the universe and space....?

Guten abend! Dast ist meine freudin "the flawed intelligence" vorstellen!

I AM REPORTING, YOU DECIDE

OOU = Our Observable Universe = all that which we can observe (one way or another) and all that we can validly infer from what we observe.

SATOOU = Something Additional To OOU = That which is not in OOU.

IOU = The Intelligence Of OOU, if there be any such intelligence.

stuff = (matter and energy)

If SATOOU contains zero stuff, time cannot exist in it.

If SATOOU contained finite stuff for a finite time, then SATOOU's stuff had a beginning. If SATOOU's stuff had a beginning, then SATOOU's stuff had a first cause.

If SATOOU contained finite stuff for an infinite time, then that stuff due to the effects of gravity would have consolidated into a finite or infinitesimal point, and that point would have been the beginning of OOU.

If SATOOU contained infinite stuff for an infinite time, then that stuff due to the effects of gravity may have have consolidated into a finite or infinitesimal point, and that point would have been the beginning of OOU.

With regard to that last statement, it would be fair to claim that the probability of the consolidation of infinite stuff in an infinite time is as indeterminate. That is, it is not knowable what is or is not possible, muchless probable, with regard to an SATOOU said to have both infinite stuff and infinite time. Therefore, the relevance to OOU of a SATOOU that contained infinite stuff for an infinite time is indeterminate.

So let's assume FOR NOW a SATOOU containing infinite stuff for an infinite time is irrelevant to the evolution of OOU and attempt to deduce the relevance of the seven remaining possibilities to the evolution of OOU:
(1) SATOOU containing zero stuff for zero time;
(2) SATOOU containing finite stuff for a finite time;
(3) SATOOU containing finite stuff for an infinite time;
(4) SATOOU containing infinite stuff for a finite time;
(5) SATOOU containing infinite stuff for zero time;
(6) SATOOU containing zero stuff for infinite time;
(7) SATOOU containing finite stuff for zero time.

(1) It is self-evident that this kind of SATOOU is irrelevant to the evolution of OOU.
(2) It is self-evident that this kind of SATOOU is relevant to the evolution of OOU.
(3) It is self-evident that this kind of SATOOU is relevant to the evolution of OOU.
(4) It is self-evident that this kind of SATOOU is relevant to te evolution of OOU.
(5), (6), (7) It is self-evident that these kinds of SATOOU are irrelevant to the evolution of OOU.


(2) This kind of SATOOU had a beginning and therefore had a first cause. We expand our theory to include this kind of SATOOU by postulating its first cause to be IOU.

(3) This kind of SATOOU is itself a candidate for a first cause of OOU.

(4) This kind of SATOOU had a beginning and therefore had a first cause. We expand our theory to include this kind of SATOOU by postulating its first cause to also be IOT.

NEXT WE SHALL EXAMINE THE THEORY WITH RESPECT TO OOU, ABSENT CONSIDERATION OF AN SATOOU CONTAINING INFINITE STUFF FOR INFINITE TIME

Zeichen das Verstand bestehen und nicht volkommen

(hoere Schule, 1949, )

Ican,

Blue Shift, particularly seen in the Andromeda Galaxy, is caused (in this case) when one side of the galaxy is rotating towards us faster than the other which naturally is receeding. Since the Andromeda Galaxy is rotating on a plane similar to ours this effect is more pronounced than it would be if the galaxie were rotating on a plane perpendicular to ours.

This effect also happens when two galaxies are gravitationally linked on any plane similar to ours. One Galaxy will be redshifted much more than the other due simply to "local Motion".

This will also happen when two "Super clusters" are linked if the plane is appropriate.

Perhaps: This will reflect the loss of energy translated into longer wavelengths simply due to space time. It is only one of the causes of "red shift" that has to be accounted for in order to verify "The Expanding Universe".

