PDA

View Full Version : A Humble Question to the Exalted Poster.



Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Nov-29, 11:12 PM
Dear Gentle Posters,

I have to ask you something, and hope that this is viewed too by the Bad Astronomer.

I would like to make an extensive posting, which may involve four or five separate topics. The thing is, I have hesitated since coming to the forum because some of you chaps seem to be fairly educated in science, engineering and technology.

I'm just a popular science bookreader.

The thing is, I have formulated a theory. Let's call it a philosophical theory, not a scientific one because for all I know it might be bursting at the seams with impossibilities.

The advantage of that is that, as a non-scientist, I have no reputation to protect, so it doesn't really matter if I make a chump of myself. It also means that I can put a possibly outlandish idea before you and all it will receive is a groan if it's just plain daft.

On the other hand, if by some fluke it's inspirational, someone might be able to grab it and fit in the missing facts.

Also, there might be a faint anti-religious content.

Does the gentle poster and the Bad Astronomer mind if I make such a posting?

Will you at least have a look?

What it is is an idea as to the answer of the question. 'Why is there something and not nothing?'

I think I know.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Nov-29, 11:22 PM
Is it astronomy related? If not, you'd probably be better off putting it in BABBling. Also, the BA doesn't like religious discussion here because it seems to cause problems elsewhere. I think your best bet would be to send a private message to the BA explaining your theory and asking if it's alright to post it.

If he okay's it, I'm fine with it. :wink:

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Nov-30, 10:05 AM
Is it astronomy related? If not, you'd probably be better off putting it in BABBling. Also, the BA doesn't like religious discussion here because it seems to cause problems elsewhere. I think your best bet would be to send a private message to the BA explaining your theory and asking if it's alright to post it.

If he okay's it, I'm fine with it. :wink:

Thanks, will do.

It is astronomy related.

Colt
2003-Nov-30, 12:42 PM
I would be interested in seeing it. -Colt

kenneth rodman
2003-Nov-30, 01:57 PM
well?.................... :o

Normandy6644
2003-Nov-30, 05:08 PM
Is there any way you could put it on a website and then post a link?

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Nov-30, 10:27 PM
Is there any way you could put it on a website and then post a link?

Possibly, Normandy, give me a couple of days and I will re-post. 8-[

Normandy6644
2003-Dec-01, 03:01 AM
Excellent. I'm quite looking forward to it, since I too (and I think many of us on the BABB) have ideas about the reason behind the universe and such, but I (as I would hope others are) am open minded and truly enjoy free discussion of ideas.

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-01, 11:32 AM
Excellent. I'm quite looking forward to it, since I too (and I think many of us on the BABB) have ideas about the reason behind the universe and such, but I (as I would hope others are) am open minded and truly enjoy free discussion of ideas.

Don't get your hopes up too much!

I'm currently trying to blag some space on a friend's site.

Watch this space!!

Sister Ray
2003-Dec-01, 03:31 PM
I'm very interested in reading it, although I'm pretty religious. Then again, I have the most bizzare religious beliefs known to man, besides the ones that end up doing the mass suicide thing.

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-01, 04:55 PM
I'm very interested in reading it, although I'm pretty religious. Then again, I have the most bizzare religious beliefs known to man, besides the ones that end up doing the mass suicide thing.

Gotta site, Normandy. Will take me two or three days to sort the text out (it's all hard copy)

Tell us about your beliefs, Sister..by mail if you're worried about forum rules.

Normandy6644
2003-Dec-01, 08:09 PM
Yeah I'm kind of curious now too.

Cougar
2003-Dec-01, 08:14 PM
...I have the most bizzare religious beliefs known to man, besides the ones that end up doing the mass suicide thing.
Well, that's saying something, because, come to think of it, most religious beliefs are remarkably bizarre.

Of course, our universe is rather bizarre, now that you mention it. And the theories describing and explaining our universe would probably fall into that category as well. But the well established theories are backed up and supported by objective and repeatable observations. Nothing too bizarre about that requirement....

