 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / June 2006Cosmogony from the Book of Genesis.
Let us contemplate the following... 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The heaven and the earth refers to the double-sheeted spacetime, namely the two Kruskal-extended Schwarzschild solutions exterior to the event horizon. Since time is reversed on the second sheet, both sheets must have existed from the beginning of time if black holes are formed at any time in the future. 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The spacetime vacuum is a featureless relativistic continuum with surface tension allowing for curvature and propagation of gravitational waves (hence 'waters') (see my recent arxiv paper physics/0408139). It is initially flat, isotropic, homogeneous and empty, and there are no particles or electromagnetic waves present. Some energy is then introduced resulting in the production of enormous numbers of primordial black holes created from the collapse of intense gravitational waves. These PBH's are neutrinos and look like like pinched Einstein-Rosen bridges which act like pegs connecting to the two spacetime sheets. 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Electromagnetic waves are due to the oscillations of the two sheets relative to each other. The neutrinos hold the sheets in place, acting like springs which maintain the quasiharmonic oscillations of the two sheets relative to each other. 4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. Matter has positive mass while antimatter has negative mass. So that matter and antimatter will tend to separate away from each other and be dominant in different parts of the universe. 5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Day and Night are "Matter" and "Antimatter". 6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. The firmament is the event horizon (which appears pointlike to an external observer) separating the two spacetime sheets. 7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Not only does the event horizon separate the two spacetime sheets, it is also impenetrable (i.e. a 'brick wall'), and separates the interior of the event horizon (corresponding to elementary particles, or even baby universes) from their exteriors. 8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. He can call it whatever He likes. 9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. The waters under the heaven are the interiors of the event horizons, so this refers to the formation of the topological solitons corresponding to the internal structure of the elementary particles. 10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And the rest, of course, is history... - Sabbir. > Let us contemplate the following... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have existed from the beginning of time if black holes are formed at > any time in the future. [so on and so forth] If I stare *really hard* at the sky, I will see a bunny. Dear Eric Gisse: >> Let us contemplate the following... >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > If I stare *really hard* at the sky, I will see a bunny. A bunny with nasty sharp teeth. "Where is it? Behind the rabbit?" "It is the rabbit!" David A. Smith > Dear Eric Gisse: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > David A. Smith Not today, little one. http://70.86.201.113/imageserv2/stilltemporary/PBF011BCNotTodayLittleOne.html > Not today, little one. > > http://70.86.201.113/imageserv2/stilltemporary/PBF011BCNotTodayLittleOne.html Good grief. I explain to you the deepest mysteries of the universe, and you show me a cartoon strip of a bunny rabbit who wants to give oral sex to a girl in a skirt? What is the world coming to? Dear LEJ Brouwer: >> Not today, little one. >> >> http://70.86.201.113/imageserv2/stilltemporary/PBF011BCNotTodayLittleOne.html > > Good grief. I explain to you the deepest > mysteries of the universe, You didn't "explain" anything. You found some similarities between your understanding of different GR subsets and the first chapter of Genesis. Science isn't religion. You don't get to test the limits of sin. > and you show me a cartoon strip of a > bunny rabbit who wants to give oral > sex to a girl in a skirt? He showed it to everyone. > What is the world coming to? It is becoming less tolerant of people with differing opinions/experiences. We must see things your way. We must not show you things that upset you. Find a sense of humor. Or at least a sense of perspective. David A. Smith > Dear LEJ Brouwer: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > chapter of Genesis. Science isn't religion. You don't get to > test the limits of sin. No need to get your knickers in a twist about it. And yes, it is true that sin(x) doesn't have a definite limit as x->infinity. > > and you show me a cartoon strip of a > > bunny rabbit who wants to give oral [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > David A. Smith Alas, poor David, how sad it is that you do not see the humour in that which I write. perhaps it is you, not I, that has had his humour glands surgically removed? Best wishes, - Sabbir. > > Dear LEJ Brouwer: > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > which I write. perhaps it is you, not I, that has had his humour glands > surgically removed? What you wrote was obviously satire in retrospect, but a fair bit of the population here writes sh.t on the same level and are dead serious about it. > Best wishes, > > - Sabbir. > What you wrote was obviously satire in retrospect, but a fair bit of > the population here writes sh.t on the same level and are dead serious > about it. I agree with you that a fair about the great quantities of sh.t that is written on this group, but I don't agree that it is necessarily on the same level. Yes, the initial posting was intentionally