Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 110 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-19-2017 7:02 PM
353 online now:
Coyote (1 member, 352 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,680 Year: 27,286/21,208 Month: 1,199/1,714 Week: 42/365 Day: 42/40 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
Percy
Member
Posts: 16158
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 166 of 181 (673845)
09-24-2012 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-23-2012 8:25 PM


Re: Not enough.
Why, thank you, Al, for that extensive list of unsupported assertions in response to a post from 70 messages ago.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-23-2012 8:25 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10059
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 167 of 181 (673851)
09-24-2012 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-23-2012 8:25 PM


Re: Not enough.
Any musings on Genic Energy? Do you believe that there is yet to be explained energy coming from the sun?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-23-2012 8:25 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-24-2012 10:15 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 168 of 181 (673856)
09-24-2012 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by NoNukes
09-24-2012 9:08 AM


Re: Not enough.
I am yet to study LaViolette proposals in detail to say anything. There is a lot to digest. He covers a lot of issues- from quasars to Egyptian cosmology which reminds me of Rhawn Joseph, another anti-bigbangist and excellent panspermia theorist. As to redshift I prefer relativist explanations to the simple tired light one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 09-24-2012 9:08 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Paul Choa
Junior Member (Idle past 1778 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 09-29-2012


Message 169 of 181 (674442)
09-29-2012 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 2:58 PM


Big bang
Big bang has evidence . When I worked at Bell labs. On the back of the small hill there was an a microwave antenna station. Right there our colleague Arno Penzias (actually our VP) and Bob Wilson received Nobel price because they observed the background temperature of the universe, which match with exactly the big bang predict about big bang residue energy.... Anyway, I think you misunderstand big bang. Big bang is very spiritually matched with Bible....

when Jesus engineered all these creation works you were not there. It does Take 13.7B earth years to reach the current "golden age of the universe", Sometimes is is hard for our mind to understand the language of God.. To understand this part you really need to know both Bible and science well. big bang is very spiritual... More closely to match with Bible than any others...

God Bless

Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 2:58 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2012 3:16 AM Paul Choa has not yet responded
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 09-29-2012 9:24 AM Paul Choa has responded
 Message 176 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-30-2012 11:45 PM Paul Choa has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 170 of 181 (674448)
09-29-2012 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Paul Choa
09-29-2012 2:29 AM


Re: Big bang
Big bang has evidence . When I worked at Bell labs. On the back of the small hill there was an a microwave antenna station. Right there our colleague Arno Penzias (actually our VP) and Bob Wilson received Nobel price because they observed the background temperature of the universe, which match with exactly the big bang predict about big bang residue energy.... Anyway, I think you misunderstand big bang. Big bang is very spiritually matched with Bible....

when Jesus engineered all these creation works you were not there. It does Take 13.7B earth years to reach the current "golden age of the universe", Sometimes is is hard for our mind to understand the language of God.. To understand this part you really need to know both Bible and science well. big bang is very spiritual... More closely to match with Bible than any others...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Paul Choa, posted 09-29-2012 2:29 AM Paul Choa has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16158
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 171 of 181 (674473)
09-29-2012 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Paul Choa
09-29-2012 2:29 AM


Re: Big bang
Hi Paul,

In case you're as ignorant as me, Catholic Scientist's "low wut" phrase apparently has this meaning:

low wut: used to express a combination of confusion, amusement and/or disbelief, usually in response to something bizarre or outrageous.

And the image is called The Biting Pear of Salamanca, whatever that is, and the combination is called the LOL WUT pear, which is now an Internet meme. Good grief!

Anyway, I'm not sure why Catholic Scientist had this response. When the Big Bang was first considered as a viable explanation for the origin of the universe, some quarters of the scientific community were distressed at the obvious correspondences with Genesis.

I didn't realize Penzias eventually became a VP at Bell Labs. We have some former Bell Labs people in our organization, our company acquired the EDA portion of Bell Labs back in 1993.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Paul Choa, posted 09-29-2012 2:29 AM Paul Choa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Paul Choa, posted 09-30-2012 2:31 AM Percy has responded

    
Paul Choa
Junior Member (Idle past 1778 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 09-29-2012


Message 172 of 181 (674531)
09-30-2012 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
09-29-2012 9:24 AM


