Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).
Today, while in the waiting room of my doctor's office, I saw an issue of
Scientific American (May/04) with the following article, The Myth of The
Beginning of Time by Gabriele Veneziano.

The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin? Science does not have a
conclusive answer yet, but at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that the Big Bang as
the beginning of the Universe is not a universally held view as some of you
would have had me believe.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).
Today, while in the waiting room of my doctor's office, I saw an issue of
Scientific American (May/04) with the following article, The Myth of The
Beginning of Time by Gabriele Veneziano.

The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin? Science does not have
a
conclusive answer yet, but at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that the Big Bang as
the beginning of the Universe is not a universally held view as some of
you
would have had me believe.

Anything is possible.
This universe could be a single electron in another, sitting on the grid of
Sander Waals' SET rig.

In fact, the concept of a "beginning", or birth, of the universe, is no more
than the gestalt of human experience. In reality, none of us has ever seen a
true creation, only transformations. Therefore, it may be no more than a
preconception that universes are "born."

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).
Today, while in the waiting room of my doctor's office, I saw an issue
of
Scientific American (May/04) with the following article, The Myth of The
Beginning of Time by Gabriele Veneziano.

The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin? Science does not
have
a
conclusive answer yet, but at least two testable theories, plausibly
hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that the Big Bang
as
the beginning of the Universe is not a universally held view as some of
you
would have had me believe.

Anything is possible.

Wrong.

This universe could be a single electron in another, sitting on the grid
of
Sander Waals' SET rig.

In fact, the concept of a "beginning", or birth, of the universe, is no
more
than the gestalt of human experience. In reality, none of us has ever seen
a
true creation, only transformations. Therefore, it may be no more than a
preconception that universes are "born."

"Robert Morein" said:

Anything is possible.
This universe could be a single electron in another, sitting on the grid of
Sander Waals' SET rig.

Argh! I don't do SET amps!
Not for myself, anyway.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: k.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific thought on the
subject.


Today, while in the waiting room of my doctor's office, I saw an issue of
Scientific American (May/04) with the following article, The Myth of The
Beginning of Time by Gabriele Veneziano.

The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin? Science does not have a
conclusive answer yet, but at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

I don't offer this as proof of my view,

Good because it doesn't prove your view. In fact, it doesn't support your view
or conflict with anything I already told you on the subject.

simply proof that the Big Bang as
the beginning of the Universe is not a universally held view as some of you
would have had me believe.


The article you cite doesn't even support that assertion. The big bang is quite
universally held as the begining of the universe as we know it by
astrophysicists. That some scientists have some new theory of something
preceding the big bang does not change anything I or others have told you. No
one I know of told you the big bang had to be the begfining of any existance
only that popular scientific thought was that it very well may have been. But
you do say that you see things in black and white and you may have
misunderstood what you were being told.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote

Anything is possible.

Wrong.

I guess that blows two hundred years of statistical
science.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the
idea that the Universe could never have not existed,
(an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).

"not existed"... please define existence? Do you mean
as in universal order or as life seperate from organic
form?


The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin?
Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but
at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

You don't like the concept of the lotus flower (universe)
which grows out of Vishnu's navel, I take it ?


I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that
the Big Bang as the beginning of the Universe is not a
universally held view as some of you would have had
me believe.

It still looks like all things point to God (thought or idea
that transcends all thinking/universal archetype).

"George M. Middius" wrote


Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the
idea that the Universe could never have not existed,
(an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).

"not existed"... please define existence? Do you mean
as in universal order or as life seperate from organic
form?

After all this time, and your best response to duh-Mikey's
gibbering is your own brand of quacking?

What other expectations were you holding to?


Think of a giant box of Life cereal. The box is so gigantic
that it swallows everything whole. Except Mikey, whose
brain cavity is not only a perfect vacuum, but also a
wormhole to the Universal Dimension Of Objective
Nothingness. This peculiar quality that Mikey has enables
him to swallow the infinitely huge box of Life. That's why
he's unable to recognize the reality the rest of us inhabit.

Well sure, why didn't I think of that... ???


The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin?
Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but
at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

You don't like the concept of the lotus flower (universe)
which grows out of Vishnu's navel, I take it ?

quack, quack, quack

Still struggling with the eternal universe which exists
all around you, George?



I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that
the Big Bang as the beginning of the Universe is not a
universally held view as some of you would have had
me believe.

It still looks like all things point to God (thought or idea
that transcends all thinking/universal archetype).

What's that down at your navel? My god, it's a
transdimensional duck-worm! And it's quacking madly.
You're a goner.

Yup, Powell is W-A-Y out there... don't recall saying
otherwise.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: k.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific thought on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be true, that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I chose to
disbelive it. I still do.



Today, while in the waiting room of my doctor's office, I saw an issue of
Scientific American (May/04) with the following article, The Myth of The
Beginning of Time by Gabriele Veneziano.

The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin? Science does not
have a
conclusive answer yet, but at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

I don't offer this as proof of my view,

Good because it doesn't prove your view. In fact, it doesn't support your
view
or conflict with anything I already told you on the subject.

simply proof that the Big Bang as
the beginning of the Universe is not a universally held view as some of
you
would have had me believe.


The article you cite doesn't even support that assertion. The big bang is
quite
universally held as the begining of the universe as we know it by
astrophysicists.

Not by all, apparently.

That some scientists have some new theory of something
preceding the big bang does not change anything I or others have told you.

Nor does it make it true.

No
one I know of told you the big bang had to be the begfining of any
existance
only that popular scientific thought was that it very well may have been.
But
you do say that you see things in black and white and you may have
misunderstood what you were being told.


I understood it, it's wrong.