satirical, but there was also a quite serious dual aspect to it. If we start with just the physical vacuum as a featureless relativistic continuum, and introduce sufficient energy into the system, then according to my analysis, the order and nature of the subsequent events are pretty much as described. Whether the similarity with biblical Genesis is coincidental or not I do not know (certainly if it is not a coincidence, there has been a great deal lost in translation), but I do find the correspondence quite curious nevertheless. Without this interpretation (and in particular with a literal interpretation), the Genesis account appears to be a steaming pile of old bollocks. However I like to give it the benefit of the doubt and put it down to poor interpretation of an inspired text. - Sabbir. > If we start with just the physical vacuum as a featureless relativistic > continuum, and introduce sufficient energy into the system, then [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Sabbir. And the Genesis creation myth is a corruption of much older myths....  SignatureThe greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience. Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology. Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding. Relf's Law? "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches the odour of roses." > > If we start with just the physical vacuum as a featureless relativistic > > continuum, and introduce sufficient energy into the system, then [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And the Genesis creation myth is a corruption of much older myths.... I am aware of many creation myths which are similar in nature to the story of Noah's ark and the great deluge, but not of anything quite like biblical Genesis (though perhaps you can enlighten me on that one). In any case, the precise wording of Genesis is somewhat more important here than the overall plot for the connection with general relativity applied to the physical vacuum to make sense. I think this is clear if you read the proposed correspondences again carefully. > > > If we start with just the physical vacuum as a featureless relativistic > > > continuum, and introduce sufficient energy into the system, then [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > relativity applied to the physical vacuum to make sense. I think this > is clear if you read the proposed correspondences again carefully. I don't see them at all myself, they're a real stretch and rife with personal interpretations Genesis Myths http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotam ia/genesis_and_enuma_elish_creation.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm SignatureThe greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience. Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology. Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding. Relf's Law? "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches the odour of roses." > > > And the Genesis creation myth is a corruption of much older myths.... > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I don't see them at all myself, they're a real stretch and rife with > personal interpretations It is certainly a case of fitting the narrative to the physical model, and I don't think anyone reading the narrative alone could possibly come up with such an interpretation, but given that the physical model can be derived essentially from first principles, the fit still seems (at least to me) fairly impressive. Unless you sit down and study the physics and gain a good appreciation for what is really going on (and this will inevitably take a while), the proposed correspondence is bound to seem rather wishful. > Genesis Myths > http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotam > ia/genesis_and_enuma_elish_creation.htm > > http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm Thanks for that - very interesting. There does seem to be a connection between the first few lines of Enuma Elish and the first line of Genesis, but the rest of it seems to be a historical text describing events relating to the descendants of the original 'gods' and has very little to do with cosmogony. - Sabbir. > > > > And the Genesis creation myth is a corruption of much older myths.... > > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > this will inevitably take a while), the proposed correspondence is > bound to seem rather wishful. I'm well aware of the physics, cosmology is a particular interesst of mine - as a quick google of me will show. I just disagree there's a correlation. Its so vague as to be open to any interpretation at all. > > Genesis Myths > > http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotam [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > events relating to the descendants of the original 'gods' and has very > little to do with cosmogony. A lot of early christian mythology is from Babylonian and Persian sources, particularly Lucifer and the whole morning/evening star mythos. SignatureThe greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience. Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology. Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding. Relf's Law? "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches the odour of roses." > It is certainly a case of fitting the narrative to the physical model, > and I don't think anyone reading the narrative alone could possibly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > this will inevitably take a while), the proposed correspondence is > bound to seem rather wishful. That sounds almost like "You're too stupid to see what I see". So my crank alert lights the first few lights right there. Human beings have a remarkable talent for pattern recognition - it was a feature that ensured our survival. Someone posted humourously about the bunny in the cloud, but underneath the humour of that is a very true statement. You can take two events, and always find connections. In your case, they are so far stretched as to be almost broken. The creation myths of most civilisations take similar forms. Considering that humans would write their mythos on the world around them, their creation stories would be a psychological mirror of the world around them - Birth, adulthood and death. And why the christian creation myth? One could take almost any creation myth, and fit them in a similar way. Its personal interpretation, and also combining two utterly unrelated disciplines. SignatureThe greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience. Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology. Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding. Relf's Law? "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches the odour of roses." > > It is certainly a case of fitting the narrative to the physical model, > > and I don't think anyone reading the narrative alone could possibly [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the bunny in the cloud, but underneath the humour of that is a very > true statement. You got the message but he didn't. Rather than write a speil about how people can see what they want to see with precious little evidence, I go for the humorous route. If I look at the clouds long enough I will see a face or a bunny. If I look at creation myths long enough, I can find coincidences and passages that are similar to current beliefs. What I am yet to find, though, is someone like Einstein crediting the Bible for the inspiration necessary for creating something. [...] > > > It is certainly a case of fitting the narrative to the physical model, > > > and I don't think anyone reading the narrative alone could possibly [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > [...] I've been googling and I'm even more firmly in my belief that something is up here. Sabbir has been pushing his paper on Usenet a little while, and whereas I think pushing yourself "out there' as he is can be useful, I get VERY suspicious of people who have claimed to weld together science and religion - they are not related and they serve very different functions.... Is he the same Sabbir as : http://www.seventh-sense-software.com/Seventh%20Sense/people.htm "He is also deeply involved with the Human Welfare Foundation, which is investigating herbal cures for cancer, diabetes, jaundice, hepatitis B, tuberculosis and asthma, amongst others" While he is undoubtably clever - Imperial has an excellent reputation for Physics, I think there is a tendency to try and overlap too many unrelated fields... SignatureThe greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience. Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology. Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding. Relf's Law? "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches the odour of roses." > > > > It is certainly a case of fitting the narrative to the physical model, > > > > and I don't think anyone reading the narrative alone could possibly [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > investigating herbal cures for cancer, diabetes, jaundice, hepatitis B, > tuberculosis and asthma, amongst others" Is the current treatment for TB somehow lacking? Did we forget how to handle jaundice? > While he is undoubtably clever - Imperial has an excellent reputation > for Physics, I think there is a tendency to try and overlap too many [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches > the odour of roses." > > You got the message but he didn't. Rather than write a speil about how > > people can see what they want to see with precious little evidence, I > > go for the humorous route. Okay, let's take a big step back. I find the possible connection with biblical Genesis a curiosity, but what I find *much* more interesting is the fact that you can derive classical electrodynamics, neutrinos (which in this context are matter-antimatter dipoles) and modified Newtonian dynamics purely from general relativity - but only if you are willing to accept that the interpretation of the 'Schwarzschild solution' contains a rather elementary elementary error, in that the coordinate 'r' appearing in the metric is not the radial coordinate per se, but rather it parametrises the radial coordinate. (The use of the letter 'r' is what causes the confusion here). A more careful analysis (originally carried out by Leonard Abrams, and subsequently clarified by Salvatore Antoci and Stephen Crothers), shows that the point mass actually lies at r=2m, i.e. at the event horizon. What this means is that the event horizon appears pointlike to an external observer and its interior corresponds to the point mass itself. The maths is easy to follow, so you can check this yourself. Unfortunately Abrams et alii demand a return to the original Schwarzschild solution and reject its Kruskal extension. This is like 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' - the Schwarzschild solution is geodesically incomplete as an infalling particle reaches is the event horizon in proper finite after which it has to go _somewhere_ - and therefore the Kruskal extension is absolutely necessary. (Synge's 1974 derivation of the general static spherically symmetric vacuum solution produces the Kruskal-extended solution directly without need of analytic extension). Anyway, I am writing all this up, and the preprint should appear fairly soon. > > If I look at the clouds long enough I will see a face or a bunny. If I > > look at creation myths long enough, I can find coincidences and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > together science and religion - they are not related and they serve > very different functions.... Well, the