Cougar
2003-Dec-01, 08:31 PM
I would like to make an extensive posting, which may involve four or five separate topics.
Personally speaking, such extensive postings tend to turn me off. If possible, I would much rather see four or five separate topics brought up and discussed in four or five separate postings.

The thing is, I have formulated a theory. Let's call it a philosophical theory, not a scientific one because for all I know it might be bursting at the seams with impossibilities.
Well, philosophies are like, uh, opinions - everybody's got one. If there's no way to discriminate between good ones and bad ones, it's difficult to come to conclusions. Still, I'm curious as to what's on your mind. If your "theory" can't be falsified, you'll certainly hear about it.

Also, there might be a faint anti-religious content.
Well, I'm with Paul Kurtz, who says....

"...the desire to seek a kind of accommodation by mutual tolerance is understandable, even commendable. Nonetheless speaking as a secularist and skeptic, I believe this should not preclude others within the community from questioning the claims of Biblical, Koranic, or other absolute faiths, particularly since massive efforts are constantly undertaken by missionaries to recruit members to the fold... This posture is especially questionable given the constant effort by militant religionists to apply their doctrines in the political process, thus seeking to impose their views on others."

What it is is an idea as to the answer of the question. 'Why is there something and not nothing?'.... I think I know.
Well, going back to your anticipated "extensive posting"....

"Ernest Rutherford used to advise his students to distrust any concept (or their command of any concept) that they could not explain to a barmaid. Leon Lederman said, 'If the basic idea is too complicated to fit on a T-shirt, it's probably wrong."

dgruss23
2003-Dec-01, 11:24 PM
Paul Kurtz is right, but what he says can be applied much more broadly. Its not just militant religious that use the political process to try to impose views. Militant environmentalists do it. Militant supporters of just about any movement you can think of do it. The problem arises not when these political actions are in an effort to establish fairness for all views, but when they are pushed in an effort to elevate their cause at the expense of other views - including the majority.

Sister Ray
2003-Dec-01, 11:32 PM
I'm very interested in reading it, although I'm pretty religious. Then again, I have the most bizzare religious beliefs known to man, besides the ones that end up doing the mass suicide thing.

Gotta site, Normandy. Will take me two or three days to sort the text out (it's all hard copy)

Tell us about your beliefs, Sister..by mail if you're worried about forum rules.

In a few days, if at all. I'm trying to get a hold of myself so I don't wind up in the mental hospital for the third time this year.

Archer17
2003-Dec-02, 02:11 AM
Sister Ray, if you need someone to talk to or just to listen .. email me: Shj17@aol.com.

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-02, 08:27 AM
I would like to make an extensive posting, which may involve four or five separate topics.
Personally speaking, such extensive postings tend to turn me off. If possible, I would much rather see four or five separate topics brought up and discussed in four or five separate postings.


Good morning Cougar..that's an American big cat isn't it(?) When I was a kid in the 50s I read a Brit comic called the Tiger..one of the characters was a Seminole wrestler..Johnny Cougar.

Now, I meant to say this in fact WILL just be four or five separate postings, Cougar. I wrote it out wrongly..exalted posters are going to have to be patient with me as I'm just an extremely BAD conputerist. Will try for first posting today.

Archer17
2003-Dec-02, 09:52 AM
I would like to make an extensive posting, which may involve four or five separate topics.
Personally speaking, such extensive postings tend to turn me off. If possible, I would much rather see four or five separate topics brought up and discussed in four or five separate postings.


Good morning Cougar..that's an American big cat isn't it(?) When I was a kid in the 50s I read a Brit comic called the Tiger..one of the characters was a Seminole wrestler..Johnny Cougar.