Used to be that scientific thought held that some races of people were
inferior to others.

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the
idea that the Universe could never have not existed,
(an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).

"not existed"... please define existence?


That which exists.

Do you mean
as in universal order or as life seperate from organic
form?

As in existing.


The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin?
Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but
at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

You don't like the concept of the lotus flower (universe)
which grows out of Vishnu's navel, I take it ?

You would be correct in that assumption.

I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that
the Big Bang as the beginning of the Universe is not a
universally held view as some of you would have had
me believe.

It still looks like all things point to God (thought or idea
that transcends all thinking/universal archetype).



Not to me. It simply looks as though existence has always existed.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: k.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific thought on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be true, that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I chose to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have you to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are just fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the
idea that the Universe could never have not existed,
(an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).

"not existed"... please define existence?


That which exists.

Do you mean
as in universal order or as life seperate from organic
form?

As in existing.


The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin?
Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but
at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

You don't like the concept of the lotus flower (universe)
which grows out of Vishnu's navel, I take it ?

You would be correct in that assumption.

I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that
the Big Bang as the beginning of the Universe is not a
universally held view as some of you would have had
me believe.

It still looks like all things point to God (thought or idea
that transcends all thinking/universal archetype).



Not to me. It simply looks as though existence has always existed.


Oh, it looks that way to you. Must be true. To think, I have been wasting my
time paying attention to cutting edge physics when you had the answer. You do
realize you just used flat earth logic do you not?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: k.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific thought on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be true, that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have you to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

Physicists have a saying: "The truth is in the numbers."
They consider it bad form to attempt verbal explanations when the equations
speak for themselves.

However, as the question of ultimate origin does not at present have an
answer, we simply respond to it with our own Gestalt.
This is what Mike McKelvy is doing, and it is very difficult to avoid,
unless one has received the indoctrination into physical reasoning that is
given to all first-year physics graduate students.

I would simply point out to Mike that his intuition, as with all intuition,
is useless in these matters.
Our brains were designed to think in three dimensions so we could find our
way out of the woods, not fall off cliffs, and not get burned by fires. The
addition of frontal lobes capable of formal operations, as per Piaget, is a
very recent evolution, and very incomplete.

Mike, this is not meant to be a putdown, but if there is any hope in
understanding the nature of ultimate origins, it lies in careful
mathematical study of cosmic background radiation, vacuum physics, dark
matter, "brane theory", and "string theory."
We are all free to speculate, and it's very entertaining to do so, but man's
gestalt is useless in this pursuit. If there is a truth to be found, there
is no reason to assume that it will be intuitively satisfying.

Robert Morein said:

Physicists have a saying: "The truth is in the numbers."
They consider it bad form to attempt verbal explanations when the equations
speak for themselves.

However, as the question of ultimate origin does not at present have an
answer, we simply respond to it with our own Gestalt.
This is what Mike McKelvy is doing, and it is very difficult to avoid,
unless one has received the indoctrination into physical reasoning that is
given to all first-year physics graduate students.

I would simply point out to Mike that his intuition, as with all intuition,
is useless in these matters.
Our brains were designed to think in three dimensions so we could find our
way out of the woods, not fall off cliffs, and not get burned by fires. The
addition of frontal lobes capable of formal operations, as per Piaget, is a
very recent evolution, and very incomplete.

Mike, this is not meant to be a putdown, but if there is any hope in
understanding the nature of ultimate origins, it lies in careful
mathematical study of cosmic background radiation, vacuum physics, dark
matter, "brane theory", and "string theory."
We are all free to speculate, and it's very entertaining to do so, but man's
gestalt is useless in this pursuit. If there is a truth to be found, there
is no reason to assume that it will be intuitively satisfying.

I know you've been educated, Bob. It says so on your dossier.

Boon

From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 6/6/2004 10:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: k.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific thought on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be true, that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have you to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

Physicists have a saying: "The truth is in the numbers."
They consider it bad form to attempt verbal explanations when the equations
speak for themselves.

However, as the question of ultimate origin does not at present have an
answer, we simply respond to it with our own Gestalt.
This is what Mike McKelvy is doing, and it is very difficult to avoid,
unless one has received the indoctrination into physical reasoning that is
given to all first-year physics graduate students.

I would simply point out to Mike that his intuition, as with all intuition,
is useless in these matters.
Our brains were designed to think in three dimensions so we could find our
way out of the woods, not fall off cliffs, and not get burned by fires. The
addition of frontal lobes capable of formal operations, as per Piaget, is a
very recent evolution, and very incomplete.

Mike, this is not meant to be a putdown, but if there is any hope in
understanding the nature of ultimate origins, it lies in careful
mathematical study of cosmic background radiation, vacuum physics, dark
matter, "brane theory", and "string theory."
We are all free to speculate, and it's very entertaining to do so, but man's
gestalt is useless in this pursuit. If there is a truth to be found, there
is no reason to assume that it will be intuitively satisfying.









Bob, I've already explained this to him several times.

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/7/2004 7:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel - - lundi 7 Juin
2004 16:09 wrote:

From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 6/6/2004 10:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: k.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific thought
on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be true,
that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I
chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have you
to police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

Physicists have a saying: "The truth is in the numbers."
They consider it bad form to attempt verbal explanations when the
equations speak for themselves.

However, as the question of ultimate origin does not at present have an
answer, we simply respond to it with our own Gestalt.
This is what Mike McKelvy is doing, and it is very difficult to avoid,
unless one has received the indoctrination into physical reasoning that is
given to all first-year physics graduate students.

