Hi,

I am not sure it has to be comprehensible in the way that we usually need to comprehend things. In other words, it may be hard to imagine the scope of values from the very tiny to the very large, or even just the very large, but at some point in the future the presumed solution may fit in as part of another theory, and 2x the time is still 2x the time, whether it is a long or short time. That fitment may also fit into yet another discovered property that ends up solving some more practical problem such as time travel or something we don't yet have that would benefit mankind.
This might be read as the emergence of a new theory that actually helps us in some way rather than just stating a bunch of numbers for the sake of just stating numbers that sound good.

My though is that at the extremes of dimensions, space and time, things get strange and the rules of physics as we know them may not necessarily apply. We really don't know what happens to space-time in the vicinity of a black hole or at the first instant of inflation.

https://www.space.com/big-bang-first-few-seconds

 

things get strange and the rules of physics as we know them may not necessarily apply.

Not what I've been told many times on this forum, when I bring it up.

 

We really don't know what happens to space-time in the vicinity of a black hole or at the first instant of inflation.

Funny the distinction where I don't think one is required.

Kinda like the equivalence of inertia and gravity, mass and energy, and soap and shave cream (as per Einstein).

 

 

The pushing of "The-Big-Bang-Theory", "The Age of the Universe", etc.,
is to purposely scoff at the very common idea that some entity, or a group of entities,
created it for a specific purpose,
( and we have no solid clue about exactly what that purpose might be ).

If You don't know something, then say You don't know.

Which made-up story is more credible, and exactly why is it more, or less, credible ?
Which made-up story is more valuable to mankind in general ?
Which made-up story is more profitable ?
Which made-up story has the most potential for controlling people, and therefore gaining Power ?

"No, we must start-out with the assumption that everything "just-happens" all by it's self,
and any idea that there may be some unknown influence orchestrating it all is, of course, pure superstition"
"Well everybody knows that"
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

The pushing of "The-Big-Bang-Theory", "The Age of the Universe", etc.,
is to purposely scoff at the very common idea that some entity, or a group of entities,
created it for a specific purpose,
( and we have no solid clue about exactly what that purpose might be ).

If You don't know something, then say You don't know.

Which made-up story is more credible, and exactly why is it more, or less, credible ?
Which made-up story is more valuable to mankind in general ?
Which made-up story is more profitable ?
Which made-up story has the most potential for controlling people, and therefore gaining Power ?

"No, we must start-out with the assumption that everything "just-happens" all by it's self,
and any idea that there may be some unknown influence orchestrating it all is, of course, pure superstition"
"Well everybody knows that"
.
.
.
.
.
.

Can't/won't ever be done on this forum.

 

If You don't know something, then say You don't know.

Sure. I don’t know that there is no God. Just like I don’t know that there is not an invisible invisible unicorn in my back yard who eats our hosta plants. And the fact that we have seen deer eating the hostas is not evidence against the unicorn theory.

 

The pushing of "The-Big-Bang-Theory", "The Age of the Universe", etc.,
is to purposely scoff at the very common idea that some entity, or a group of entities,
created it for a specific purpose,
( and we have no solid clue about exactly what that purpose might be ).

If You don't know something, then say You don't know.

Which made-up story is more credible, and exactly why is it more, or less, credible ?
Which made-up story is more valuable to mankind in general ?
Which made-up story is more profitable ?
Which made-up story has the most potential for controlling people, and therefore gaining Power ?

"No, we must start-out with the assumption that everything "just-happens" all by it's self,
and any idea that there may be some unknown influence orchestrating it all is, of course, pure superstition"
"Well everybody knows that"
.
.
.
.
.
.

Hello there,

After reading you post what strikes me the hardest is how we as humans judge existence.
The first mistake we make, i think, is to assume that everything started at some kind of drastic alteration of something besides what we think of as space or spacetime. There is zero evidence that all of time, by which we measure everything, started at that huge change in whatever it was (often called the Big Bang but i wont go there). How do we know that there is no civilization that started long, long, before that. I mean think about it. They could have been "around" for a trillion-trillion years, or if you believe that our concept of time is flawed, maybe they were always around (that's hard for us to comprehend because we think in terms of time mostly). If there is such a civilization, they may be able to do things we could never ever imagine.
It's true I guess that our existence probably started at some huge change in something like the Big Bang, but that's just us. Somebody else could have started much earlier.