reason that it is necessary to propagate the idea actively is because until physicists actually realise that there is a serious problem with their interpretation of the classical black hole, their progress in understanding the physical world is going to be seriously hampered. And believe, they are not going to figure it out for themselves but like everyone else, they feel quite comfortable with their present beliefs and would much rather do without the hassle of a major paradigm shift. > Is he the same Sabbir as : > http://www.seventh-sense-software.com/Seventh%20Sense/people.htm [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for Physics, I think there is a tendency to try and overlap too many > unrelated fields... A detailed digression into my life story could take a very very long time, and I would prefer not to go down that route at this moment in time as it is not relevant to the discussion at hand. If you are really interested, I currently work as a senior research analyst developing algorithmic trading strategies for a top London-based systematic hedge fund. It is great fun and pays a great deal better than an academic job - and I still have time to do academic research on the side besides. Best wishes, - Sabbir. > > I've been googling and I'm even more firmly in my belief that something > > is up here. Sabbir has been pushing his paper on Usenet a little while, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > their present beliefs and would much rather do without the hassle of a > major paradigm shift. I'd be interested in reading this when the preprint comes out. > > Is he the same Sabbir as : > > http://www.seventh-sense-software.com/Seventh%20Sense/people.htm [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > fund. It is great fun and pays a great deal better than an academic job > - and I still have time to do academic research on the side besides. I ain't faulting you for that per se, I just am concerned about the attempts to weld unrelated fields. Our greatest strength (pattern recognition) may have been a wonderful tool to aid our survival, but sometimes it does need to be switched off ;) > Best wishes, > > - Sabbir. And you SignatureThe greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience. Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology. Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding. Relf's Law? "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches the odour of roses." > > It is certainly a case of fitting the narrative to the physical model, > > and I don't think anyone reading the narrative alone could possibly [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That sounds almost like "You're too stupid to see what I see". So my > crank alert lights the first few lights right there. Well, I certainly don't get the impression that you are stupid. Admittedly my current physics research is not exactly mainstream, but I would rather work on something promising that actually makes predictions and has something to say about the world than to continue in a sheep-like fashion on the string theory bandwagon (my background is in string theory). There is an unfortunate tendency to label anyone who is not carrying out mainstream research as a 'crank', but that is also a good reason why a lot of decent ideas are discarded or ignored or without due consideration. > Human beings have a remarkable talent for pattern recognition - it was > a feature that ensured our survival. Someone posted humourously about [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > would be a psychological mirror of the world around them - Birth, > adulthood and death. I would completely agree with you if, say, the attempted connection was, say, between the purported resurrection of Jesus and the history of the universe following the big bang (assuming of course that there was one). But the connection here is being made specifically between Genesis, which is supposed to be a description of the origin and evolution of the cosmos, and its real physics counterpart, so they are basically trying to describe the same set of 'events'. Any connections then become more significant. I am not an expert on creation myths, but of those I am aware of, there do seem to be more correlation between them than can simply be explained by an attempt to mirror the sequence of "birth, adulthood and death". Why the ubiquitous need for a great flood and a boat? > And why the christian creation myth? Well, I am not a Christian, and I had no expectations of finding any correlation to physics a priori. However when I happened to read the first few lines of Genesis some time after developing the physical model (and this was quite by chance), the identifications made did seem quite natural. > One could take almost any creation myth, and fit them in a similar way. Well, I guess that depends on how good you think the present fit is (I can tell you are not particularly impressed! :). - Sabbir. > > > It is certainly a case of fitting the narrative to the physical model, > > > and I don't think anyone reading the narrative alone could possibly [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > also a good reason why a lot of decent ideas are discarded or ignored > or without due consideration. I can tell. I've been googling (posting from earlier) and its obvious you're very clever. I don't buy an aether in any form, unfortunately - I can appreciate your concern over EM waves mediumless transfer, but I dont think Occams razor shaves clean enough here > > Human beings have a remarkable talent for pattern recognition - it was > > a feature that ensured our survival. Someone posted humourously about [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > explained by an attempt to mirror the sequence of "birth, adulthood and > death". Why the ubiquitous need for a great flood and a boat? Much has been postulated (and this is from memory by the way) that at some stage of our history the Mesopotatmian area was subject to some sort of flood event. A natural event, that would have led to a lot of supernatural discussion. Now considering that the area is considered very important in the history of civilisation, any group of people splintering from the area would carry the myth with them. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html lists a whole plthora of flood myths. Remember that early man did not have the advantage of PBS science channels to educate it about floods - and how common floods are to areas even to this day. > > And why the christian creation myth? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > model (and this was quite by chance), the identifications made did seem > quite natural. But they're utterly personal - and attaching significance to them is going to make the crank meter rise a little. For example. You could pick any creation mythos - and manipulate them to get a "correspondance" to your favourite creation scenario in science. Viking, Mayan... its more to do with the way that we as people perceived the natural events around them. > > One could take almost any creation myth, and fit them in a similar way. > > Well, I guess that depends on how good you think the present fit is (I > can tell you are not particularly impressed! :). > > - Sabbir. Science and religion, to me, do two entirely different jobs. They neither complement each other, or force each other out. When people attempt to join them, bad things happen. SignatureThe greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience. Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology. Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding. Relf's Law? "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches the odour of roses." > I can tell. I've been googling (posting from earlier) and its obvious > you're very clever. I don't buy an aether in any form, unfortunately - > I can appreciate your concern over EM waves mediumless transfer, but I > dont think Occams razor shaves clean enough here What I tried to suggest in my earlier paper was that classical electrodynamics is an unavoidable consequence of general relativity. Hopefully the proof of this will be explicit in the paper I am writing up now, though it will, as I said, require acceptance of the misinterpretation of 'r' in standard derivations of the Schwarzschild black hole (which will be a very difficult thing to swallow for most folk). The aether, then, is simply the physical vacuum, and I hope we can all agree that at least *that* exists. > But they're utterly personal - and attaching significance to them is > going to make the crank meter rise a little. And so they should be. The freedom to be creative and hold utterly personal opinions is a fundamental right and is essential if significant new ideas are to come to fruition. It is very sad that this is so often considered a bad thing in current academic circles. And Lee Smolin complains about there being "no new Einstein". Well, with attitudes like this, what else can one expect? > Science and religion, to me, do two entirely different jobs. They > neither complement each other, or force each other out. When people > attempt to join them, bad things happen. I guess I would disagree with you on this. I think it is fine for someone who is irreligious to hold such a view, but I don't think it is a consistent view to hold for someone who is deeply religious and considers science to be just one aspect (i.e. the physically observable aspect) of a much broader reality. - Sabbir. [...] > Well, I certainly don't get the impression that you are stupid. > Admittedly my current physics research is not exactly mainstream, but I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > also a good reason why a lot of decent ideas are discarded or ignored > or without due consideration. Tell us about your background in mathematics and physics. [...] > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > [...] Also here is something interesting http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-a bor.htm The Australian Aborigine creation myth I'm sure that with a little work you could obtain similar correspondances. When the earth was new-born, it was plain and without any features or life. Waking time and sleeping time were the same. There were only hollows on the surface of the Earth which, one day, would become waterholes. Around the waterholes were the ingredients of life. Underneath the crust of the earth were the stars and the sky, the sun and the moon, as well as all the forms of life, all sleeping. The tiniest details of life were present yet dormant: the head feathers of a cockatoo, the thump of a kangaroo's tail, the gleam of an insect's wing. A time came when time itself split apart, and sleeping time separated from waking time. This moment was called the Dreamtime. At this moment everything started to burst into life. (The t=0 event) The sun rose through the surface of the Earth and shone warm rays onto the hollows which became waterholes. Under each waterhole lay an Ancestor, an ancient man or woman who had been asleep through the ages. The sun filled the bodies of each Ancestor with light and life, and the Ancestors began to give birth to children. Their children were all the living things of the world, from the tiniest grub wriggling on a eucalyptus leaf to the broadest-singed eagle soaring in the blue sky. (OK perhaps CMB anisotrropies) Rising from the waterholes, the Ancestors stood up with mud falling from their bodies. As the mud slipped away, the sun opened their eyelids and they saw the creatures they had made from their own bodies. Each Ancestor gazed at his creation in pride and wonderment. Each Ancestor sang out with