Now, I meant to say this in fact WILL just be four or five separate postings, Cougar. I wrote it out wrongly..exalted posters are going to have to be patient with me as I'm just an extremely BAD conputerist. Will try for first posting today.Do what you have to do .. hell with Cougar or anyone else that tries to dictate how you post .. it's your show.. just make it good, or at least legible :D

Cougar
2003-Dec-02, 03:44 PM
....hell with Cougar....
Aww... you probably hunt cougars with your big bow and arrows, don't you?
http://www.xmission.com/~dcc/cougarsnarl.jpg

Archer17
2003-Dec-02, 04:03 PM
big bow & arrows? nah .. slay 'em with my sharp tongue. I only go for my quiver when dealing with dangerous game :wink:

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-02, 06:01 PM
I would like to make an extensive posting, which may involve four or five separate topics.
Personally speaking, such extensive postings tend to turn me off. If possible, I would much rather see four or five separate topics brought up and discussed in four or five separate postings.


Good morning Cougar..that's an American big cat isn't it(?) When I was a kid in the 50s I read a Brit comic called the Tiger..one of the characters was a Seminole wrestler..Johnny Cougar.

Now, I meant to say this in fact WILL just be four or five separate postings, Cougar. I wrote it out wrongly..exalted posters are going to have to be patient with me as I'm just an extremely BAD conputerist. Will try for first posting today.Do what you have to do .. hell with Cougar or anyone else that tries to dictate how you post .. it's your show.. just make it good, or at least legible :D

That's OK Archer17.

Any post by Johnny Cougar is good enough for me.

I'm just thankful I get ANY posts on my threads. :lol:

Eroica
2003-Dec-02, 08:24 PM
When I was a kid in the 50s I read a Brit comic called the Tiger..one of the characters was a Seminole wrestler..Johnny Cougar.
By Manitou! That takes me back. When I was a kid in the 70s I read that comic (by then it had merged with another comic to become Tiger and Jag) and Johnny Cougar was still in it. Remember Skid Solo and Martin's Marvellous Mini?

Ah, those were simpler times....

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-03, 10:21 AM
When I was a kid in the 50s I read a Brit comic called the Tiger..one of the characters was a Seminole wrestler..Johnny Cougar.
By Manitou! That takes me back. When I was a kid in the 70s I read that comic (by then it had merged with another comic to become Tiger and Jag) and Johnny Cougar was still in it. Remember Skid Solo and Martin's Marvellous Mini?

Ah, those were simpler times....

No, Tiger and Jag was after my time.

But I DO remember Jet-Ace Logan and Plumduff Charteris, the best space-men ever.

I wonder if they'll come up on Google....? :-?

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-04, 01:09 AM
We've got a cougar in our house. Her name's Misty and she rips up my feet with her claws.

What was a Manitou?

I digress...got the first part of the Chelmsford Theory posted on other site. Will do the link in the morning. I'm tired!! :oops: #-o

Normandy6644
2003-Dec-04, 01:24 AM
Ha, Chemlsford Theory. Sounds so noble. :D

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-04, 01:58 AM
Ha, Chemlsford Theory. Sounds so noble. :D

Oh it ain't, Normandy!

But thanks for taking so much interest. :)

Eroica
2003-Dec-04, 08:28 AM
What was a Manitou?
Manitou was Johnny Cougar's god. By Manitou was his favourite interjection. Maybe they only introduced that in the 70s.

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-04, 10:06 AM
What was a Manitou?
Manitou was Johnny Cougar's god. By Manitou was his favourite interjection. Maybe they only introduced that in the 70s.

I think there was a bit more to it than that, or else 'Manitou' will have been invented by the British writer of Johnny Cougar!

We need to talk to a Native American person. Any on the forum?

My Mum once got given a Native American name on a visit to Canada.

Princess Standing-by-the-Pole.

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-04, 10:31 AM
Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen,

As I said at the start of this thread I would like to post the bare bones of a philosophical theory, which hopes to illustrate why there is matter in the Universe. Matter as opposed to complete nothingness.

I have called it The Chelmsford Theory, after the town in which I live.

In deference to the Bad Astronomer and rules of the forum, and under advice from other members, I have decide to post the Theory on another site with links for you to gain access.

The reason for this is that there is some reference to religion in the Theory, which is banned on the Bad Astronomy site.

Please DO NOT access these links if you are a deeply religious person.

My first posting is just a single page Preface to the Theory, which I put before you partly to test the links(!) just to start with. The rest will follow in a few days. A Second Preface, and the Theory in two parts.

