the universe and space....?

Do you know for certain all this is true, or do you merely think all this is true?



You KNOW

Like I predicted the scallywag (i.e., usurper of authority) you promised with Bogowo's help "to thrash within an inch of his life" has in deed identified him or herself.

It's YOU Well I'll be a ringdangdoo!

Hokie

I hope that clears that up for you!

I wrote this:
Suppose H = only 7.2 meters per second. Then the age of OOU would be approximately 13.6 trillion years.

I should have written:
Suppose H = only 72 meters per second. Then the age of OOU would be approximately 13.6 trillion years.

Thanks Ican... Although your lengthy explanation was a bit superfluous. I have had my fill of set theory and formal language theory. haha... Though, how do you explain matter and antimatter?
Where A+~A = ø

Of course, I'm not absolutely certain that it does exist, there seems to be a lot of evidence in the physics community that it does....


Now... what is H ? Is that the velocity of the expanding universe?

And Frank, did my explanation of time dialation make sense?

just wanted 2 start by answering icans questions;

The evolution of life on this planet was purposeless? yes!

The evolution of our solar system is purposeless? it didn't evolve, it coalesced from present matter, but to no purpose!

The evolution of our galaxy was purposeless? it didn't evolve, it coalesced from present matter, but to no purpose!

The evolution of the stuff of OOU is purposeless? it didn't evolve, it coalesced from present matter, but to no purpose!

Gravity is purposeless? gravity is a force, does heat, or light have a purpose? of course not!

OOU is purposeless? totally!

now 2 reading..........

Wait... and what is "OOU" ??? As I'm a "newbie" I haven't caught onto all the abbreviations.

OOU - "our (ican's - mines quite different!) observable universe"

and "a" is just a letered designation of anything; and it can only exist
if "not a" exists since one defines the other - eg without dark, there can be no light!

and ican; "Bogowo, Maybe this life is but a very tough boot camp for the next one."

don't count on it, i'd get the most out of this one if i were u (but, of course, i'm not, not even close!) and only i stand 2 know if i'm wrong, u never will! (but i don't think i'll waste time writing an acceptance speech!)

mech; there is no such thing as an independent observer (ask Hans Blick);
we are deeply involved with the systems that r driving us, & unable 2 detach ourselves from 'life' in order 2 understand it.

but, being immersed within, is 2 me a source of insight, not obscurity.

& feelings (emotion) also plays a part; if i listen 2 a piece of music by a composer who i am particularly fond of, whether that composer is dead, or alive, i feel the reality of the fact that that 'being' has had an impact on this universe, and is having 1 on me at that time!

we need 2 get our hands dirty in this investigation; that i know, even if frank and ican r only willing 2 'guess', or 'gamble'!

Hokie,

I recommend you read the entire thread of 25 or more pages to learn all the lingo and concepts being discussed here.

OOU = Our Observable Universe = All that we can see, detect, and infer that exists from scientific observations of one kind or another.

SATOOU = Something Additional To OOU = All else, if there be any else, besides OOU.

H = Hubble's Constant. It equals the speed of separation of distant galaxies from our telescopes as a function of their distances from our telescopes. H is currently estimated to be approximately 72,000 meters per second per a distance of 3.26 million light years. The 3.26 million light years is called a <Megaparsec>. So if the distance of a galaxy from us is 100 Megaparsecs, the speed of its separation from our telescopes is 100 x 72,000 = 7.2 million meters per second. The speed of light is alleged to be approximately 3 x 100 million meters per second. The reciprocal of H = 1/H = the approximate age of OOU.

Not-matter is not the same thing as antimatter. Not-matter is the absence of matter of any kind. Antimatter is a different kind of matter than the matter we usually observe. When the two kinds of matter, our usual kind and antimatter, come together they allegedly obliterate each other and become Not-matter or energy.

I hope that helps. Your questions are welcome.

Now I have one. Are you a pilot?

Bogowo,

Please expand on your statement:
"we need 2 get our hands dirty in this investigation; that i know"

good point ican; adding a little 'space' never hurts!

we

need

2

get

our

hands

dirty

in

this

investigation
;
that

i

know

there is that better (a simple linear expansion)!

Hokie,
Nearly three years ago I made similar assertions.

The Big Bang or a singularity, or a Creation Happened.

The expanding Universe theory strongly validated the "Big Bang" scenario, if not a proof.

I wrote a short, respectful parody of Genesis according to the theory.

But somebody here happened to point out that my dissertation amounted to no more than a statement of beliefs. After some reflection and rereading about three more pop physics books I conceded.

The "Big Bang", Multiple dimension,Quantum Foam, and a half dozen more or so postulated Universes have very little more to do with observation than Divinely Created ones.

If one postulates a Big Bang scenario and makes ones predictions accordingly they frequently seem accurate.

If one postulates a Divine Creation scenario and makes predictions accordingly then they frequently seem accurate.

Most cosmologists, theoretical physicists, and engineers, "Believe" the Big Bang Scenario to be accurate.
Most Priests, Imams, and Ministers "Believe" The Creation Theory to be accurate.