Re: Big bang
Ok need to be more clear here.
We all know last year's Nobel price in physics was about accelerating expansion of the universe. In fact, the observation was done around 13 years ago. But the result was very unpopular. It really takes while for the community to digest it. Before then, most preferred scenario is that the total mass of the universe will be heavy enough and the expansion will slow down and eventually everything will come back to a singular point. The whole universe will collide and atoms will collaps into a very small size ball and eventually another big bang will take place. The cycle repeats. Life has no meaning but the cycle provide some meaning. In the process of coming back, the second law of thermal dynamics will change and entropy will only decrease instead of increase. But now this finding basically is saying entropy is only increasing. The universe is moving toward thermal equilibrium - final death - energy disperse - big cool. Whatever you say. The stars and galaxy we see today will gradually disappear. The solar system will become isolated in darkness. Everything becomes further and further away. Star travel becomes a movie dream only, since it will be difficult to catch those ever flying away stars. The time machine becomes impossible, since entropy only increases and the symmetry of time and space is destroyed. Time will only increase.

So, the universe has a beginning and it has an end and there is no more. No matter how prosper we have now how much achievement we have accomplished they will be all gone. There is a beginning there is an end and no more. This new understand will influence philosophy and philosophy will change. Eventually it will get to Hollywood. You will see movies of final generation creatures looking for energy or creating new suns for them to survive.

Back to the possibility of great crunch, assume everything will come back to a singular point can you tell me where the point is located in the universe? ....
The answer is that - everywhere. Since everywhere will be getting back into that singular point. Ok. Here we have something important to say. The meaning of the answer represents an understanding of big bang. If I tell you that we spread a clothe on the table and put a lot of objects on top of the clothe. When I say collect all the objects back is different from when I say wrap up the clothe and collect ecerything back. We have no experience what means even the space is not exist. Here wrapping up the clothe is trying to explain to you what happen I big bang. Before big bang there is no time and no space..
I hope now you will understand what means no space. More exactly when the universe is expanding just as it is happening now, the forefront edge is expanding away from us over the speed of light. And right the that interface, the other side has no space existing there.

In summary, the universe is truly coming out of no where. 13.7 B years ago, it comes from a large amount of energy and following E=mc**2 to be created. This is big bang and that is the beginning and now we know there is end. What is the meaning of all of these..I leave it to you to think about..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 09-29-2012 9:24 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 9:59 AM Paul Choa has responded
 Message 178 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-01-2012 12:09 AM Paul Choa has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16158
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 173 of 181 (674548)
09-30-2012 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Paul Choa
09-30-2012 2:31 AM


Re: Big bang
Hi Paul,

Just a few corrections.

Paul Choa writes:

We all know last year's Nobel price in physics was about accelerating expansion of the universe. In fact, the observation was done around 13 years ago. But the result was very unpopular. It really takes while for the community to digest it.

Actually, rather than being unpopular it was embraced. The result was produced from two independent teams, and it helped explain some phenomena that had previously been in conflict, such as the universe containing stars older than the universe itself.

So it not only makes no sense to say the results were unpopular and difficult to digest, it's dead wrong. There's no doubt that some scientific findings are accepted only with difficulty by the scientific community at large, but this is not one of them.

Before then, most preferred scenario is that the total mass of the universe will be heavy enough and the expansion will slow down and eventually everything will come back to a singular point.

Actually, there was no preferred scenario. There were efforts to try to settle the issue, such as totaling the mass of the universe to see if it was sufficient to overcome the rate of expansion, but sufficient evidence never accumulated for there to be a preferred scenario. It was believed that either the mass would overcome expansion or it wouldn't, but neither position had any wide acceptance.

Life has no meaning...
...
This new understand will influence philosophy and philosophy will change. Eventually it will get to Hollywood. You will see movies of final generation creatures looking for energy or creating new suns for them to survive.

Statements like these might lead people to wonder if your focus is really on cosmology.

In the process of coming back, the second law of thermal dynamics will change and entropy will only decrease instead of increase.

While the role of 2LOT in a cyclic universe in reestablishing the entropic arrow was considered a significant stumbling block, what you've said here doesn't look like anything I remember ever being proposed.

Back to the possibility of great crunch, assume everything will come back to a singular point can you tell me where the point is located in the universe? The answer is that - everywhere.

Yes, you're absolutely right. The collapse of the universe wouldn't take place within the universe. It would be a collapse of the universe itself, and it would presumably take place everywhere throughout the universe.

