THE HYPERSPHERE IS EXPANDING.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING AT AN ACCELERATING RATE. IT WILL GO ON FOREVER. THERE IS NO BIG CRUNCH. IF THERE IS NO CRUNCH FOR THE UNIVERSE THERE CAN BE NO PRIOR UNIVERSE ONLY AN INFINITE FUTURE TO THIS ONE.
THE HYPERSPHERE IS EXPANDING.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
THE HYPERSPHERE IS EXPANDING.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
QUOTE
The mind-wavy Aether Wave theory (AWT) predicts the non-repeating Universe model, which behaves like dense star, collapsing by it's own gravity.
Does AWT ignore the miss mass in our universe to make it a closed system?
: }>
QUOTE
Gary Traversy. And who created your god? If you are going to claim this Santa Claus reject has always been there, then you might as well claim the universe has always existed.
Not quite. What caused the universe to begin to exist Kaneda? Answer ; it existed because there was a cause for it to exist. Nothing in science or other wise begins to exist without a cause. Logic dictates that this cause was God or an intellegent creative force. Why? Because the universe is a organized system . Organized systems are designed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Gary Traversy. And who created your god? If you are going to claim this Santa Claus reject has always been there, then you might as well claim the universe has always existed. |
Not quite. What caused the universe to begin to exist Kaneda? Answer ; it existed because there was a cause for it to exist. Nothing in science or other wise begins to exist without a cause. Logic dictates that this cause was God or an intellegent creative force. Why? Because the universe is a organized system . Organized systems are designed.
If 105 years ago you had said that heavier than air flight was impossible, most scientists would have agreed with you
Do tell! You are correct science does lie, it must lie or it would not be science. Around that same time (early 20th C) science told us that Piltdown man was real! It told us that for 40 years. The history of science reeks with lies fraud and deception. Religious thought is constant. A liar changes his story when he is caught in a lie. Science changes its dearly held theories and "facts" as a matter of fact. History clearly demonstrates this.
QUOTE
but now we know different. The fact that we do not know how everything originated now does not mean that we never will or that goddidit!
No , I suppose Darwindidit..
: {>
CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED PLEASE FROM THOSE THAT SUPPORTs THIS NEW THEORY
matter fragments into patches, at the turnaround, each fragmented patch collapses and contracts and then bounce outward again. each patch is a new universe.
if each patch takes some matter from the parent universe. then that patch reaches the end of it's life the matter is further broken down into patches and so on
eventually wouldn't the universes become very scarce on matter i.e. a universe with only one particle or am i missing something?
matter fragments into patches, at the turnaround, each fragmented patch collapses and contracts and then bounce outward again. each patch is a new universe.
if each patch takes some matter from the parent universe. then that patch reaches the end of it's life the matter is further broken down into patches and so on
eventually wouldn't the universes become very scarce on matter i.e. a universe with only one particle or am i missing something?
I'm so bored with this discussion I don't even want to dignify it with an answer. Frampton is wrong and that's all there is to it. The Universe is expanding at a constant rate and it will continue to do this for perpetuity. It will never contract because there is no physical law that says that it should. Read www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=401&action=viewthread&forum_Thread_id=1609&forum_id=81 because I'm too tired of this discussion to spell it out for you again.
QUOTE (Sycamore+Mar 29 2007, 03:14 PM)
CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED PLEASE FROM THOSE THAT SUPPORTs THIS NEW THEORY
matter fragments into patches, at the turnaround, each fragmented patch collapses and contracts and then bounce outward again. each patch is a new universe.
if each patch takes some matter from the parent universe. then that patch reaches the end of it's life the matter is further broken down into patches and so on
eventually wouldn't the universes become very scarce on matter i.e. a universe with only one particle or am i missing something?
WHO SAYS THAT MATTER ISN'T BEING CREATED? THE BIG BANG MIGHT NOT BE THE ORIGIN OF ALL FUTURE MATTER ESPECIALLY SINCE IT APPEARS THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING AT AN ACCELERATING RATE WHICH MEANS IT WILL EXPAND[B][/B] FOREVER.[B]
THE BIBLE SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THIS: GOD IS A GOD THAT CREATES UNCEASINGLY.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
matter fragments into patches, at the turnaround, each fragmented patch collapses and contracts and then bounce outward again. each patch is a new universe.
if each patch takes some matter from the parent universe. then that patch reaches the end of it's life the matter is further broken down into patches and so on
eventually wouldn't the universes become very scarce on matter i.e. a universe with only one particle or am i missing something?