The First Preface raises a topic which I think was discussed a lot in the 19th Century, so it's possibly a bit old, but I don't know if any conclusion was reached. Certainly it provoked a negative reaction on a religious site where it was previously posted.

As I am the worst computer user in the world (I can't even figure out how to use my disc drive) this may not work very well, so I include two links. The first is the message board site. Go to 'Listings' then 'Education' ( :lol: ) then scroll down to the bottom, 'The Chelmsfordites.'

http://www.instantmessageboards.com

The link which should take you straight there is this collection of digits;

http://instantmessageboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=10309078

For some reason I can't quite finish the page, so it tails off a bit. I suspect the site are economical with the words that can be written down ( I haven't studied the instructions too closely, but will) so I may need a few more postings.

All comments, no matter how scathing, will be welcome. Don't forget to post comments pertaining to religion over there and not down here.

With thanks to the Bad Astronomer.

kilopi
2003-Dec-04, 10:52 AM
All comments, no matter how scathing, will be welcome. Don't forget to post comments pertaining to religion over there and not down here.
It does tail off, but it appears that you are proving God doesn't exist by saying God is everything, then pointing out that mathematics is clearly not God. QED.

However, myself, I think mathematics is divine. So, you've got a problem there. :)

Seriously, though, it seems that you are assuming that arithmetic is pre-formed, and has an existence outside the human mind (and outside the "body" of God, whatever the "body" may be). That may even have been what Russell and Whitehead were trying to do when they wrote their huge magnum opus Principia Mathematica (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/), but I think the philosopher Russell admitted failure, did he not?

Eroica
2003-Dec-04, 04:45 PM
Do numbers exist if there is no mind to conceive them?

It's a bit like that Zen riddle: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Numbers are ideas, so the question could be applied to any idea: can any idea exist independently of a conscious mind?

I look forward to your next post.

Manitou (http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/native_american-mythology.php?deity=MANITOU)

Sister Ray
2003-Dec-04, 06:06 PM
Liked what I see so far. Despite being religious, I was not at all offended. Maybe it's because I don't think God created the universe (maybe he was created with it, maybe he's from another universe) and I don't think he's all powerful. All loving, but not all powerful. Actually cannot intervene much with humans for a variety of reasons.

edit: If this is too religious for the board, I'll delete it.

Normandy6644
2003-Dec-04, 09:15 PM
It has been long debated whether or not mathematics would exist without some kind of invention. An interesting theory about God is that He is a consequence of the universe, i.e., the universe requires a God to keep things in order. Of course it's all speculation, and also begs the question where did the universe come from, but it's at least a new angle on the matter.

Cougar
2003-Dec-04, 10:26 PM
Richard, I think Kilopi's right that the question of mathematics existing independently is somewhat controversial.

....it seems that you are assuming that arithmetic is pre-formed, and has an existence outside the human mind (and outside the "body" of God, whatever the "body" may be)....
But there's at least one famous physicist who shares Richard's view....

"...mathematical structure is just there in Nature, the theory really is out there in space - it has not been imposed upon Nature by anyone."

kilopi
2003-Dec-05, 12:02 AM
But there's at least one famous physicist who shares Richard's view....
Sure, but even if you except that, Richard's argument seems to be...

God is Everything
Math is not God
Therefore there is no God.

But he didn't have to go that far. Clearly, taupe is not God either.

Normandy6644
2003-Dec-05, 01:27 AM
But how do we know that math is not God? Who's to say what God is or isn't? I think the meaning of "God" is somewhat lost of we try to apply definitions and/or contraints to it.

kilopi
2003-Dec-05, 04:29 AM
But how do we know that math is not God? Who's to say what God is or isn't?
Well, that would be an argument against Richard's argument. I was just trying to paraphrase what I saw in his argument.

I'm not even sure if my paraphrase is accurate. Anyone?

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-05, 11:05 AM
Gentle posters, here's the link for

The Second Preface to the Chelmsford Theory.

http://www.instantmessageboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=10241851

I'm still a bit stymied as to how much I can post here, so it's a bit brief again. Sorry.

