The Big Bang never happened

Good luck and don't let the glue drip.
thank you for your time,
thebobgy
[/quote]

Being an ex-marine, most of your prose has gone over my head. But if your blaming the Navy (the squids), that is fine with me.

Back to the BB subject. The conceptual driving force for insisting that BB must have happened, is Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. If it had a physical basis, then the Universe must either explode or collapse. However, MM is arguing for a universal gravitational flux - a pushing force. This makes the Universe stable. Thus, there is no conceptual need for claiming BB.

But there is an underlying psychological problem that almost all humans have. It is demonstrated by the following verbal exchange I had with another engineer. I said "The Universe is infinite and eternal. There is no alternative." The other engineer said "Yes, okay, but where the the Universe come from?"

Almost all humans cannot understand that existence is absolute, not conditional.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">JMB


France
43 Posts
Posted - 08 Jan 2006 : 02:48:44

---

What is the difference between speaking of the BB and speaking of the sex of the angels ?
The BB is founded on the assumption that the redshifts result from a Doppler/expansion effect while the users of laser pulses observe Doppler-like redshifts every day. Do their cells or optical fibres expand ?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">



I think the idea of expansion comes from attributing thing-like qualities to something that really is no-thing because since they cannot see no-thing, they do not consider it. But, notice, to do that they have to invent invisible energies. Why? Because in order to explain the observations, much more is needed that they supposed. Their ordinary thing-like theory falls far short of predicting what we see. Used to be that sort of observation would be called a falsification of the theory.

Very clever, this notion of super-superluminal,dark and black evidence...

They are indeed world-class magicians

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">From Gregg; Good luck and don't let the glue drip.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Being an ex-marine, most of your prose has gone over my head.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have heard that about Marines!...Sorry, couldn’t resist.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Back to the BB subject.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Back to the BB subject? Interesting, as I recall your message was about a 25% discount, building ships and arguing with your wife and now we are getting back to BigBangism.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The conceptual driving force for insisting that BB must have happened, is Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. If it had a physical basis, then the Universe must either explode or collapse. However, MM is arguing for a universal gravitational flux - a pushing force. This makes the Universe stable. Thus, there is no conceptual need for claiming BB.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think I made the point in my exchange with Patrick, posted above, that I do not accept the BB model but I guess you missed that also, sorry. Patrick claims that neither Time nor the Laws of Physics existed at the event threshold of the BB and I disagree, if at least those two elements, (for lack of a better word) of physics did not exist then the Bang would not have happened. I did not tell him that the conversion of Energy into Mass does not result in a Bang, poor boy, I am not sure he understands the meaning of (event horizon).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But there is an underlying psychological problem that almost all humans have. It is demonstrated by the following verbal exchange I had with another engineer. I said "The Universe is infinite and eternal. There is no alternative." The other engineer said "Yes, okay, but where the the Universe come from?"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have been told by TVF that according to the MM model Time has existed since forever and it is recyclic and that it is based primarily on the fact that nothing can be created nor destroyed. He also stated the concept of foreverism required the use of logic not data. Now, if the universe has existed since forever then all that is in it has existed just as long. If so, then Life, Intelligence and Knowledge must share, forever, equally with matter and energy et al.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Almost all humans cannot understand that existence is absolute, not conditional.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is an interesting paradox is it not Gregg, those who accept the concept that the universe has existed since forever do not accept the concept the a creator can have existed since forever, while those who insist that a creator is eternal do not accept that the universe can have existed forever.

Thank you for your time,
thebobgy

Hello

I agree with the statement the universe is infinite and recyclic.

Now we need to build the foundations for the model.

As for those who keep on asking where did the universe come from. Let them keep on looking they have for ever to do so.

Harry

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I agree with the statement the universe is infinite and recyclic.

Now we need to build the foundations for the model.


Harry
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hmmm, I think "Infinite" in the strong sense, is a mathematical term and has the same sort of meaning "zero" has. Mathematically, both zero and the infinite exist, but they are not something which can be pointed to.

In the weak sense infinite means "more than we can say/think/see." Forever, I think, lasts only a lifetime.

"Recyclic" is a curious term. The foundations for such a modeling have already been laid.

Around the time of Whitehead's organismic philosophy, a biologist by te name of Ludwig von Bertalanffy observed certain characteristics of the laboratory models he worked with. He saw that there were principles common to many different forms, common principles. Bertalanffy would go on to write his book General Systems Theory in which he brings to science the philosophy or organismic systems.

He defined a system as elements in standing relationships. His goal was to find those principles common to all systems and to generalize them into a kind of "meta-science"

While classical science studied the object, systems science studies the relationships between objects, what objects are doing to each other. It is a science of interactions and connections.

To bring a new model to the science of cosmology would require modeling in terms of the interactions of objects. In this way gravity is only one of the interactions objects are subject to. The new model will include gravity as well as all the other forces objects are exposed to. These will include the electric and the magnetic. The strong force plays the role of proton integration and the weak stablizes the neutron.

Plasma is not a theory. Plasma is the fourth state of matter, the four being solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Gravity applies to solids, liquids, and gases, but it is the electromagnetic forces which are applied to plasmas. So when the standard view points to a gas, they really are pointing to a plasma. And while they assume that gravity is what is influencing the gas, it is really electromagnetic fields influencing the plasma.

The Universe is a system which works together as a whole. A system is like a family, a family of relationships among the members interacting together as a whole. An open system has relationships with the environment. Characteristic of the system are the emergent properties of the relationships. In this way plasma makes atoms, atom make molecules, molecules make tissue, tissue makes organs, and organs make us, all of them by means of working together.

Our Sun is a star in a plasma state. It too works as a system, but already it is a complex system.

The talk in scientific and philosophical circles about a new science is but talk of integrative systemics. To experience such a dydtem, clap your hands together. Notice what happens.

That's how the Universe happens.

Tommy Mandel

Infinite and zero are quite simple.

Works perfect in an endless universe.




Harry