I would simply point out to Mike that his intuition, as with all
intuition, is useless in these matters.
Our brains were designed to think in three dimensions so we could find our
way out of the woods, not fall off cliffs, and not get burned by fires.
The addition of frontal lobes capable of formal operations, as per Piaget,
is a very recent evolution, and very incomplete.

Mike, this is not meant to be a putdown, but if there is any hope in
understanding the nature of ultimate origins, it lies in careful
mathematical study of cosmic background radiation, vacuum physics, dark
matter, "brane theory", and "string theory."
We are all free to speculate, and it's very entertaining to do so, but
man's gestalt is useless in this pursuit. If there is a truth to be found,
there is no reason to assume that it will be intuitively satisfying.


Bob, I've already explained this to him several times.

I remember that you already failed to explain correctly the linear velocity.
You just confirm the poor value of dyslexic's explanations.








My explanation was fine. It may have been over your head but that's not my
problem. But if you are looking for poor value just review the vast majority of
your own posts.

S888Wheel a écrit :

My explanation was fine. It may have been over your head but that's not my
problem.

I perfectly remember you have been the only one to understand your
explanation.
For you it's already an important improvement.

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/7/2004 10:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :

My explanation was fine. It may have been over your head but that's not my
problem.

I perfectly remember you have been the only one to understand your
explanation.

Bull****

For you it's already an important improvement.


Isn't it a good idea to make sense when criticizing others for not being
understandable?

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific thought on
the
subject.

Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be true, that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.

It doesn't matter whether you do or don't.


--
I know. Reality is reality, irrespective of perception.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: k.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific thought on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be true, that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have you to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one who sees it the way I do.

You have no idea how funny it sounds that anybody could actually believe
there could have been a time where "nothing" existed.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 12:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: k.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific thought on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be true, that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have you to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one who sees it the way I do.

I don't doubt that. Do you really want to brag about being one of the many
people ignorant about cutting edge physics though? Do you think reality is
subject to popularity polls?



You have no idea how funny it sounds that anybody could actually believe
there could have been a time where "nothing" existed.


No, I do. I have been down the road of explaining current thoughts in
theoretical physics many times. Quantum mechanics and reletivity both often get
belly laughs when first described. Some people get it eventually and some
don't. Bob did a very nice job of explaining the pitfalls of reliance on
practical intuition. It worked fine when we were hunter/gatherers. It betrays
us when we look deeper than we can see with the human eye.

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/7/2004 12:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel - - lundi 7 Juin
2004 20:44 wrote:

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/7/2004 10:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :

My explanation was fine. It may have been over your head but that's not
my problem.

I perfectly remember you have been the only one to understand your
explanation.

Bull****

For you it's already an important improvement.


Isn't it a good idea to make sense when criticizing others for not being
understandable?

Bull****







So you don't think it is a good idea to make sense when criticizing others for
not being understandable? It looks like you have excused yourself once again.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 6/6/2004 10:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
k.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific thought
on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be true,
that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I
chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have you
to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

Physicists have a saying: "The truth is in the numbers."
They consider it bad form to attempt verbal explanations when the
equations
speak for themselves.

However, as the question of ultimate origin does not at present have an
answer, we simply respond to it with our own Gestalt.
This is what Mike McKelvy is doing, and it is very difficult to avoid,
unless one has received the indoctrination into physical reasoning that
is
given to all first-year physics graduate students.

I would simply point out to Mike that his intuition, as with all
intuition,
is useless in these matters.
Our brains were designed to think in three dimensions so we could find
our
way out of the woods, not fall off cliffs, and not get burned by fires.
The
addition of frontal lobes capable of formal operations, as per Piaget, is
a
very recent evolution, and very incomplete.

Mike, this is not meant to be a putdown, but if there is any hope in
understanding the nature of ultimate origins, it lies in careful
mathematical study of cosmic background radiation, vacuum physics, dark
matter, "brane theory", and "string theory."
We are all free to speculate, and it's very entertaining to do so, but
man's
gestalt is useless in this pursuit. If there is a truth to be found,
there
is no reason to assume that it will be intuitively satisfying.









Bob, I've already explained this to him several times.

You've explained what you believe to be true. The jury on THIS issue is
still out. Obviously it is not open and shut. There are some highly
qualified people it seems who don't share the view you have accepted.

Did you read the article? It's available at SA's website.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 12:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
k.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific thought
on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be true,
that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I
chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have you
to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one who sees it the way I do.

I don't doubt that. Do you really want to brag about being one of the many
people ignorant about cutting edge physics though? Do you think reality is
subject to popularity polls?



You have no idea how funny it sounds that anybody could actually believe
there could have been a time where "nothing" existed.


No, I do. I have been down the road of explaining current thoughts in
theoretical physics many times. Quantum mechanics and reletivity both
often get
belly laughs when first described. Some people get it eventually and some
don't. Bob did a very nice job of explaining the pitfalls of reliance on
practical intuition. It worked fine when we were hunter/gatherers. It
betrays
us when we look deeper than we can see with the human eye.


It's still better than bad math or math that starts from a flawed premise.

As I stated in the beginning of the thread, I wasn't offering up this
article as PROOF of anything other than the issue is not settled as you
would have us believe. Sometimes even the majority can be wrong.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the
idea that the Universe could never have not existed,
(an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).

"not existed"... please define existence?


That which exists.

Do you mean
as in universal order or as life seperate from organic
form?

As in existing.


The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin?
Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but
at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

You don't like the concept of the lotus flower (universe)
which grows out of Vishnu's navel, I take it ?

You would be correct in that assumption.

I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that
the Big Bang as the beginning of the Universe is not a
universally held view as some of you would have had
me believe.

It still looks like all things point to God (thought or idea
that transcends all thinking/universal archetype).