It'll be a bit better if I ever manage to publish it in book form( :lol: )

space cadet
2003-Dec-05, 02:36 PM
Up with science, down with religion?

Have you ever considered the possibility that science IS religion? Or at least a kind of religion?


I know we're supposed to not talk about religion on here, but I'm a religious person, and I don't go around saying down with science.

Normandy6644
2003-Dec-05, 02:39 PM
Up with science, down with religion?

Have you ever considered the possibility that science IS religion? Or at least a kind of religion?


I know we're supposed to not talk about religion on here, but I'm a religious person, and I don't go around saying down with science.

Some religious people do, however. It's not that science wants to eradicate or even replace religion, it's that science has nothing to do with religion. They are generally imcompatible. The only time there is ever debate is when certain religious people try to pass their beliefs off as science. They aren't necessarily wrong, they're just not science.

kilopi
2003-Dec-05, 03:26 PM
Gentle posters, here's the link for

The Second Preface to the Chelmsford Theory.

http://www.instantmessageboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=10241851

From the link:


But if you have one lump of rock..say a planet, and another lump of rock..a smaller planet, flies past it chaotically, if it is caught in the first planet's gravity it will describe an arc around the larger planet and will go into orbit.

If you're only considering the two objects, then that's dubious. The smaller one won't be captured by the larger. You need more than two objects. A simple Newtonian equation using two spherical bodies doesn't result in a capture, ever, unless the second body impacts the first.

Cougar
2003-Dec-05, 03:32 PM
Have you ever considered the possibility that science IS religion? Or at least a kind of religion?
This is a common view by those who are anti-science. It is, however, a false view. Science is not any kind of religion. Religion is based on belief without evidence. Science is based on hard evidence. Belief without evidence has no value in science.
http://www.xmission.com/~dcc/cougarclean.jpg

kilopi
2003-Dec-05, 03:49 PM
Have you ever considered the possibility that science IS religion? Or at least a kind of religion?
This is a common view by those who are anti-science. It is, however, a false view. Science is not any kind of religion. Religion is based on belief without evidence. Science is based on hard evidence. Belief without evidence has no value in science.
That was Soupdragon's contention in the thread Is science a belief system? (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=87672&highlight=religion#87672) The answer was no, because of the definitions presented at the time. That doesn't mean someone can't cnange the definition of "belief system" and have Science shoehorned in, but very few people would accept such a defintion, I imagine.

dgruss23
2003-Dec-05, 05:20 PM
That was one wild thread!!! On page 18 (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=121476#121476) I pointed to Carlo Lastrucci's book "The Scientific Approach" in which he referred to science as a belief system with a different referent.

The thing I found the funniest in that thread was that Soupdragon said that philosophers did not have a definition for "belief system" and could choose a definition to their liking - which was pretty much how he started the thread!

kilopi
2003-Dec-05, 06:43 PM
The thing I found the funniest in that thread was that Soupdragon said that philosophers did not have a definition for "belief system" and could choose a definition to their liking - which was pretty much how he started the thread!
The way I remember it, we asked him for his definition of belief system, and pretty much everybody agreed that science didn't fit that definition. That didn't restrain the thread, though. :)

dgruss23
2003-Dec-05, 07:24 PM
The thing I found the funniest in that thread was that Soupdragon said that philosophers did not have a definition for "belief system" and could choose a definition to their liking - which was pretty much how he started the thread!
The way I remember it, we asked him for his definition of belief system, and pretty much everybody agreed that science didn't fit that definition. That didn't restrain the thread, though. :)

Yeah, I seem to recall losing it a few times on that one. :oops: :)

kilopi
2003-Dec-05, 07:31 PM
Have you found it?

Cougar
2003-Dec-05, 07:32 PM
I pointed to Carlo Lastrucci's book "The Scientific Approach" in which he referred to science as a belief system with a different referent.
Philosopher Lastrucci also very reasonably defined science as... "an objective, logical, and systematic method of analysis of phenomena, devised to permit the accumulation of reliable knowledge."

