devildog

Type this phrase into Google: "theory prior to big bang", and get back to me on that. You have the right to that opinion. I have the right to think that believing in the Divine is much, much worse that trying to figure it out for ourselves. Feel free to rise t the challenge then as well. As I said before: "But hey, I'll fully admit I don't know everything out there in physics. So I'll humbly give you the chance to demonstrate your knowledge on the subject. Just give me one experiment done, just one, that involved Pre BB and/or other universes. Nothing fancy is needed, but I'm curious about the basic details: What was their hypothesis? What was the experiment? What did they predict would happen? How was the experiment conducted? What sort of results would have disproved their hypothesis? What results did they get? How do those results show validity to their hypothesis? You know, standard scientific type stuff. As I do love learning anything and everything about the Universe, I eagerly await your reply on the matter." With no experiment, no observational data, predictions, and way to falsify, all these theories are theories in the loosest sense, and certainly does not carry the weight of a real scientific theory (Gravity, Relativity, Evolution, etc). So you and kallend can keep pointing to google all you want in a vain attempt to split hairs, it doesn't change the fact that the guesses at pre-BB have nothing to go on. At least, I should qualify I suppose, they are no more valid then saying, "Maybe our universe was spawned by the flying spaghetti monster who, at times likes to create seas of rigatoni universes (in a nice garlic sauce) and dances through each universe cycle to Little Richard's Long Tall Sally" You're certainly free to believe that, or anything else. But don't be insulting about it, nor try and pass those beliefs as rooted in actual science. They're not. They're rooted in desire and fantasy. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Apparently Stephen Hawking is unqualified as well. He says the Universe has a beginning. I'll also note you resorted to mudslinging instead of actually addressing the points, sure sign of someone who knows what they are talking about. But hey, I'll fully admit I don't know everything out there in physics. So I'll humbly give you the chance to demonstrate your knowledge on the subject. Just give me one experiment done, just one, that involved Pre BB and/or other universes. Nothing fancy is needed, but I'm curious about the basic details: What was their hypothesis? What was the experiment? What did they predict would happen? How was the experiment conducted? What sort of results would have disproved their hypothesis? What results did they get? How do those results show validity to their hypothesis? You know, standard scientific type stuff. As I do love learning anything and everything about the Universe, I eagerly await your reply on the matter. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Says who? There are lots of theories, consistent with the Big Bang, that postulate the existance of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang. There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing. Not correct. I'm absolutely correct. Please name the "theory", not the guesswork that shows the universe did not have a beginning. An actual scientific theory is far more than "Well maybe this happened..." Quantum mechanics - maybe you've heard of it -does not allow nothingness. You should stop practicing physics without a license. "Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes." Martin Rees . Try doing some research before putting your foot in your mouth again. I suggest you Google "M-Theory". If your going to get smart, you should at least be good on your definitions. Spouting off crap like "Our universe *MAY* be just one element" is *not* a scientific theory. It's a hypothesis at best. It's really just a guess. A real theory, a *good* theory (and I quote Stephen Hawking here. I'm sure he's good enough for you, yes?) "a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation." Good theories are things like the theory of gravity, relativity, evolution, etc. There's absolutely nothing out there right now that allows predictions to be tested or observed outside of our universe. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Just the same, nothing allows us to make predictions about, observe, or test for anything pre-Big Bang. As such, any guesswork (your "theory") about stuff existing (our universe or others) pre BB is not rooted in science, but sheer feeling and want. Tying it to some other belief system, theory, etc. doesn't make that portion any more valid. Hell, I might as well say the laws of grammar allow for Cthulhu to reside in the 95784th dimension and call that good science. Never mind we can't actually test for or predict any of it, but hey, it's just a "theory." You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Says who? There are lots of theories, consistent with the Big Bang, that postulate the existance of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang. There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing. Not correct. I'm absolutely correct. Please name the "theory", not the guesswork that shows the universe did not have a beginning. An actual scientific theory is far more than "Well maybe this happened..." You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Says who? There are lots of theories, consistent with the Big Bang, that postulate the existance of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang. There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing. There is at best, total guess work and imagination, all of which are no better (and I'd argue, are worse) than believing in the concept of some sort of Divine. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