Not to me. It simply looks as though existence has always existed.


Oh, it looks that way to you. Must be true. To think, I have been wasting
my
time paying attention to cutting edge physics when you had the answer.


You do
realize you just used flat earth logic do you not?

No I used logic. Nothing can't suddenly burst into everything.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 2:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 6/6/2004 10:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
nk.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific thought
on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be true,
that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I
chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have you
to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

Physicists have a saying: "The truth is in the numbers."
They consider it bad form to attempt verbal explanations when the
equations
speak for themselves.

However, as the question of ultimate origin does not at present have an
answer, we simply respond to it with our own Gestalt.
This is what Mike McKelvy is doing, and it is very difficult to avoid,
unless one has received the indoctrination into physical reasoning that
is
given to all first-year physics graduate students.

I would simply point out to Mike that his intuition, as with all
intuition,
is useless in these matters.
Our brains were designed to think in three dimensions so we could find
our
way out of the woods, not fall off cliffs, and not get burned by fires.
The
addition of frontal lobes capable of formal operations, as per Piaget, is
a
very recent evolution, and very incomplete.

Mike, this is not meant to be a putdown, but if there is any hope in
understanding the nature of ultimate origins, it lies in careful
mathematical study of cosmic background radiation, vacuum physics, dark
matter, "brane theory", and "string theory."
We are all free to speculate, and it's very entertaining to do so, but
man's
gestalt is useless in this pursuit. If there is a truth to be found,
there
is no reason to assume that it will be intuitively satisfying.









Bob, I've already explained this to him several times.

You've explained what you believe to be true.

Yes but fear you still don't really grasp what I have explained to believe on
the subject.

The jury on THIS issue is
still out.

Yeah, that is much of what I have tried to explain to you.

Obviously it is not open and shut.

Funny, according to you it was open and shut. You claimed that there always had
to be something and any scientist who said otherwise was wrong. Are you finally
getting it?



There are some highly
qualified people it seems who don't share the view you have accepted.

Name one that does not share my view, that view being that your conclusion is
premature and not supported by any evidence.



Did you read the article? It's available at SA's website.









No I haven't. Nothing you have told me about it leads me to believe that
anything in the article conflicts with any of my actual views on the subject.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 12:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
nk.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific thought
on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be true,
that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I
chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have you
to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one who sees it the way I do.

I don't doubt that. Do you really want to brag about being one of the many
people ignorant about cutting edge physics though? Do you think reality is
subject to popularity polls?



You have no idea how funny it sounds that anybody could actually believe
there could have been a time where "nothing" existed.


No, I do. I have been down the road of explaining current thoughts in
theoretical physics many times. Quantum mechanics and reletivity both
often get
belly laughs when first described. Some people get it eventually and some
don't. Bob did a very nice job of explaining the pitfalls of reliance on
practical intuition. It worked fine when we were hunter/gatherers. It
betrays
us when we look deeper than we can see with the human eye.


It's still better than bad math

If you find any problems with the math in theoretical physics please bring it
to the attention of the mathemeticians and/or theoretical physicists who are
engaging in said bad math. I really doubt you are in any position to analyse
the math in question. It certainly is way beyond my one year of college
calculus.


or math that starts from a flawed premise.

The only premises that are used are derived directly from empirical evidence.
If you have new evidence to present to the world of theoretical physics then do
so. The only faulty premise I see so far is yours. It is based on your gut
feelings. In physics that is quite worthless.



As I stated in the beginning of the thread, I wasn't offering up this
article as PROOF of anything other than the issue is not settled as you
would have us believe.

Please try to get my position on the subject right before you try to represent
it. My position is that it is not settled at all. That was your position that
it was settled by you and your gut feelings.


Sometimes even the majority can be wrong.

They often are. On this thread it is simply you who is wrong.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 4:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the
idea that the Universe could never have not existed,
(an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).

"not existed"... please define existence?


That which exists.

Do you mean
as in universal order or as life seperate from organic
form?

As in existing.


The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin?
Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but
at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

You don't like the concept of the lotus flower (universe)
which grows out of Vishnu's navel, I take it ?

You would be correct in that assumption.

I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that
the Big Bang as the beginning of the Universe is not a
universally held view as some of you would have had
me believe.

It still looks like all things point to God (thought or idea
that transcends all thinking/universal archetype).



Not to me. It simply looks as though existence has always existed.


Oh, it looks that way to you. Must be true. To think, I have been wasting
my
time paying attention to cutting edge physics when you had the answer.


You do
realize you just used flat earth logic do you not?

No I used logic. Nothing can't suddenly burst into everything.









That is not logic that is a premise, an axiom. It is clearly a flawed one given
that it flies in the face of empirical evidence that shows something can come
from nothing with no known mechanism so long as it adds up to zero. You are
just chasing your tail on this subject. How you cannot see that your opinions
run against the that of the body of theoretical physicistsand how you cannot
see that is a big red flag is beyond me.

From: The Devil s
Date: 6/7/2004 6:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: z

On 07 Jun 2004 19:15:36 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

No, I do. I have been down the road of explaining current thoughts in
theoretical physics many times. Quantum mechanics and reletivity both often
get
belly laughs when first described. Some people get it eventually

No. No one really 'gets it'. Humans cannot conceive of space in more
than three dimensions. Anyone who says they 'get it' is lying. Even Ed
Witten (who doesn't, BTW).