 

Hi,

I watched enough of the video to find out that the new data is based on a meld of two models, both of which, taken together, can account for the measurement of the expansion of the universe. Based on that new model, the data suggests that the age is much greater than 14 billion years. In fact, about double that.
One of the two models suggests that photons can change over the vastness of space and thus make it look like they started out closer than they really did. I think that is pretty interesting and I wonder if it ties in somehow with inertia. The accepted cause I think is they change because they interact with other things on the way to earth from so far away.

 

Hi,

I watched enough of the video to find out that the new data is based on a meld of two models, both of which, taken together, can account for the measurement of the expansion of the universe. Based on that new model, the data suggests that the age is much greater than 14 billion years. In fact, about double that.
One of the two models suggests that photons can change over the vastness of space and thus make it look like they started out closer than they really did. I think that is pretty interesting and I wonder if it ties in somehow with inertia. The accepted cause I think is they change because they interact with other things on the way to earth from so far away.

If inertial and gravitational mass turn out not to be equivalent, that's going to open a whole new can of worms!

 

Hello there,

After reading you post what strikes me the hardest is how we as humans judge existence.
The first mistake we make, i think, is to assume that everything started at some kind of drastic alteration of something besides what we think of as space or spacetime. There is zero evidence that all of time, by which we measure everything, started at that huge change in whatever it was (often called the Big Bang but i wont go there). How do we know that there is no civilization that started long, long, before that. I mean think about it. They could have been "around" for a trillion-trillion years, or if you believe that our concept of time is flawed, maybe they were always around (that's hard for us to comprehend because we think in terms of time mostly). If there is such a civilization, they may be able to do things we could never ever imagine.
It's true I guess that our existence probably started at some huge change in something like the Big Bang, but that's just us. Somebody else could have started much earlier.

It's all just a sim. Don't worry so much about it.

 

The pushing of "The-Big-Bang-Theory", "The Age of the Universe", etc.,
is to purposely scoff at the very common idea that some entity, or a group of entities,
created it for a specific purpose,

No, it's not to scoff, it's the search for a rational theory of where the universe came from, and there's certainly more scientific evidence for the "Big-Bang" than some fabled supreme entity somehow doing that.
Tribes of humans through history seem to have had an apparent innate need for a theory of what created the universe as well as a reason for good and evil so, in many cases, invented various forms of god or gods for that purpose.
Just look at the large number of religions in history down to today, most of which have there own version of creator(s) and/or devil, which seem to be basically a form of superstitious belief in the supernatural.

 

"Belief-In" what sometimes is "claimed to be" "Science",
could also easily be classified as "Superstitious".

"Science" is quite often manipulated in such a way as to
create an artificial "Authority" that must not be questioned.
Exactly like what has been done to every Religion throughout history.

Just because a person wants to have more faith in one form of mind control over another
does not automatically mean that one is more "rational" than the other.

There are Scientific-Zealots just as there are Religious-Zealots,
they both can improve the general quality of Life, albeit, in substantially different ways,
and they are both heavily abused for the purpose of
swaying public-opinion, and gaining Power/Money.

What "makes-sense", or what is seen as "rational",
varies wildly from person to person,
and is completely irrelevant, ( except to each individual personally of course ).
Things that actually work towards improving the quality of Life for everyone
is always an important, and universal, consideration though,
regardless of any label applied, or category it gets placed in.

Applying "Scientific-Methodology" to Religion can be done,
the astounding result is Scientology,
the most heavily slandered Religion on the Planet.
Hmmmm, .........
Could it be so heavily slandered because it simultaneously
erodes the Power-Bases of both "Science", "Religion" and "Government",
all at the same time,
without using any "Authority", "Speculation" or "Faith" ?????

All of our institutions have been heavily abused, and used for nefarious and corrupt purposes.
ALL OF THEM !!!, including "Science", and especially Colleges !!!

This is why I insist that the "Age of the Universe" is just a distraction ........ mere light-entertainment.
There are many important things that need to be "fixed",
and everyone has a role to play in that recovery, and that includes You.
Take a look around, pick one thing, "clean-up your room", and get busy.
"Lather-Rinse-Repeat".
"Your results may vary", ( but do it anyway ).
.
.
.

 

"Belief-In" what sometimes is "claimed to be" "Science",
could also easily be classified as "Superstitious".