joy: "I am!". One Ancestor sang "I am kangaroo!" Another sang "I am Cockatoo!" The next sang "I am Honey-Ant!" and the next sang "I am Lizard!" (Clumping?) As they sang, naming their own creations, they began to walk. Their footsteps and their music became one, calling all living things into being and weaving them into life with song. The ancestors sang their way all around the world. They sang the rivers to the valleys and the sand into dunes, the trees into leaf and the mountains to rise above the plain. As they walked they left a trail of music. Then they were exhausted. They had shown all living things how to live, and they returned into the Earth itself to sleep. And, in honour of their Ancestors, the Aborigines still go Walkabout, retracing the steps and singing the songs that tell the story of life. Its late, I'm tired so its not my best work ;0) - But in essence, you can ALWAYS pick out the relevany parts to fit a creation myth to the creation history of the universe. They are both about CREATION after all. NOW if you could link the universe's creation to a Pizza Hut menu, or the average day of the common hedgehog - I might be more impressed. SignatureThe greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience. Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology. Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding. Relf's Law? "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches the odour of roses." > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > [...] http://arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs,grp_physics,grp_math,grp_nlin/1/all:+AND+ rahman+sabbir/0/1/0/all/0/1 My PhD supervisor was Barton Zwiebach at MIT. > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > My PhD supervisor was Barton Zwiebach at MIT. I gotta admit....I'm surprised. You want to know why people label folks who bring forth ideas like this as cranks? The reason is those people almost universally have no understanding of *why* the mainstream ideas are mainsteam. Going against the stream doesn't get you labeled as a crank though - it is ignoring evidence that goes against your position and saying things that aren't true. Best of luck with your endeavours. Dear LEJ Brouwer: >> Dear LEJ Brouwer: ... >> > Good grief. I explain to you the deepest >> > mysteries of the universe, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And yes, it is true that sin(x) doesn't have a > definite limit as x->infinity. Well that is a "sinh". (Say like it is pronouced.) >> > and you show me a cartoon strip of a >> > bunny rabbit who wants to give oral [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Alas, poor David, how sad it is that you do > not see the humour in that which I write. It is customary to show some sign of your intent. Body language is commonly used to convey irony. Since usenet doesn't carry that channel, emoticons are commonly used. :P > perhaps it is you, not I, that has had his > humour glands surgically removed? Communication is the problem, not the answer. David A. Smith Dear Eric Gisse: >> Dear Eric Gisse: ... >> > [so on and so forth] >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://70.86.201.113/imageserv2/stilltemporary/PBF011BCNotTodayLittleOne.html Oh yeah? Well here... http://www.randomimage.us/index.php?img_id=10411 ... and here ... http://www.randomimage.us/index.php?img_id=32030 David A. Smith | Let us contemplate the following... | | 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Ok, contemplating... What's a beginning? | The heaven and the earth refers to the double-sheeted spacetime, namely | the two Kruskal-extended Schwarzschild solutions exterior to the event [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the | face of the deep. That's backwards. It is heaven that is void. It is heaven that is without form. It is heaven that is very, very deep. The Earth is a sphere, it isn't void and it's only 4000 miles deep. | And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the | waters. Who? I'm bored... http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Genesis/Genesis.htm Androcles. | spacetime vacuum is a featureless relativistic continuum with | surface tension allowing for curvature and propagation of gravitational [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] | | - Sabbir. > | Let us contemplate the following... > | > | 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. > > Ok, contemplating... > What's a beginning? That's a very interesting question. Clearly the 'creation' of the universe entails the creation of both space and time. The word 'beginning' has no meaning in the usual sense if time does not already exist, and so this could possibly refer to the creation event itself if this occurred at a particular point in the finite past. However, if the universe has always been in existence (i.e. there is no initial time), then this interpretation cannot be correct. >From the context, it seems more likely to be a 'best effort' at explaining to us in terms which we can grasp with reference to our own experiences, the concept that the universe was 'created' (again 'created' like any other verb, does not really make sense unless time already exists) by God who, 'being' the 'creator' of spacetime, must also transcend it. Because the words 'created' and 'beginning' refer to things which transcend the physical realm, it is not really possible for us to understand them except indirectly by analogy. The statement is therefore a metaphor for a greater reality which is beyond our grasp. Well that's my half-penny's worth on the matter. - Sabbir | > | Let us contemplate the following... | > | [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | That's a very interesting question. Clearly the 'creation' of the | universe entails the creation of both space and time. Clearly? Not clear to