This is an example of what happened several months ago when you sent me the formula for computing the "gravitationally induced red shift"
It didn't allow for local motion or local densities.
I have pasted the formula on my wall, along with "The Rosary" and a prayer wheel as a genuine attempt to understand.

Matter of fact, I think I am about to reach the conclusion that "In an Infinite Universe all motions are local". But I am not about to say that a discovery of non local gravitational motion would prove The Universe finite. Just attempting to visualize it in four dimensions gives me a headache. For Real! Make a hell of a screensaver though!



See my post to BoGoWo-- Page 26, Aug 6, 8:48PM I mentioned the other causes of frequency shifts there.

So we agree the blue shift is caused by the Dopler Effect, too! But as I understand it, the blueshift on the approaching side of Andromeda is greater than the blue shift on the departing side. Since both sides are blue shifted, Andromeda, itself must be approaching faster than its departing side is departing.

I read your post on additional causes of redshift besides the Dopler Effect.

Just to add a new wrinkle, once you think you know the cards, another one gets dealt ...

A new theory of time

If we subtract enough flawed intelligence perhaps what remains will be true.

Sounds like a Buddist philosophy. Seems to suit many persons.

This seems to be one example of a truth that has little relation to observation. Not an unknown phenomenon on Earth.

Was my German enough to get by

Ican,
Yes, It is widely considered to be. One theorist I read seems to calculate that Andromeda will be where we consider the Milky Way to be now in about seven million years. Of course by that time we will be somewhere else. He fails to note "relative to what". Or memory fails
This also happens when one starts figureing "gravity links".

Did you like timberlando's link? I just love people who can think outside the box. Made this whole link worthwhile. Another box to get out of. Thanx TLD

yer weccum, Mechsmith. Lynds has been getting lots of play in usenet groups in math, astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology over the past year or so. Its good to see mainstream press picking up on his work.

Mech,

I read Timber's link. It left me wanting to learn more about what Lynd thinks are the consequences of his theory.

Nah, no matter what anyone "thinks" -- my guess is that you will always be trying to show that GOD exists.

In fact, I think there is nothing about your "theory" that really interests you if you cannot get to the point where whatever it is you are trying to describe -- whether it be GOD, God, god, or some other manufactured name -- eventually "endows" us humans with certain unalienable (or inalienable) rights. It'll be GOD no matter your current protestation.

Call it whatever you want -- I'm willing to let the crowd see where you go with this thing -- and they can decide if you are trying to show GOD exists or not.

TO ANYONE STILL TUNED IN:

No matter how much static I give Ican, I guarantee that if you stay on this merry-go-round, you will enjoy the ride no end. Ican will provide many interesting scenarios and puzzles to ponder.

Unfortunately, at the end, if the history of his theories is any indicator, we will be no closer to understanding REALITY and/or EXISTENCE than we were before we started.

I'll respond to elements of the "new" "theory" in my next post.

THEORY: PROBABLY IOU INFLUENCES THE EVOLUTION OF OOU AND PROBABLY IOU ITSELF.

(Note: The word <probably> as used here means <more likely than not>)

What if SATOOU contained or contains:
(1) zero stuff for zero time;
(2) zero stuff for finite time;
(3) zero stuff for infinite time;

[A SATOOU with zero stuff cannot influence the evolution of OOU and IOU]

(4) finite stuff for zero time [zero influence on the evolution of OOU and IOT];
(5) finite stuff for finite time [requires a first cause];
(6) finite stuff for infinite time [requires all that stuff to have consolidated into a point];
(7) infinite stuff for zero time [zero influence on the evolution of OOU and IOU];
(8) infinite stuff for finite time [requires a first cause];
(9) infinite stuff for infinite time [indeterminate].

(5) and (8) require a first cause. A valid candidate for that first cause is IOT. If (5) or (8) ever existed or exists, then IOU or better existed or exists.

(6) is a candidate for a first cause of OOU.