WHO SAYS THAT MATTER ISN'T BEING CREATED? THE BIG BANG MIGHT NOT BE THE ORIGIN OF ALL FUTURE MATTER ESPECIALLY SINCE IT APPEARS THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING AT AN ACCELERATING RATE WHICH MEANS IT WILL EXPAND[B][/B] FOREVER.[B]
THE BIBLE SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THIS: GOD IS A GOD THAT CREATES UNCEASINGLY.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
QUOTE (Edmund Blake+Jan 31 2007, 07:41 AM)
Sure there is hardly any proof of dark matter/energy. There also used to be hardly any proof of whether or not the Moon was composed of cheese.
Eventually we have to take an educated leap of faith, visualhawk.
No we don't.
What ever happened to the scientific method?
Is it just engineers that perform experiments nowadays?
We know that the surface of the moon, or at least part of it, is not made of cheese because we have studied it with all of our senses and available machines to determine its composition. We have also turned these same senses and machines on various forms of cheese and have found that they appear quite different.
Leap of faith not required.
Eventually we have to take an educated leap of faith, visualhawk.
No we don't.
What ever happened to the scientific method?
Is it just engineers that perform experiments nowadays?
We know that the surface of the moon, or at least part of it, is not made of cheese because we have studied it with all of our senses and available machines to determine its composition. We have also turned these same senses and machines on various forms of cheese and have found that they appear quite different.
Leap of faith not required.
u r all gays!!!!!
QUOTE (bob marley+May 15 2007, 10:48 AM)
u r all gays!!!!!
Is that why you are here, OW?
Is that why you are here, OW?
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 1 2007, 12:22 AM)
THE BIBLE SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THIS: GOD IS A GOD THAT CREATES UNCEASINGLY.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Where does it say that?
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Where does it say that?
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 4 2007, 12:08 AM)
THE UNIVERSE HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE AN INFINITE FUTURE BY ME, MITCH RAEMSCH. IT IS AN HYPERSPHERE THAT LASTS FOREVER.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
I can't argue with such concrete evidence backing you up.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
I can't argue with such concrete evidence backing you up.
we as humans have a beginning and and end so we think that everything has a beginning and a end which is not always the case
QUOTE (brent+May 24 2007, 07:17 PM)
we as humans have a beginning and and end so we think that everything has a beginning and a end which is not always the case
By AWT the Universe can have an infinite number of beginnings and endings, at least from our local perspective.
By AWT the Universe can have an infinite number of beginnings and endings, at least from our local perspective.
QUOTE (brent+May 24 2007, 04:17 PM)
we as humans have a beginning and and end so we think that everything has a beginning and a end which is not always the case
That implies there is no understanding of infinity, Right?
That implies there is no understanding of infinity, Right?
QUOTE (sirfiroth+May 24 2007, 06:48 PM)
That implies there is no understanding of infinity, Right?
Yep ..... it means that we don't understand what's going on in the universe, or what's up with it.
It's uncanny how this resembles the ancient Vedic (Hindu) postulates of a cyclical universe. The theoretical treatise is of course different and the attempt to present these cycles in human years may also be erroneous (www.salagram.net/cycleOages.html). I don't however understand how the same concept postulated today suddenly becomes original research.
Original whatever is the mask. You'll by (t)he Lable! thinking there is something new under the heat of the Sun. They like with books transcribed of old where n becomes z : lim z+z=z^z......................zth term.
They re emparsell old material (same stuff) all most read at some point in time by everyone in previous lifespans of time under thier sugar coated new age heading/advertisements.
There are plenty of stuffs that are old hat but that huff been uncovered hundreds of thousands of years ago then covered up then introduced after when the material could again produce a profit. Dare shake your spears at that being z. Would you like to?
They re emparsell old material (same stuff) all most read at some point in time by everyone in previous lifespans of time under thier sugar coated new age heading/advertisements.
There are plenty of stuffs that are old hat but that huff been uncovered hundreds of thousands of years ago then covered up then introduced after when the material could again produce a profit. Dare shake your spears at that being z. Would you like to?
Fakeer. I looked at the site and it is full of unproven goobledegook. The idea of things being cyclic, in the form of reincarnation, etc has been around for millennia.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 24 2007, 06:27 PM)
By AWT the Universe can have an infinite number of beginnings and endings
Zephir, there must only be one beginning to the entire thing though. By your theory, a universe has a dense star, which spawns another universe, and so on. But, if you go backwards, you will eventually return to the 'original universe' which set the whole thing going. Temporally, your system lacks an explanation for the creation of the original universe. Your system only explains how the universes 'after' that original universe, came into existence. So explain to me now, how this original universe came into existence, without the aid of a 'dense star' from a previous universe?
Zephir, there must only be one beginning to the entire thing though. By your theory, a universe has a dense star, which spawns another universe, and so on. But, if you go backwards, you will eventually return to the 'original universe' which set the whole thing going. Temporally, your system lacks an explanation for the creation of the original universe. Your system only explains how the universes 'after' that original universe, came into existence. So explain to me now, how this original universe came into existence, without the aid of a 'dense star' from a previous universe?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.