What does that have to do with quantum mechanics or reletivity? Besides, I
wouldn't be so quick to speak for what others can and cannot concieve. I have
no trouble picturing multi-dimensional spaces. I used to build models of them
just to show my friends the mechanics of simple multi-dimensional spaces. I am
confident that any number of mathemeticians and physicists are more up to the
task of concieving such things than I am. I have a hard time believing that the
mathemeticians that are working on string theory and are building mathematical
models of 11 dimensional spaces that turn in on themsleves in eight of those
dimensions and tear really have a hard time concieving spaces beyond three
dimensions.

From: The Devil s
Date: 6/7/2004 7:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: z

On 08 Jun 2004 02:01:19 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

No, I do. I have been down the road of explaining current thoughts in
theoretical physics many times. Quantum mechanics and reletivity both
often
get
belly laughs when first described. Some people get it eventually

No. No one really 'gets it'. Humans cannot conceive of space in more
than three dimensions. Anyone who says they 'get it' is lying. Even Ed
Witten (who doesn't, BTW).


What does that have to do with quantum mechanics or reletivity?

Duh! You've been talking to Mikey too long.

Duh! You didn't answer the question. Want to try again?


Besides, I
wouldn't be so quick to speak for what others can and cannot concieve.

Fine.

I have
no trouble picturing multi-dimensional spaces.

Great. Explain to me what they're like.

They are like a three dimensional space with all points extending on a fourth
dimension.


Email Ed Witten too and tell
him.

I'll leave that to you.

Do they 'fold around' each other?

I can visualize spaces that do and spaces that don't. The ones that don't are
easily drawn on a piece of paper. If you can't look at it on paper and
visualize it I don't know what to say. It's really easy.






Oh no. That would be trying to explain what they *look like*.

Uh...no. That would simply be describing thier nature.


Go ahead. Teach me about a universe of eleven dimensions.

There are books out there on superstring theory that will do a much better job
than I will,. I suggest you look into it yourself if you are really interested.


Incidentally, do you *understand* why Witten's 'mirror' mathematics
tie together the five disparate visions of a quantum universe?

I don't really know what you are talking about here at all. There are not five
disparate visions of a "quantum universe" that I know of. There is only one
vision I know of, it is called the Standard Model.
http://perso.club-internet.fr/molaire1/e_modele.html There are five disparate
models of superstring theory though. They are tied together in M theory.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html. I don't know how or why.
The math is way over my head.


I used to build models of them
just to show my friends the mechanics of simple multi-dimensional spaces. I
am
confident that any number of mathemeticians and physicists are more up to
the
task of concieving such things than I am. I have a hard time believing that
the
mathemeticians that are working on string theory and are building
mathematical
models of 11 dimensional spaces that turn in on themsleves in eight of those
dimensions and tear really have a hard time concieving spaces beyond three
dimensions.

I'm having trouble understanding your sentences, let alone the
brilliance I'm sure they convey.

Sorry. I will use simple sentences for you. Simple sentences will be easier for
you to understand. Is that better?



Finished suing Arnii yet?


I may find out tomarrow.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 2:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 6/6/2004 10:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
nk.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that
the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious
to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific
thought
on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be
true,
that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I
chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have
you
to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are
just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

Physicists have a saying: "The truth is in the numbers."
They consider it bad form to attempt verbal explanations when the
equations
speak for themselves.

However, as the question of ultimate origin does not at present have
an
answer, we simply respond to it with our own Gestalt.
This is what Mike McKelvy is doing, and it is very difficult to avoid,
unless one has received the indoctrination into physical reasoning
that
is
given to all first-year physics graduate students.

I would simply point out to Mike that his intuition, as with all
intuition,
is useless in these matters.
Our brains were designed to think in three dimensions so we could find
our
way out of the woods, not fall off cliffs, and not get burned by
fires.
The
addition of frontal lobes capable of formal operations, as per Piaget,
is
a
very recent evolution, and very incomplete.

Mike, this is not meant to be a putdown, but if there is any hope in
understanding the nature of ultimate origins, it lies in careful
mathematical study of cosmic background radiation, vacuum physics,
dark
matter, "brane theory", and "string theory."
We are all free to speculate, and it's very entertaining to do so, but
man's
gestalt is useless in this pursuit. If there is a truth to be found,
there
is no reason to assume that it will be intuitively satisfying.









Bob, I've already explained this to him several times.

You've explained what you believe to be true.

Yes but fear you still don't really grasp what I have explained to believe
on
the subject.

The jury on THIS issue is
still out.

Yeah, that is much of what I have tried to explain to you.

Obviously it is not open and shut.

Funny, according to you it was open and shut.

For me, yes.

You claimed that there always had
to be something and any scientist who said otherwise was wrong. Are you
finally
getting it?

It is that which is not to be gotten.

There are some highly
qualified people it seems who don't share the view you have accepted.

Name one that does not share my view, that view being that your conclusion
is
premature and not supported by any evidence.



Did you read the article? It's available at SA's website.









No I haven't. Nothing you have told me about it leads me to believe that
anything in the article conflicts with any of my actual views on the
subject.

Why am I not surprised?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 12:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
nk.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that
the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious
to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific
thought
on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be
true,
that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I
chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have
you
to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are
just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one who sees it the way I do.

I don't doubt that. Do you really want to brag about being one of the
many
people ignorant about cutting edge physics though? Do you think reality
is
subject to popularity polls?


I take some pride in not buying onto flawed thinking. Nothing can not be
the cause of something.


You have no idea how funny it sounds that anybody could actually
believe
there could have been a time where "nothing" existed.


No, I do. I have been down the road of explaining current thoughts in
theoretical physics many times. Quantum mechanics and reletivity both
often get
belly laughs when first described. Some people get it eventually and
some
don't. Bob did a very nice job of explaining the pitfalls of reliance
on
practical intuition. It worked fine when we were hunter/gatherers. It
betrays
us when we look deeper than we can see with the human eye.