me. The universe I live in has conservation laws. That means: Forever and ever, Amen. No end. No end, no beginning. No beginning, no creation. Always was, always will be. Clearly and blatantly obviously and in fact quite indubitably, I can also be a bigot if I choose to be and claim that my ideas are smarter than your ideas. I can quote your Holey Book with its contradictions to my choosing. Thou shalt not kill or suffer a witch to live. Does that include sorcerers, I wonder? God is merciful, vengeance is mine, he sayeth. Mother Nature causes volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes to kill people, God cleans up the mess, thank God. Better not blame God, better to kiss his arse and be 'saved'. | The word | 'beginning' has no meaning in the usual sense if time does not already | exist, and so this could possibly refer to the creation event itself if | this occurred at a particular point in the finite past. However, if the | universe has always been in existence (i.e. there is no initial time), | then this interpretation cannot be correct. Let's leave out the "if"s and "possibly"s and "more likely"s and "best efforts" and all other forms of idle speculation, shall we? The god of supernatural.physics.relativity is Einstein, not Jehovah, Allah, Zarathustra, Buddha, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter or Thor, so you are really writing to the wrong newsgroup. This is sci.physics.relativity where I discuss natural phenomena, not miracles. | >From the context, it seems more likely to be a 'best effort' at | explaining to us in terms which we can grasp with reference to our own [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | | Well that's my half-penny's worth on the matter. | - Sabbir <yawn>... Since it is beyond your grasp there is no point in discussing it. Have a nice flame. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/flame.gif Androcles. [...] You are just cranky because you got blocked from Wikipedia... > Clearly? > Not clear to me. The universe I live in has conservation laws. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No beginning, no creation. > Always was, always will be. I agree with you that time may stretch to the infinite past and future. But if time itself is 'created', then there is no reason why it should not have been created in that way by God (who must transcend time in order to have created it). In this context the words 'beginning' and 'create' cannot be meant in the sense that we would normally understand them. > Clearly and blatantly obviously and in fact quite indubitably, I can > also be a bigot if I choose to be and claim that my ideas are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to kill people, God cleans up the mess, thank God. Better not blame > God, better to kiss his arse and be 'saved'. That's a fair point. I guess someone is more likely to have a chip on their shoulder about such things if they believe that this life was all there was to it and that they have been dealt a poor hand. > Let's leave out the "if"s and "possibly"s and "more likely"s and "best > efforts" > and all other forms of idle speculation, shall we? Well, physics is like that too. We build models of reality, which may or may not contain elements of truth. In both cases the speculation is purposeful and guided by evidence. > The god of supernatural.physics.relativity is Einstein, not Jehovah, Allah, > Zarathustra, Buddha, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter or Thor, so you are really writing > to the wrong newsgroup. This is sci.physics.relativity where I discuss > natural phenomena, not miracles. Judging from the posts on this newsgroup, you may be in the minority there. ;) > | >From the context, it seems more likely to be a 'best effort' at > | explaining to us in terms which we can grasp with reference to our own [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > <yawn>... Since it is beyond your grasp there is no point in discussing it. > Have a nice flame. There is a difference between 'observed knowledge' and 'revealed knowledge'. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/flame.gif > Androcles. Best wishes, Sabbir. "LEJ Brouwer" <intuitionist1@yahoo.com> **snipped** in message news:1151145314.977075.56940@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... | > Clearly? | > Not clear to me. The universe I live in has conservation laws. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | I agree with you that time may stretch to the infinite past and future. | But if In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled', the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive, in both protasis and apodosis. -- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax" Now it is my turn to snip. Androcles. > "LEJ Brouwer" <intuitionist1@yahoo.com> > | I agree with you that time may stretch to the infinite past and future. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Now it is my turn to snip. > Androcles. Vivamus mea Androcles, atque amemus, rumoresque senum seueriorum omnes unius aestimemus assis! soles occidere et redire possunt: nobis cum semel occidit breuis lux, nox est perpetua una dormienda. da mi basia mille, deinde centum, dein mille altera, dein secunda centum, deinde usque altera mille, deinde centum. dein, cum milia multa fecerimus, conturbabimus illa, ne sciamus, aut ne quis malus inuidere possit, cum tantum sciat esse basiorum. | > "LEJ Brouwer" <intuitionist1@yahoo.com> | > | I agree with you that time may stretch to the infinite past and future. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] | aut ne quis malus inuidere possit, | cum tantum sciat esse basiorum. Neither Gibberese or Gibberish is my second language, although I'm sure you are fluent in it. Cymru am byth. Androcles |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.