Since everywhere will be getting back into that singular point. Ok. Here we have something important to say. The meaning of the answer represents an understanding of big bang. If I tell you that we spread a clothe on the table and put a lot of objects on top of the clothe. When I say collect all the objects back is different from when I say wrap up the clothe and collect ecerything back. We have no experience what means even the space is not exist. Here wrapping up the clothe is trying to explain to you what happen I big bang. Before big bang there is no time and no space..
I hope now you will understand what means no space. More exactly when the universe is expanding just as it is happening now, the forefront edge is expanding away from us over the speed of light. And right the that interface, the other side has no space existing there.

In summary, the universe is truly coming out of no where. 13.7 B years ago, it comes from a large amount of energy and following E=mc**2 to be created. This is big bang and that is the beginning and now we know there is end. What is the meaning of all of these..I leave it to you to think about..

I wasn't able to extract any meaningful point out of this. Could you explain a little more clearly, or maybe someone else understood what you were saying and can explain.

Also, the topic of this thread is genic energy. It's okay if you want to take a little time getting around to how your ideas relate to the topic, but at some point soon you should tell us what your ideas have to do with genic energy.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Paul Choa, posted 09-30-2012 2:31 AM Paul Choa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Paul Choa, posted 09-30-2012 12:59 PM Percy has responded

    
Paul Choa
Junior Member (Idle past 1778 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 09-29-2012


Message 174 of 181 (674555)
09-30-2012 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Percy
09-30-2012 9:59 AM


Re: Big bang
I apologize to get into your forbiden areas.
I was attracted by the EVC web site and the subject big bang ..My focus is on the subject of creation. I am not interested in genic energy. Sorry to waste your time and certain my own time too..
This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 9:59 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 1:21 PM Paul Choa has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16158
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 175 of 181 (674557)
09-30-2012 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Paul Choa
09-30-2012 12:59 PM


Re: Big bang
Hi Paul,

There are no "forbidden areas". If there's something you want to discuss that you can't find an existing thread for then just propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics. I'm also a moderator, and I'll probably be checking in a couple times today, so if I see a proposal from you I'll give it a look as quickly as I can.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Paul Choa, posted 09-30-2012 12:59 PM Paul Choa has not yet responded

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 176 of 181 (674606)
09-30-2012 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Paul Choa
09-29-2012 2:29 AM


Re: Big bang
Sorry, there could not be any evidence to support a patently absurd proposition. When conflicting evidence is considered for any two different explanations of a process, that may mean that either scenario is deemed to be logically possible. The Big Bang is not logically possible so no supporting evidence cited is relevant. For either that is an event whereby something is created from nothing which is a trick impossible to accomplish even for God, or something is always fully present and in that case that is an event of no greater universal significance than my next fart.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Paul Choa, posted 09-29-2012 2:29 AM Paul Choa has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 10-01-2012 12:05 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16158
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 177 of 181 (674607)
10-01-2012 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-30-2012 11:45 PM


Re: Big bang
Hi Alfred,

I'm just going to assume that explaining to you again that the Big Bang doesn't include T=0 or the origin of the universe would do as little good as it did the last seventeen times, so I'll just say that the topic is genic energy, not the Big Bang.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-30-2012 11:45 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-01-2012 12:23 AM Percy has responded

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 178 of 181 (674608)
10-01-2012 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Paul Choa
09-30-2012 2:31 AM


Re: Big bang
Energy is not a thing. It is a measure of the ability to move things. Things are moved, energy it takes is measured. All other things being equal, it is a measure of distance travelled, ie, a measure of what it takes to move a unit of stuff over a unit of distance.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Paul Choa, posted 09-30-2012 2:31 AM Paul Choa has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2012 12:49 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 179 of 181 (674609)
10-01-2012 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Percy
10-01-2012 12:05 AM


Re: Big bang
That is not what they teach. If time zero is not the case then what is the figure of 13.7 billions of years they are quoting as the age of the Universe? No universal time zero means time is relative and beginning of time is arbitrarily assumed when any one starts measuring some motions. They must come out of the closet and state explicitly that universally any time is as good as any other and that the Universe has no measurable age.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 10-01-2012 12:05 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 10-01-2012 12:45 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16158
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 180 of 181 (674610)
10-01-2012 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-01-2012 12:23 AM


Re: Big bang
Your ability to be wrong is exceeded only by your ability to be off-topic. Why don't you find a topic about the Big Bang and be wrong there? Or if you want to contribute to this thread you could be wrong about genic energy. But please stop being wrong and off-topic all at the same time. If you're going to be wrong, at least be wrong about the topic.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-01-2012 12:23 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017