New signature!

Where is the quote from I ask myself?

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

I can't make a truly spot on comment about this, George as I'm a non scientist (though hopefully that will change in the next 10 years!) but you seem to be arguing that we will eventually come to the 'cold death' (is it?) Which, of course, well we might.

But as my Dad (83 not out) says, "There seems to be some assumption in the scientific community that the Big Bang and what has follows is, or must be, a unique event."

Can we make that assumption?

I argue against that in the Chelmsford Theory which I will post on Monday..sorry not to put it all on in one go, but I get bogged down with my hair and my breadmaker.

The party?

About 5 blokes and about 30 women, all bursting with testosterone. My wife hasn't given me my pass out yet!

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

I wanted you to rethink the idea that universe is going from chaos to order. Overall, this is counter to what I blieve. Of course, fantastic "order" exists in evolutionary life, for instance. However, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that, overall, the universe is loosing useable energy. I wasn't sure if you were wanting to use a natural orderly advancement in the universe to help negate a Creator.

Not all agree that it even happened but you're in the right board to learn.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Interesting. Let me know how that turns out...

Yeah really! Speaking of chaos!

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Alright kilopi!

The party was last night actually (a bit early for Christmas!)

All I can say is that if you're in your 50s and you spike up your hair all sorts of things happen which never happened when you were in your 20s!

When a girl in her 20s grabs you, pulls you onto the dancefloor and rubs her entire body up against you in a slow dance, you tend rather NOT to think about astronomy at that particular time!

For those of you with hair, get some hair gel and get your hides to the Christmas party.

But don't make a chump of yourself.

It's more effective than buying a Porsche.

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

I'm still having trouble getting all my words up on my site for the links, as it keeps tailing off.

As a non-computer nerd will exalted posters please bear with me.

I have now split up The Chelmsford Theory into a number of parts to get it posted and I now give you herewith the links for parts 1 and 2. 3 follows shortly.

Part 1 tails off, but it should just read..go to Part 2.

Awfully sorry.

http://www.instantmessageboards.com/...php?p=10320192

http://www.instantmessageboards.com/...php?p=10320823

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

Time is affected by matter. I do not know enough to suggest that time would not exist without it. It seems unlikely to me. Time is, apparently, a true 4th dimension. Therefore, eliminating time by eliminating matter would be like removing the height or width of the universe, I suppose.

Note: If you do not want the idea of a Creator you may choose to remove the term "Creation". I happen to like it but I am convinced of God - the maker of Creation].

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

I actually spoke to God the other day (in sign language, the only method of communication he is willing to use) and he told me that everything, in actuality, is pudding. He didn't specify what kind though, and you can imagine how let down I was about that.

__________________
"Most editorials are written by people that love to argue but got kicked off debate team for not making any sense." -Seanbaby

I knew it was digital

Chaps!

Three more links for you.

More to come soon.

http://www.instantmessageboards.com/...php?p=10345407

http://www.instantmessageboards.com/...php?p=10345412

http://www.instantmessageboards.com/...php?p=10345413

Good look, fellow hair gellers!

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

I suppose you could stop right there, eh?

Perhaps I could at that, kilopi. I did ask for crits, however scathing. I can take any old beating after some of the batterings I've taken on religious sites.

But also as I've said, I am a non-scientist so I don't have a reputation to protect. If this is all rubbish all I get is egg on my face. But even if there is a grain of truth in it, let's just at least consider it.

After all, it DOES seem to be that matter just came into existence. Out of nothing.

The rest of the Chelmsford Theory is on a slightly different slant, kilopi, and thanks, at least, for having a look. =D>

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

Richard, if you're having trouble finding somewhere to post all your theories, you might go over to Ikyoto's open forum, From Where I Stand, which was partly set up to deal with issues that are off-topic for the BABB (religion, politics, philosophy etc).

(Okay, so this is a shameless plug for FWIS. But we've only got 13 members so far!)

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

Thanks Eroica. I'll do that shortly though I will conclude this thread even if it's not really drawing much interest here.

As you say, perhaps it's not suitable for all these cerebral chaps.

Loved Dublin when I brought my family. We had a walk along the Liffey late one night, saw that boat that's moored and the big floodlit building. Plus the Guiness factory (I'm going to have a Guiness in 5 minutes!)

Great town and lovely country. =D>

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

Your last paragraph, on your last link, says
I need some clarification here. When you mention collapsing at the speed of light, what do you mean by that? What is moving at the speed of light? Do you mean the whole quark is moving at the speed of light while it is collapsing? Do you mean the radius is decreasing at the speed of light?

Sorry kilopi, that wasn't very clear.

I don't mean it absolutely literally ..I at least know the implications of speed-of-light travel! #-o

I mean the radius is decreasing at a phenominally fast rate, so the quark is shrinking before your very eyes.

Have I blundered again?

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

But how fast? You mention that it shrinks for a billion years. If it takes a billion years, how fast could it be?
If you haven't, you're not keeping up. Pick up the pace.

Yes, sorry Kilopi, I sense you're getting exasperated with me. (What time is it over there? Do you get up early?)

All right, let's be definate.

I'm trying to envisage shrinking a tiny object at a very fast speed. I can't to be truthful, give a precise speed, but just try to imagine a quark shrinking in size like a balloon going down.

What I'm saying is that it is possible to shrink that quark and keep on shrinking it for a long period of time, but you will still have a tiny quark at the end of the exercise.

Mathematics are not my strong point, but half of 1 = .5, doesn't it?

Half of .5 = .25.