Only by someone who doesn't understand what "Science" is.
Your understanding seems tenuous, at best.

Applying "Scientific-Methodology" to Religion can be done,
the astounding result is Scientology,
the most heavily slandered Religion on the Planet.
Hmmmm, .........
Could it be so heavily slandered because it simultaneously
erodes the Power-Bases of both "Science", "Religion" and "Government",
all at the same time,
without using any "Authority", "Speculation" or "Faith" ?????

That really is your view?
I don't see how it is slandered, unless by that you mean someone (including ex members) telling the truth about how it really works.
If there is anything less scientific or less religious than Scientology, I can't think of one.
Scientology has little to do with either religion or science.
It is a cult invented by L Ron Hubbard to make money, nothing more, nothing less, and by declaring it a "religion" it would have tax free status.

But since I rather feel I'm going down Alice's Rabbit Hole with this discussion, It is unlikely I will have any further comments to make.

 

crutschow
It's best not to bad-mouth things that You obviously, personally, know zero about.
You are pointing-out precisely what I was getting at previously .............
continuous slander since 1950,
and You bought into it.
If You had simply done maybe ~3 introductory level Courses,
I'm sure that You would have never made such an assertion.

I have 6+ years of studying Scientology, ( roughly ~'85 through ~'92 ),
( Hubbard wrote over 200 books on every subject You can imagine ),
2-years of that direct-involvement was volunteering in the "Sea-Org" in Clearwater, Fla.
I was Chief-Electrician, so I had access, and Keys, to every square-inch of the huge property,
and had to actually patrol it during my once a week Security-Duties.

Hubbard was a super-super-Genius,
and I say that while personally having a ~153-IQ,
and a very broad education and experience base.

This goes further to point-out how easy it is, even for a smart Man like yourself,
to get pulled into sensationalized-Propaganda.
It's everywhere, even in "Scientific" circles.
I'm not offended by your remarks.
.
.
.

 

It's all just a sim. Don't worry so much about it.

Hi,

I wake up every night wondering if all that is true (ha ha).
No, thanks, I won't worry about it, just something to think about.

 

No, it's not to scoff, it's the search for a rational theory of where the universe came from, and there's certainly more scientific evidence for the "Big-Bang" than some fabled supreme entity somehow doing that.
Tribes of humans through history seem to have had an apparent innate need for a theory of what created the universe as well as a reason for good and evil so, in many cases, invented various forms of god or gods for that purpose.
Just look at the large number of religions in history down to today, most of which have there own version of creator(s) and/or devil, which seem to be basically a form of superstitious belief in the supernatural.

Hi,

I agree that it's not to scoff, I don't think anyway, but the word "superstitious" is an interesting word because it is not a well-defined word and that word has changed wildly over our past history. If you look way back in the history of mankind, each group believed a certain set of rules applied to mostly everything. As time progressed through the centuries, those rules changed drastically. Each previous group would have considered many things the next group would have had to be "superstition" and that stuff certainly could never exist. Imagine how a cave man would think of the simplest of things like a flashlight. "You can't have light without fire, that's just superstitious". Imagine how some of those long ago would have viewed quantum mechanics, or spacetime. Even Newton himself may have laughed at the idea of spacetime if he was told about it back then.

I think the old adage fits here: "Those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
I think we should remember what superstition meant back then and compare it to what it means now.

 

Some things have really been explained in a couple of rant posts recently. I mean by why a member has the views he does.

 

I have 6+ years of studying Scientology, ( roughly ~'85 through ~'92 ),

Well that explains a lot.
Now I understand your curious meanderings.
I didn't "buy into" whatever you think is "slander", but any "religion" the includes aliens and an E-meter in the mix, and poo-poos psychiatry is a total hoax, and no introductory courses to the magic elixir can change that.
A high IQ is obviously not a significant factor in determining whether something is the truth or a fantasy, but it certainly helped in designing an elaborate fantasy that many believe.
Of course any good fantasy includes elements of truth to make the rest of the fantasy seem believable, which makes it apparently easy for even a smart man like yourself can get pulled into it.
If all that is "sensationalized propaganda" so be it.
It's remarkable to me that somewhere who appears to be a science sceptic, is not for the pseudo-science of scientology.
I have no further comments.

 

hi Guys,
This thread is getting too personal, please cool it down.

Moderation