It's still better than bad math

If you find any problems with the math in theoretical physics please bring
it
to the attention of the mathemeticians and/or theoretical physicists who
are
engaging in said bad math. I really doubt you are in any position to
analyse
the math in question. It certainly is way beyond my one year of college
calculus.


I don't claim to be qualified in that area. The idea that nothing could
erupt into something is flawed.

or math that starts from a flawed premise.

The only premises that are used are derived directly from empirical
evidence.
If you have new evidence to present to the world of theoretical physics
then do
so. The only faulty premise I see so far is yours. It is based on your gut
feelings. In physics that is quite worthless.

No, it's based on understanding that nothing is nothing, zero, zip zilch,
nada. It is not a kind of something, it is NOTHING. It can't cause
anything.

As I stated in the beginning of the thread, I wasn't offering up this
article as PROOF of anything other than the issue is not settled as you
would have us believe.

Please try to get my position on the subject right before you try to
represent
it. My position is that it is not settled at all. That was your position
that
it was settled by you and your gut feelings.


Sometimes even the majority can be wrong.

They often are. On this thread it is simply you who is wrong.



So much for the jury being out.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 4:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the
idea that the Universe could never have not existed,
(an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).

"not existed"... please define existence?


That which exists.

Do you mean
as in universal order or as life seperate from organic
form?

As in existing.


The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin?
Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but
at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

You don't like the concept of the lotus flower (universe)
which grows out of Vishnu's navel, I take it ?

You would be correct in that assumption.

I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that
the Big Bang as the beginning of the Universe is not a
universally held view as some of you would have had
me believe.

It still looks like all things point to God (thought or idea
that transcends all thinking/universal archetype).



Not to me. It simply looks as though existence has always existed.


Oh, it looks that way to you. Must be true. To think, I have been
wasting
my
time paying attention to cutting edge physics when you had the answer.


You do
realize you just used flat earth logic do you not?

No I used logic. Nothing can't suddenly burst into everything.









That is not logic that is a premise, an axiom. It is clearly a flawed one
given
that it flies in the face of empirical evidence that shows something can
come
from nothing with no known mechanism so long as it adds up to zero. You
are
just chasing your tail on this subject. How you cannot see that your
opinions
run against the that of the body of theoretical physicistsand how you
cannot
see that is a big red flag is beyond me.

You are assuming that I care, I don't. I'm not afraid or embarrassed to say
the Emperor has no clothes. Zero is zero, nothing is nothing, in every
dimension. If there were nothing, there would have been no dimensions
either.

Here's part of the article. Maybe you'll take the time to
read it.



The Myth of the Beginning of Time; May 2004; by Gabriele
Veneziano;
10 page(s)
File size: 268 KB


Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the
universe exist before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a
decade ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense - that
to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for
directions to a place north of the North Pole. But developments in
theoretical physics, especially the rise of string theory, have
changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the
latest frontier of cosmology.


The new willingness to consider what might have happened before
the bang is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked
back and forth for millennia. In one form or another, the issue of
the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in
nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns,
one famously encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou
venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come from? What
are we? Where are we going?" The piece depicts the cycle of birth, life and
death - origin, identity and destiny for each
individual - and these personal concerns connect directly to cosmic ones.
We can trace our lineage back through the generations, back
through our animal ancestors, to early forms of life and protolife,
to the elements synthesized in the primordial universe, to the
amorphous energy deposited in space before that. Does our family
tree extend forever backward? Or do its roots terminate? Is the
cosmos as impermanent as we are?

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 11:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 2:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 6/6/2004 10:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
nk.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that
the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious
to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific
thought
on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be
true,
that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I
chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have
you
to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are
just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

Physicists have a saying: "The truth is in the numbers."
They consider it bad form to attempt verbal explanations when the
equations
speak for themselves.

However, as the question of ultimate origin does not at present have
an
answer, we simply respond to it with our own Gestalt.
This is what Mike McKelvy is doing, and it is very difficult to avoid,
unless one has received the indoctrination into physical reasoning
that
is
given to all first-year physics graduate students.

I would simply point out to Mike that his intuition, as with all
intuition,
is useless in these matters.
Our brains were designed to think in three dimensions so we could find
our
way out of the woods, not fall off cliffs, and not get burned by
fires.
The
addition of frontal lobes capable of formal operations, as per Piaget,
is
a
very recent evolution, and very incomplete.

Mike, this is not meant to be a putdown, but if there is any hope in
understanding the nature of ultimate origins, it lies in careful
mathematical study of cosmic background radiation, vacuum physics,
dark
matter, "brane theory", and "string theory."
We are all free to speculate, and it's very entertaining to do so, but
man's
gestalt is useless in this pursuit. If there is a truth to be found,
there
is no reason to assume that it will be intuitively satisfying.









Bob, I've already explained this to him several times.

You've explained what you believe to be true.

Yes but fear you still don't really grasp what I have explained to believe
on
the subject.

The jury on THIS issue is
still out.

Yeah, that is much of what I have tried to explain to you.

Obviously it is not open and shut.

Funny, according to you it was open and shut.

For me, yes.

OK in one sentence you say the jury is still out and in the next you say for
you it is open and shut. Which is it? Or are you simply asserting that you know
something that the body of theoretical physicists don't know on the subject?



You claimed that there always had
to be something and any scientist who said otherwise was wrong. Are you
finally
getting it?

It is that which is not to be gotten.

By you, I have to agree. Others get it though.



There are some highly
qualified people it seems who don't share the view you have accepted.