So is your infinite regression argument. Why? I don't have a problem with it. You're still the guy trying to say that everything must have a cause because everything must be caused, except for the thing that doesn't have to be caused. So... convenient. That's not quite the argument. The philosophical argument is that everything with a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore, must have a first causer. God, in the argument, has no beginning (or end), and thus is exempt of our "must have a cause" rule. You don't have to agree with the argument, but its not logically invalid. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

It should be in English just for the sole fact that there needs to be a common form of communication between all parties. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Hey, now that's really clever - in one simple step you've managed to define away all of your logical problems. Oh no wait, I just remembered it doesn't work like that, the first cause argument is still fucked. How is anything, God or not, that is eternal, constrained by time? You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Ah. I didn't see that part. This is a VERY long thread and I have not read the entire thing. I would point out though, that peoples brains are absolutely not functioning properly when they have been constantly bathed in drugs and/or alcohol for an extended period. Indeed, I didnt feel like my own was working even close to normally until I'd been drug free for a year or more. Are you not willing to consider the notion that the voice you heard might have been the result of your malfunctioning brain? I certainly have my own share of memories from that time in my life that were confused, and I have memories of events that absolutely never happened. (and no memories of events that did happen) Course, the sword cuts both ways. Maybe you don't credit God because your brain at the time wasn't working right. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Shoulda been hung then. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

While the other points have room to wiggle, a non-executed Christ completely changes the message being told, regardless of its veracity. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

The physics behind it is centrifugal force: Fc = m*v^2/r Fc= centrifugal force (can be used to figure Gs) m = mass (kgs) v = velocity (m/s) -- need to convert from RPMs to m/s r = radius (m) Cheat calculator at : http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal Shorter lines say, 1m, 1 RPM 60kg diver Fc = 60 kg * (6.28 m/s)^2 / 1m Fc = 2368 Newtons Gs = 4.02 Longer lines, say 4m, 1 RPM 60kg diver Fc = 60 kg * (25.12 m/s)^2 / 4 m Fc = 9474 Newtons Gs = 16.1 The short of it is, take the difference in the lines and multiply by 4 and that will be how many extra Gs the longer set will have, given same RPMs. how did you come to: v=6.28 m/s? v=25.12 m/s? r=1m? r=4m? As someone noticed, I said 1 RPM but I calculated 1 RPS. The circumference of the circle would be 2*pi*r, which is 6.28 meters. Then just divide by time (which is 1 second, aka 1 RPS) and you get 6.28 m/s p.s. edit: the radius numbers I picked were just arbitrary and to illustrate what happens when the lines shorten or lengthen. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

The physics behind it is centrifugal force: Fc = m*v^2/r Fc= centrifugal force (can be used to figure Gs) m = mass (kgs) v = velocity (m/s) -- need to convert from RPMs to m/s r = radius (m) Cheat calculator at : http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal Shorter lines say, 1m, 1 RPM 60kg diver Fc = 60 kg * (6.28 m/s)^2 / 1m Fc = 2368 Newtons Gs = 4.02 Longer lines, say 4m, 1 RPM 60kg diver Fc = 60 kg * (25.12 m/s)^2 / 4 m Fc = 9474 Newtons Gs = 16.1 The short of it is, take the difference in the lines and multiply by 4 and that will be how many extra Gs the longer set will have, given same RPMs. You have calculated your velocities at 60 RPM (1 rev/second), not 1 RPM as you stated in the example. At 1 RPM the forces are negligible! Yup, sorry! That was suppose to be 1 RPS :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

The physics behind it is centrifugal force: Fc = m*v^2/r Fc= centrifugal force (can be used to figure Gs) m = mass (kgs) v = velocity (m/s) -- need to convert from RPS to m/s r = radius (m) Cheat calculator at : http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal Shorter lines say, 1m, 1 RPS 60kg diver Fc = 60 kg * (6.28 m/s)^2 / 1m Fc = 2368 Newtons Gs = 4.02 Longer lines, say 4m, 1 RPS 60kg diver Fc = 60 kg * (25.12 m/s)^2 / 4 m Fc = 9474 Newtons Gs = 16.1 The short of it is, take the difference in the lines and multiply by 4 and that will be how many extra Gs the longer set will have, given same RPMs. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Most of the manufacturers in that list have revoked their certiciations. It's really unethical for Argus to leave them up. For example, here's Sunpath revoking their certification: http://sunpath.com/docs/SPSB006-3.22.11_0.pdf That's what I get for not looking at the year :) You'd think they'd update that. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

http://www.argus-aad.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189&Itemid=45 Might want to check that out too. Its not just sunrise, just the only one I could pull off the top of my head. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/publiclectures/62 "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago." This guy might know a thing or two. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