Trying to sort out fact from theory and wishful imagination is a fair quest. IMO natch.

There is a lot of it going around. Some of it may be mine.

When matter and antimatter combine, they produce energy, or what you call "not matter." However, according to string theory, matter, in a sense, is energy.

And no, I'm not a pilot... there is more the the Air Force than air craft.

Jack wanted 2 know if u'd like 2 come along next time we go diving?

i 'guessed' u would. (hope that's all right)

ok what i mean is why banter about, with ridiculous numbers, with prefixes on them, and nit picking about the colour of pencil 2 use in filling in the spaces between things we are not sure of;
i am no more willing 2 give bishop berkely's nonsense mind space, that i am 2 consider the pope's criminal dictates on 'birth control; idiocy is idiocy, lets look at reality as it obviously exists (the whole infinite mess ) and see if we can discover something new worth discussing !

Yeah, after a fashion.

I've actaully read several books on the subject -- and your explanation seemed to coincide with the way I've seen it explained before.

But I am a dummy when it comes to physics and math -- so I won't participate often in the more esoteric portions of Ican's presentation. I can follow the set theory stuff well enough, but much of his information is way beyond what I am able or willing to deal with.

Stick around. You'll enjoy what is coming up.

There is a great difference between what a priest believes and what physicists believe. Priest have blind faith. Physicists base their theorys on observed facts and experimental data. I don't really see how the two can be compared. Much of the theory of the big bang is solidly founded on fundamental observed experiments and mathematics. Granted, there are some areas where we speculate.... But in the past, our speculations have usually turned out correct.

usaf...y;

bishop berkely was a philosopher (california university named after him, how suitable), who postulated that concrete reality only existed when a sentient being was available to observe it............
come 2 think of it u're right he was mostly priest!
hey, maybe it was because he never saw 'anything'.........

BoGoWo,
A simple linear expansion is not as easy as it looks.
Nor does it work. Thats the rough part.
I've been trying to do it for six months or better.
Just calculating the gravitational red shift as a mechanic or engineer would is a trick.
Then you have to calculate the energy loss due to conduction
Then you have to calculate wave length changes due to "Doppler effects.
Then you have to calculate the wave length changes due to variations in the speed of time at the various points of the particles journey.
Then you have to figure the drift due to the different actual speeds speeds of the differing wave lengths.

Some of these effects are infinitesimial. But a little bit of accelerations over ten or fifteen million years or so adds up.

If we can't do the math then we merely "Believe".

Hokie

Do keep this particular definition and acronym in mind -- even if you disregard all the rest. You'll soon discover that acronyms will pop up all over the place -- some never to be seen again after its initial use, but OOU will be with us throughout the discussion.

(This little note to you is going to take me a few minutes. I hope you stick with me.)

At some point, Ican will discuss whether OOU is finite or infinite. He has to. The question of whether or not the UNIVERSE is finite or infinite will eventually become important -- and since Ican has rejected any consideration of SATOOU (anything other than OOU) -- the only thing we have to examine is OOU. (All this is correct even if Ican initially rejects what I am saying here. You'll see.)

In any case, as I will mention when that part of the discussion occurs (or occurs again for your sake), if we define OOU the way Ican requires that it be defined -- and if we are prevented from considering even the possibility of SATOOU -- it makes no sense to consider whether OOU is finite or infinite, because by definition (Ican's definition) it is finite.

REPEAT: It is very important for Ican to establish that the UNIVERSE is finite -- so take my word for it, he will "establish it" -- whether it makes sense or not. (In fact, almost everything Ican considers important will eventually "be established.")

Ican will "establish" that the universe is finite without considering the possibility that what we call the universe (the stuff of the Big Bang) may NOT BE ALL THERE IS. He will adamantly refuse to consider that possibility ---and will argue that it makes sense to do so - which I consider illogical..

But don't get me wrong. It will be a very interesting trip -- especially for someone taking it for the first time. I'm an old hand -- and I don't impress easily, so I may from time to time sound a bit jaded. But don't let that fool you. I will be listening with both ears (figuratively) and hoping that something really comes out of the undertaking that amounts to more than -- "...because."


To be out-front -- I will always be aiming at the agnostic perspective -- an acknowledgment that (more than likely) we do not know and (more than likely) we don't have enough information yet to make reasonable guesses -- about what Ican actually is discussing.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF REALITY?

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE?

WHAT IS?

HOW DID WHATEVER IT IS, COME TO BE?

IS THERE A GOD AT WORK IN REALITY?


I am every bit as anxious to investigate our circumstances as is Ican or you or Bo or anyone else involved here. I welcome all investigation. I participate in investigations with gusto.

But I reject the kinds of things theists and atheists want to pass off as investigation -- and I reject what Ican is trying to pass off here, also

Hokie, Now that you've done the arithmetic try this. They are not dummies, Just Believers with some justifications.

http://www.kofc.org/faith/catechism/catechism.cfm

Also try Athiest as a write in search on the home page.

Yes, a fantastic theory. But probably not the only one being discussed here.