Name one that does not share my view, that view being that your conclusion
is
premature and not supported by any evidence.



Did you read the article? It's available at SA's website.









No I haven't. Nothing you have told me about it leads me to believe that
anything in the article conflicts with any of my actual views on the
subject.

Why am I not surprised?








I don't know. I'm still trying to figure out what you think you know that the
scientific community doesn't.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 11:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 12:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
nk.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea that
the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly obvious
to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific
thought
on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be
true,
that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and I
chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we have
you
to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are
just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one who sees it the way I do.

I don't doubt that. Do you really want to brag about being one of the
many
people ignorant about cutting edge physics though? Do you think reality
is
subject to popularity polls?


I take some pride in not buying onto flawed thinking. Nothing can not be
the cause of something.


You have no idea how funny it sounds that anybody could actually
believe
there could have been a time where "nothing" existed.


No, I do. I have been down the road of explaining current thoughts in
theoretical physics many times. Quantum mechanics and reletivity both
often get
belly laughs when first described. Some people get it eventually and
some
don't. Bob did a very nice job of explaining the pitfalls of reliance
on
practical intuition. It worked fine when we were hunter/gatherers. It
betrays
us when we look deeper than we can see with the human eye.


It's still better than bad math

If you find any problems with the math in theoretical physics please bring
it
to the attention of the mathemeticians and/or theoretical physicists who
are
engaging in said bad math. I really doubt you are in any position to
analyse
the math in question. It certainly is way beyond my one year of college
calculus.


I don't claim to be qualified in that area. The idea that nothing could
erupt into something is flawed.

Prove it. Cite empirical evidence and through the use of logic prove your
assertion.



or math that starts from a flawed premise.

The only premises that are used are derived directly from empirical
evidence.
If you have new evidence to present to the world of theoretical physics
then do
so. The only faulty premise I see so far is yours. It is based on your gut
feelings. In physics that is quite worthless.

No, it's based on understanding that nothing is nothing, zero, zip zilch,
nada. It is not a kind of something, it is NOTHING. It can't cause
anything.

Obviously you are completely out of touch with current events in physics. Look
up "virtual particles" and then get back to me with your bogus assertion which
flies in the face of empirical evidence.



As I stated in the beginning of the thread, I wasn't offering up this
article as PROOF of anything other than the issue is not settled as you
would have us believe.

Please try to get my position on the subject right before you try to
represent
it. My position is that it is not settled at all. That was your position
that
it was settled by you and your gut feelings.


Sometimes even the majority can be wrong.

They often are. On this thread it is simply you who is wrong.



So much for the jury being out.



The jury is out on the origins of the universe. It came back a long time ago on
your assertion that it is an irrefutable fact that it has always been there.
That jury ruled against you on the grounds that your assertion is not supported
by any empirical evidence. Please try to keep track of the subject.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 11:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: k.net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 4:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the
idea that the Universe could never have not existed,
(an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).

"not existed"... please define existence?


That which exists.

Do you mean
as in universal order or as life seperate from organic
form?

As in existing.


The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin?
Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but
at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

You don't like the concept of the lotus flower (universe)
which grows out of Vishnu's navel, I take it ?

You would be correct in that assumption.

I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that
the Big Bang as the beginning of the Universe is not a
universally held view as some of you would have had
me believe.

It still looks like all things point to God (thought or idea
that transcends all thinking/universal archetype).



Not to me. It simply looks as though existence has always existed.


Oh, it looks that way to you. Must be true. To think, I have been
wasting
my
time paying attention to cutting edge physics when you had the answer.


You do
realize you just used flat earth logic do you not?

No I used logic. Nothing can't suddenly burst into everything.









That is not logic that is a premise, an axiom. It is clearly a flawed one
given
that it flies in the face of empirical evidence that shows something can
come
from nothing with no known mechanism so long as it adds up to zero. You
are
just chasing your tail on this subject. How you cannot see that your
opinions
run against the that of the body of theoretical physicistsand how you
cannot
see that is a big red flag is beyond me.

You are assuming that I care, I don't. I'm not afraid or embarrassed to say
the Emperor has no clothes. Zero is zero, nothing is nothing, in every
dimension. If there were nothing, there would have been no dimensions
either.


You have been lead to water. You drowned. Not my problem.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 11:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 2:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Robert Morein"
Date: 6/6/2004 10:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
nk.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea
that
the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly
obvious
to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific
thought
on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be
true,
that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and
I
chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we
have
you
to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are
just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

Physicists have a saying: "The truth is in the numbers."
They consider it bad form to attempt verbal explanations when the
equations
speak for themselves.

However, as the question of ultimate origin does not at present
have
an
answer, we simply respond to it with our own Gestalt.
This is what Mike McKelvy is doing, and it is very difficult to
avoid,
unless one has received the indoctrination into physical reasoning
that
is
given to all first-year physics graduate students.

I would simply point out to Mike that his intuition, as with all
intuition,
is useless in these matters.
Our brains were designed to think in three dimensions so we could
find
our
way out of the woods, not fall off cliffs, and not get burned by
fires.
The
addition of frontal lobes capable of formal operations, as per
Piaget,
is
a
very recent evolution, and very incomplete.

Mike, this is not meant to be a putdown, but if there is any hope
in
understanding the nature of ultimate origins, it lies in careful
mathematical study of cosmic background radiation, vacuum physics,
dark
matter, "brane theory", and "string theory."
We are all free to speculate, and it's very entertaining to do so,
but
man's
gestalt is useless in this pursuit. If there is a truth to be
found,
there
is no reason to assume that it will be intuitively satisfying.









Bob, I've already explained this to him several times.

You've explained what you believe to be true.