Half of .25 = .125.

And so on.

You NEVER get to zero, do you kilopi?

So there is no size which is 'the smallest size.

And no size which is 'the largest size.'

Thank you for your patience.

More Chelmsford Theory coming up tomorrow on. :-?

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

I understand how you can take half forever--mathematics is one of my strong points. The other is reumatuma. But, if a quark radius were on the order of 1x10^-15 meters, and shrunk to half at the speed of light, it would take 3x10^-25 second. If it continued at that rate, it'd be gone to zero in 6x10^-25 second. If it continued halfing every 3x10^-25 second (its speed would reduce by half though, each time), it would be reduced to less than the Planck length after less than a hundred halves--which would only take 3x10^-23 seconds--much, much less than a billion years.

However, I am disappointed that you start off declaring to be definite, and then are not definite. We'll need some specifics eventually.

Yes. ops: ops: Sorry.

I consider myself well told off.

But I reiterate that this is a philosophical theory not a scientific one (accepting the fact of the probably mistaken venue)

But I'll do my very best.

No time today.

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to wind up this thread with this posting. I'll put the last of the Chelmsford Theory here as it doesn't mention religion in large measure, rather than on that fiddly accommodation address.

Now, kilopi has taken the time and trouble to look at all of this and I thank him for that, plus all other comments.

Sorry if it's been a bit vacuous, but I more or less just copied what I wrote out for a religious site, to people who don't understand science.

My mistake was to fail to fully prune out all my schoolboy science..hence the 'shrinking quark' theory.

kilopi, for your benefit (and stragglers, ghosts and cosmic posters) re the quark..all I was trying to do was make a vision of a very tiny size.

Let's try just once more.. ops:

Take one Planck length.

Halve its length.

Then halve its length again one hundred times a second for a Billion years.

Would you have hit zero before your billion years were up, or would you still have a recognisable length which we could write down if we had a big enough computer display or piece of paper?

A difficult and quite pointless exercise, you may say, but only because such small things are of no relevance to our world or our lives.

But that might not always be so.

Anyway, here's the last of the Theory, as I wrote it out for the Christians, minus obvious science.

I will also say here that I suspect that there are other reasons why my commentary is drying up, apart from the fact that I may be talking rubbish or boring people.

PART 6.

If we agree with the notion that size can only ever be relative, then the point can also be made that time is also relative. We may imagine a period of time but as with size, you always get a shorter period, or a longer period. The only difference here is that time stops in a vacuum because there is no matter there to register it. Time is just the movement of matter.

If the Universe does 'bounce' as has been described, then an imagined observer would see it expand and contract, expand and contract. If you could speed up the process, then you would see a blurry white ball.

To a very large observer the tendancy would be for the process to move more quickly, in a sense, a little like we see flies whizzing around very quickly and elephants moving very slowly.

With regard to the blurry white ball..our Universe as we know it...suppose there was another one Out There? There very easily could be. Conditions Out There are exactly the same as they were at the time of the Big Bang.

If there is another one out there then it is either heading for us and we'll have a cataclysmic accident, or it's in orbit around our Universe (accepting our definition of 'Universe').

If the other balloon of galaxies is orbiting ours, what have we got?

Answer. A hydrogen atom. A proton with an electron rotating round it. (accepting that as the old view of atoms)

And if there are millions more balloons of galaxies, then we might just be inside a particle in an unimaginably vast 'higher Universe.'

(Science excluded here...)

Having atoms as tiny planets with people on them is an old sci-fi chestnut (most recently, Men in Black) and it is not quite what I am suggesting here. The idea would not work for all kinds of known physical reasons. What I'm saying is that Universes as we know them could be particles and particles could be Universes. Space is vast enough to accommodate them.

Which gives us a reason to be interested in that tiny part of a Planck length (kilopi).

And the 'higher Universe' could in itself be part of a "higher" 'higher' Universe. If there is a God, would anyone doubt His ability to create it?

And perhaps each atomic particle which is a unit in itself..a quark perhaps..could be a tiny Universe of stars and galaxies. We wouldn't feel the heat from them because of the tiny wavelength.

And so on, down, down into the atom and out, out into space.

Forever.

If this is so then the Universe in infinite.

(Science deleted..and I've already produced an argument against the 'white sky' argument.)

One interesting effect of such a notion is that you could never get to know exactly what matter is. What it is made of.

Simply because all matter would be made of...all other matter. The sun, for example is made of hotr plasma, which in turn is made of other timy suns (in the atoms)..of more plasma, and so on.

As to whether or not matter could exist spontaneously because of this process or if it has to be created by a God or some unknown process is only something which higher knowlege can make us sure of.

As Stephen Hawking said of the Universe, "It might simply be."

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

Well, Mr. Hawking has a point "it simply might be". I certainly don't know any of the "answers" to this one!

From what I know of Zen Buddhism your theory seems to fit with a more eastern concept of the nature of the universe. It certainly doesn't seem to me to be offensive but then again I'm not a "religious" person in the sense that most understand!

Keep thinking...I agree with Arthur C. Clark that we need to allow ourselves to think about what some may call "the impossible" in order become "better" human beings!

"The smallest snowflake never falls in the wrong place" Zen saying

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Many thanks for that comment, N C.

I don't know much about Zen Buddhism and admit I've got in deep and over my head here. Particularly as I have no facts, nor even much established knowledge to back up my ideas.

One thing I've learned here is that even a philosophical theory needs at least some known facts before it can be considered and taken seriously by Mr Average, Dr Average or Professor Average.

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.