and this:Now when we are in good old flat Minkowski spacetime, a la special relativity, there are a bunch of "inertial frames" differing by Lorentz transformations. These give different time co-ordinates, but one can check that the difference is never so bad that different co-ordinates give different notions of positive or negative frequency solutions of Maxwell's equations. Nor will different people using these co-ordinate systems ever disagree about what's the lowest-energy state. So all inertial observers agree about what's a particle, what's an antiparticle, and what's the vacuum.now assumptions:That'd be the heuristic explanation I'd give that most closely corresponds to the usual computation. There are additional things to say about the fact that the guy far in the future and far away from the black hole can't see what's in the hole, so he has incomplete information about the state, so he sees a state with entropy, in fact a thermal state. (Here I'm assuming the black hole was NOT eternal, so the guy way back in the past didn't have the black hole to contend with. Apparently Hawking's original computation dealt with this case, but people subsequently watered down his explanation by assuming the black hole was there eternally, to simplify the math. This is what the guy at the talk said... I'd only seen the watered-down version!)why by my posting, do you think for one minute that i do not know what i have studied the most in science, for the specific purpose of understanding the question :IS God, or is God NOT?for that purpose do i know what i know of cosmology. and the whole theory is based on greater assumptions than i have made. what i assume is:REALITY IS.nothing outside of energy can be REAL.T=0 is inevitable.now by observation, which makes better sense when trying to scrutinize the beginning of all that is? tentative maths based on assumptions with no absolute proof, so exists in theory..ORundeniable truths of reality that even a child could understand?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Please do not participate in discussions with posts consisting primarily of cut-n-pastes from pages at other websites. Make the point in your own words, use short excerpts when appropriate, and continue to provide links as you've been doing.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

larni proposed the string theory in understanding the "fabric" of space time; now i offer the fabric the racers race in as it is within the understanding of the "big bang" model i have given.the fabric is the very fabric of "existence". which you can find defined in "the law of existence" (click my name, and look for the topic "law of existence if you do not know the definition as i propose.here is how this fabric works within this model:the genesis energy is a pure energy form, that can condense and expand, like air and water. when the energy is condensed enough it becomes matter. between matter, the energy left is stretched as opposed to condensed, but is still available within all area, and from the main body the energy travels unseen to any point in the fabric of any condensed level, be it thinner, such as air is thinner in the higher atmospheres of your planet, or thicker, such as the center of your planet is more dense.the energy can then establish at any point in its area, to further condense at any point drawing from the main body, which is unseen, because there are no two points to measure or see the energy. this is the "fabric" of the universe."string theory" is the theory attempting to explain this phenomenon.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I did what now?Nice pictures of planets, by the way.Edited by Larni, : Nice pictures

message 247, brian greene. i consider the string theory an abuse of science to accept science fiction as theory. there's really nothing to base it on accept to grasp at an imaginative force based on too many tentatives.its like..building a theory on a theory already full of holes.to build a good theory, you to have a theory to build on with more definitive backings before building on it, so it can be explored. i consider it fascinating literature, but not backed well enough for "theory" status.you may feel the same about what i am proposing. but before you do, consider this: to exist is definite. what we exist in is also definite. and at T=0 if you have done the math of probabilities you'll see that I'm building on what is definite by all laws and maths of science.Edited by tesla, : god=good

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Tesla, I was asking you to read 'The Fabric of the Cosmos', not 'The Elegant Universe'.The former has one brief chapter on string theory. The majoity of the book is about the fabric of the cosmos!The part I thought you would digg was the sections on Brane theory and the image of two 3 dimensional branes aligning in parallel and touching at T=0.How you concider it an abuse of science when you pontificate about 'exist is definite' for several hundred posts is beyond me. I challenge you tesla, to show me the maths you have done: in maths, not analogy!

lets observe math then.math is used to measure and explain quantities , area, probabilities, and passage.to understand lets say, the area of a floor, you measure the floor. and 12 feet by 20 feet you find the area necessary to cover the floor. but then also, do you need to understand the floor you are laying. say; hardwood. so you also must measure the floors level, and the outside variables of the walls for specific alignment that the wood will "appear" straight, but never can be ideal straight, unless the walls were perfectly square, and they never are. so the math is to suit appearance. the floor being not level can cause buckling of the wood, and a messy job if not corrected, so then you run the math of probabilities to understand at what level of buckling is acceptable for the wood you are installing.the math of the singularity for it to be understood, is the math of probabilities. i give it to you in analogy for the simple reason that all who do the math come up with different variables, but all workable within the confines of the truth.for example: flooring installer A Say's; the proper leveling of a floor to work with hardwood A, is an eighth of an inch for the matter of appearance, and the woods thickness being 3/4 of an inch is acceptable to sanding on the high spots before installation, and would be acceptable to the customer because the high spot is 2 eighths higher than the necessary height needed for a quality installation.flooring installer B Say's; nay, but i say, unless within a sixteenth of an inch , the settling of the house will exceed the necessary parameters for a quality installation within 7 years, and although it would be accepted now, the floor is a 20 year floor, and a sixteenth would extend the time frame thrice with the given variables of the foundation on its current platform, which is clay. the variables of the settling by the age of the house and the walls current settling from what would have been necessary for passing by codes in 1985 support the observation.the math was done by two different installers, and both would have found an acceptable floor, which means A=B, regardless, but one considered a missing variable, while the other ignored it.so when running the probabilities of the singularity i can say:by chance: impossible, regardless whose math checks the probabilities, even tho the probabilities numbers may differ in number.and by direction 100% probabilities, regardless who's math runs the variables.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I feel entirely justified in saying what you has presented is mindless bullshit.What the hell does laying floors have to do with the physics of the early universe?Or indead anything on this site.Or indead anything other than laying floors.To be spoken in the tone of Comic Book Guy.Worst. Maths. Ever

Oh! So when you say "do the math" you actually mean "don't do it".That's "Interesting"