Yes but fear you still don't really grasp what I have explained to
believe
on
the subject.

The jury on THIS issue is
still out.

Yeah, that is much of what I have tried to explain to you.

Obviously it is not open and shut.

Funny, according to you it was open and shut.

For me, yes.

OK in one sentence you say the jury is still out and in the next you say
for
you it is open and shut.

I'm not on the jury. For me the obviousness of the fact that nothing cannot
cause something is open and shut.

Which is it? Or are you simply asserting that you know
something that the body of theoretical physicists don't know on the
subject?



You claimed that there always had
to be something and any scientist who said otherwise was wrong. Are you
finally
getting it?

It is that which is not to be gotten.

By you, I have to agree. Others get it though.

I doubt it.

There are some highly
qualified people it seems who don't share the view you have accepted.

Name one that does not share my view, that view being that your
conclusion
is
premature and not supported by any evidence.



Did you read the article? It's available at SA's website.









No I haven't. Nothing you have told me about it leads me to believe
that
anything in the article conflicts with any of my actual views on the
subject.

Why am I not surprised?








I don't know. I'm still trying to figure out what you think you know that
the
scientific community doesn't.

0+0=0.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 11:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 12:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
nk.net

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea
that
the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly
obvious
to
me).

Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific
thought
on
the
subject.



Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be
true,
that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and
I
chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.


Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we
have
you
to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are
just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.

I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one who sees it the way I
do.

I don't doubt that. Do you really want to brag about being one of
the
many
people ignorant about cutting edge physics though? Do you think
reality
is
subject to popularity polls?


I take some pride in not buying onto flawed thinking. Nothing can not be
the cause of something.


You have no idea how funny it sounds that anybody could actually
believe
there could have been a time where "nothing" existed.


No, I do. I have been down the road of explaining current thoughts
in
theoretical physics many times. Quantum mechanics and reletivity
both
often get
belly laughs when first described. Some people get it eventually and
some
don't. Bob did a very nice job of explaining the pitfalls of
reliance
on
practical intuition. It worked fine when we were hunter/gatherers.
It
betrays
us when we look deeper than we can see with the human eye.


It's still better than bad math

If you find any problems with the math in theoretical physics please
bring
it
to the attention of the mathemeticians and/or theoretical physicists
who
are
engaging in said bad math. I really doubt you are in any position to
analyse
the math in question. It certainly is way beyond my one year of college
calculus.


I don't claim to be qualified in that area. The idea that nothing could
erupt into something is flawed.

Prove it. Cite empirical evidence and through the use of logic prove your
assertion.



or math that starts from a flawed premise.

The only premises that are used are derived directly from empirical
evidence.
If you have new evidence to present to the world of theoretical physics
then do
so. The only faulty premise I see so far is yours. It is based on your
gut
feelings. In physics that is quite worthless.

No, it's based on understanding that nothing is nothing, zero, zip zilch,
nada. It is not a kind of something, it is NOTHING. It can't cause
anything.

Obviously you are completely out of touch with current events in physics.
Look
up "virtual particles" and then get back to me with your bogus assertion
which
flies in the face of empirical evidence.

Now, now, you know you can't prove a negative.

As I stated in the beginning of the thread, I wasn't offering up this
article as PROOF of anything other than the issue is not settled as
you
would have us believe.

Please try to get my position on the subject right before you try to
represent
it. My position is that it is not settled at all. That was your
position
that
it was settled by you and your gut feelings.


Sometimes even the majority can be wrong.

They often are. On this thread it is simply you who is wrong.



So much for the jury being out.



The jury is out on the origins of the universe.

There is no origin, it's been there forever. It can't be othrewise.

It came back a long time ago on
your assertion that it is an irrefutable fact that it has always been
there.
That jury ruled against you on the grounds that your assertion is not
supported
by any empirical evidence. Please try to keep track of the subject.

The subject is trying to prove their was a time when the universe could have
not existed.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 11:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: k.net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 4:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t


"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote

Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the
idea that the Universe could never have not existed,
(an idea that seems fairly obvious to me).

"not existed"... please define existence?


That which exists.

Do you mean
as in universal order or as life seperate from organic
form?

As in existing.


The last paragraph reads: "So when did time begin?
Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but
at least two testable theories, plausibly hold
that the universe existed before the Big Bang.

You don't like the concept of the lotus flower (universe)
which grows out of Vishnu's navel, I take it ?

You would be correct in that assumption.

I don't offer this as proof of my view, simply proof that
the Big Bang as the beginning of the Universe is not a
universally held view as some of you would have had
me believe.

It still looks like all things point to God (thought or idea
that transcends all thinking/universal archetype).



Not to me. It simply looks as though existence has always existed.


Oh, it looks that way to you. Must be true. To think, I have been
wasting
my
time paying attention to cutting edge physics when you had the
answer.


You do
realize you just used flat earth logic do you not?

No I used logic. Nothing can't suddenly burst into everything.









That is not logic that is a premise, an axiom. It is clearly a flawed
one
given
that it flies in the face of empirical evidence that shows something
can
come
from nothing with no known mechanism so long as it adds up to zero. You
are
just chasing your tail on this subject. How you cannot see that your
opinions
run against the that of the body of theoretical physicistsand how you
cannot
see that is a big red flag is beyond me.

You are assuming that I care, I don't. I'm not afraid or embarrassed to
say
the Emperor has no clothes. Zero is zero, nothing is nothing, in every
dimension. If there were nothing, there would have been no dimensions
either.


You have been lead to water. You drowned. Not my problem.

None so blind as those who will not see. Eventually, I'm sure a new jury
will be empanelled and reach the same verdict I have.