That's okay. Its not like the secular world hasn't been way, way behind at times either. My favorite example is the OT command to wash your hands after touching something dead (as it was unclean) and modern medicine (19th cent) making fun of the idea saying, "You can't catch death!". These were the same people that would perform autopsies and then deliver babies right after (and wondered why mortality rate was so high to boot). And then, to top it off, when a guy got the bright idea to actually try washing hands and proved it was effective (death rates in mothers plummeted) , he was ostracized by his "enlightened" peers. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Sunrise Manufacturing (wings) hasn't. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0 There's 2 years mainly in the 4% range 2002-2005 ranged from 6.3 - 4.9% You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

They're for entertainment purposes only :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Well if we're going to immediately jump to such hysterics, let's just put them in a pot and cook them. We can use the calculations Mr. Swift has done to figure out how many people they will each feed for so long, not too mention we could probably recapture some of the heating energy to go back to our power needs. Oh, and there will be job creation as well, with all the rounding, seasoning, transporting, etc. And of course, since they'll be dead, we won't have to worry about the drain they'll be creating. But if we're going to entertain a less rash side, back to the original point, the gov'ts track record isn't very good. Compare, say USPS with FedEx and UPS. Or private investments for retirement with SS (which I might not even get at the rate its going, thanks for stealing my money). Or NASA with current private ventures (reminds me of some pictures a guy took with a homemade balloon that NASA said would have costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to do, and the guy spent a few thousand, tops). Think about it, for a moment. If people are corrupt and power hungry, the ones running these evil insurance companies, what makes you really think that the people in the govt aren't just as corrupt and power hungry as well (or potentially)? We don't have to look very far in psychology to see in theory (and experiment) that there is no difference, and certainly history has shown that to be quite true as well in practice. In a balanced system, a privatized health care is answerable to profits, stockholders, and the govt. When the govt holds all the cards, its answerable to no one. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Going by the results of countless gov't entities, I don't exactly find it comforting they want to manage my health as well. AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros, Countrywide, Lincoln S&L, Chrysler, ... Poster corporations for wonderful management in the private sector. Not defending any corp, but all those still perform their job better than the govt. Really? Which organization bailed them out? If any private corp ran with the same efficiency/ability as the govt, they'd have died off long ago. And IMHO, none should have gotten bailed out, but that's a whole other story. A few dying corps does the private industry good and doesn't derail the fact that the govt's track record for handling things is bloated, wasteful, slow, & poor. REALLLLLY.. judging from your name... I would think you would support what the government can do. Would you really want to outsource all those functions to XE.. like some here would?? I support the govt on what it should do, and I'm a big believer of a govt that runs least runs best. That doesn't mean there should be no govt at all, but IMHO its way bigger than needs to be. And, no I wouldn't outsource everything, and I do think the govt running things on a local / state level is a much better alternative. But in general, I'd certainly be breaking out the hatchet for some federal amputations :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Going by the results of countless gov't entities, I don't exactly find it comforting they want to manage my health as well. AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros, Countrywide, Lincoln S&L, Chrysler, ... Poster corporations for wonderful management in the private sector. Not defending any corp, but all those still perform their job better than the govt. Really? Which organization bailed them out? If any private corp ran with the same efficiency/ability as the govt, they'd have died off long ago. And IMHO, none should have gotten bailed out, but that's a whole other story. A few dying corps does the private industry good and doesn't derail the fact that the govt's track record for handling things is bloated, wasteful, slow, & poor. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Going by the results of countless gov't entities, I don't exactly find it comforting they want to manage my health as well. AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros, Countrywide, Lincoln S&L, Chrysler, ... Poster corporations for wonderful management in the private sector. Not defending any corp, but all those still perform their job better than the govt. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.