(9) is indeterminate because it is impossible to determine whether the infinite stuff consolidated into a point in infinite time or not. The idea of infinte stuff for infinite time smacks of the current mythology that all things are possible. How can we possibly know that? We don't even know or can know <all things>. Also, the idea of something having infinite stuff for infinite time is similar to many popular definitions of God! YOU DECIDE!

I think the above analysis is valid and probably true. If valid and true, then it is sufficient to study only OOU to determine the true nature of its evolution. SATOOU, if it exists at all, provides only the first cause of OOU and little insight into the subsequent influences of the evolution of OOU.

CURRENT DATA

Possibly the evolution of human life on earth occurred within a trillion years by Undirected Chance + Natural Selection (UC+NS). For the probability that assumption is true to be greater than a googolth [i.e., 10^(-100)], there must be more than a moogol [i.e., 10^1,000,000,000] number of life evolving planets in OOU. Clearly, while admittedly immense, a moogol is a finite number.

A preponderance of Cosmologists assert that the age of OOU is 10 to 20 billion years. Their estimate is based on the amount of redshift of light (visible and invisible to the human eye) from distant galaxies, whose actual distance from our telescopes is estimated from the relative intensity of light from "standard candles" in those galaxies. Generally, there is a direct proportion between the amount of redshift and galactic distance. This proportion implies that OOU began from a point 10 to 20 billion years ago and its stuff has been separating ever since. More recent observations of galaxies more than 10 billion light years distant, implies that the speed of separation is accelerating. While it is a long time, 10 to 20 billion years is a finite time.

A large majority of cosmologists have estimated that:
1. The total number of galaxies in OOU is less than a trillion trillion.
2. The average number of stars in a galaxie are less than a trillion trillion.
3. The average number of life evolving planets per star are less than a trillion trillion.

From this, I infer that the total number of life evolving planets in OOU is less than a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (i.e., 10^72). Clearly 10^72 life evolving planets is much less than 10^1,000,000. So the probability that UC+NS is sufficient for the evolution of human life on our planet is much less than a googolth [i.e., 10^(-100)] and is even less than a moogolth [i.e., 10^(-1,000,000)]. That then implies that the probability that the evolution of human life was influence by Directed Chance + Natural Selection (DC+NS) is greater than (1-a moogolth), a PRACTICAL CERTAINTY.

IMPLICATION

Let IOU = DC+NS.

Then our theory is probably true.

Does that mean that IOU is God?

Define <God>.

Then you decide.

I think IOU is NOT God, at least NOT God as I define God.

Okay, these are definitions -- and I have no problem with them.

I do have one question about one of the definitions, though.

Regarding your comment about: OOU -- "...all that we can validly infer from what we observe."

We certainly can "validly infer" that we cannot see everything that exists in OOU -- and we certainly can "validly infer" that we cannot see the boundaries or limits of OOU (if there are any) -- and we certainly can "validly infer" that we cannot at present determine for certain if OOU is simply a manifestation occurring within a much larger sphere of...space (for want of a better word)...that already existed before whatever it was that caused the stuff, space, and time of OOU to occur.

So...can we also "validly infer" that we do not know if OOU exists in an infinity of space and time?

If that is not a "valid inference", I'd like to know why not.








TO EVERYONE:

One of the things you have to be very alert to if you are going to participate in this exercise -- is that Ican will often say something like "I think time cannot exist without stuff"...

...and then suddenly you will see something come up in a post that simply says:

"If SATOOU contains zero stuff, time cannot exist in it."

In this case, Ican took a bit of conjecture he pulled out of the air -- disregarded arguments that called that conjecture into question -- and now posits it as a fact.

If you let him get away with this kind of thing -- no matter how seemingly innocent it may seem -- he'd be able to show a high probability that the Tooth Fairy exists -- and that it is disguised as a favorite old aunt of his.

Ican

Unless you can PROVE that time cannot exist in an environment with "zero stuff" -- I suggest that it is illogical to posit it as a fact.



Enough from me for now. Let's see your response to this before I go on to the remainder of my impressions of this new theory.

ONCE AGAIN: We are discussing all this here in a thread that is lengthy and old --- and thereby excluding many people who might be attracted by a new thread. I think it is a mistake -- but you know me -- I'll go along just to be pleasant.

Gee, Frank, how come I get nervous when you get "Pleasant" ?

For reasons of occassional mental lapse, I sometimes typed IOT when I meant to type IOU (i.e., Intelligence Of the Universe). Sorry about that.


Frank is possibly very happy now. But then again, maybe not.


QUESTIONS

Is the phrase <activist agnostic> an oxymoron?

Does the statement by a self-alleged agnostic that <he KNOWS agnosticism is better> mark him a hypocrit?

I think it does mark him in this regard a hypocrit!

You decide.

Absolutely not! Why would anyone with any intelligence think that?

(Actually, I much prefer agnostic activist! And that is not an oxymoron either.)





Spellchecker still not working I see.

Despite many explanations about this, apparently you are still under the delusion that being an agnostic means that a person does not know anything - or cannot know anything under penalty of being called a hypocrite.

Agnostics know lots of things -- and are willing to guess about lots of other things also.

Perhaps this little attempt at stereotyping me would have worked out a bit better if you had actually quoted whatever it was I said that you deem to be inappropriate.

You do know how to quote, don't you?



Nope! I think you're all wet here.

But nice try!

Frank you are a pleasant. <pleasant> isn't a noun is it? Oh well!

Try this time to read with understanding what I actually wrote:

" THEORY: PROBABLY IOU INFLUENCES THE EVOLUTION OF OOU AND PROBABLY IOU ITSELF.

(Note: The word <probably> as used here means <more likely than not>) "

Note the word PROBABLY and its explanation <probably>

Surely, you are not so far gone that you actually think I am claiming <proof> of anything.

I suggest this statement of yours is not relevant to what I have actually posted:



Time's existence in reality probably needs some kind of reference basis to discern it, if it exists in reality. I think it does exist in reality, but I do not know that for certain. I think that times reference basis is probably stuff. Many a physicist has collected data implying that the passage of time is dependent on the strength of the gravitational field (i.e., gravity of stuff's field) in which it occurs plus the speed and acceleration that same stuff is traveling. So I think it probably a good gamble that time exists if stuff exists, and time does not exist if stuff doesn't exist.

Consequently, I suggest your suggestion is probably illogical in that it is probably based on your hopes and not your logic. I encourage you to re-examine your logic and your hopes, too.

One other thing. While I cannot speak for any other mothers and fathers, I am willing to gamble that I know who the truth fairy was in our kid's family. Hold on to your beard! .....Steady now!..... Perhaps you are hearing this for the first time in your life!....Maybe you should sit down! It was me or it was my wife! I kid you not!

My wife has given me expert and true testimony on this under dire threat of losing her self-respect, if she doesn't tell the truth as she knows it. :wink:

A second other thing. However, please continue to misrepresent what I write in order to attempt PROOF of those BELIEFS of yours that you claim not to have, and to hold on to your insecurely adopted faith based mythology that you CLAIM to have securely adopted. It's all as plain as that beard on your face----you better hide it from view here because it is a constant reminder of your program. Hereinafter, I'll trust others to decide for themselves without your bunkum prompting, or my POLITE reminders.

Hmmmmm



Hmmmmm

............................



............................



............................

Of no immediate pertinence to the topic at discussion, ican, but the afflicting your earlier response to Frank leads me to suspect you're composing replies in a third-party word processing app (not a bad idea, BTW) which uses richtext formatting for special characters and switches this website's text-and-graphics setup doesn't accommodate. A simple workaround is to paste to Notepad before submitting, and manually search out and delete the unintended character strings. That is, if it matters to you enough. Its no biggie.