Sounds like a plan!

dgruss23
2003-Dec-05, 07:36 PM
Have you found it?

Yep, but it likes to get away ... perhaps why I lost it a "few times". Right now I know where it is.

dgruss23
2003-Dec-05, 07:38 PM
I pointed to Carlo Lastrucci's book "The Scientific Approach" in which he referred to science as a belief system with a different referent.
Philosopher Lastrucci also very reasonably defined science as... "an objective, logical, and systematic method of analysis of phenomena, devised to permit the accumulation of reliable knowledge."

Sounds like a plan!

Sounds like a plan that's been put into action!

Ian Goddard
2003-Dec-05, 08:37 PM
What this means is that if these natural laws of nature can be shown not to have come from a divine entity or mind, then what of any other laws?
Your approach clearly appears to assume that if someone says "There is a God that created the universe" the burden of proof falls upon skeptics to prove the claim is false. But that's not how it works. Mere claims absent explicit empirical evidence do not warrant any degree of belief. So the claim that some invisible god created the universe does not need to be refuted because it is without content.

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-06, 02:53 AM
Up with science, down with religion?

Have you ever considered the possibility that science IS religion? Or at least a kind of religion?


I know we're supposed to not talk about religion on here, but I'm a religious person, and I don't go around saying down with science.

Yes. Sorry, I rather wrote that signature in a hurry and may change it if it offends anyone.

Posters have spoken against your view, Space Cadet, but I would rather not have an argument with you.

However, I DID ask posters not to use my links if they were deeply religious.

Perhaps your curiosity got the better of you?

To everyone...

Ladies and gentlemen I expect to post further material after the weekend. Thank you for your comments, particularly the correction with regard to planet going into orbit around each other. =D>

kilopi
2003-Dec-06, 03:06 AM
Yes. Sorry, I rather wrote that signature in a hurry and may change it if it offends anyone.


However, I DID ask posters not to use my links if they were deeply religious.


Perhaps your curiosity got the better of you?

I believe space cadet is talking about your signature on your posts on this board. Discussion of religion, even negative discussion of religion, is probably not approved by the BA. I think the intent is to avoid the inevitable controversies.


Ladies and gentlemen I expect to post further material after the weekend. Thank you for your comments, particularly the correction with regard to planet going into orbit around each other.
You're welcome. :)

George
2003-Dec-06, 06:36 AM
...Let us assume for this argument that there are two things, matter and gravity. Let us assume they were not created by God, but by some other process.

If you have a cloud of rocks, dust, gas and so on, flying about in all directions in space, then you have chaos. But if you have one lump of rock..say a planet, and another lump of rock..a smaller planet, flies past it chaotically, if it is caught in the first planet's gravity it will describe an arc around the larger planet and will go into orbit.

That planet/moon system may then be captured by a larger object..a star, as may others, and you have the semblance of a solar system.

And so on, until you have an entire, ordered galaxy. All created out of chaos. All made into good order without a designer.

Notwithstanding the peculiarities of the quantum world, a similar picture may occur within the atom and within the entire realm of everything which exist, known or unknown.

Order from chaos.

But is it chaos? How do we really define it? You seem to be a bit in a cold Dutch oven (hopefully, with some nice “broon breed”) :) . So I will try this approach.

Imagine you’re a happy-go-lucky hydrogen atom in a vast uncrowded gas cloud. Suddenly you, and all your friends, get slammed together by that blasted supernova. Next thing you know you are getting clobbered more and more as you are sucked in toward a massive ball. Next thing you know you are sweating your little electron off and there’s no end in sight. You are stuck forever, so you think. But after a few hundred million years go by of constant battering and gamma ray attacks, you see your friends explode and become things you ain’t never seen before [this reminds me of a 3 Dog Nite song - your mama told you not to come]. You long for those easy days back in the cloud.

So which is chaotic? The nice thing with science is it makes clear that the difference is not just a matter of opinion. In this case, there is a constant direction downhill in available energy in the universe (which is why your old hydrogen friends aren't getting back to normal). The best it ever was, was when the Big Bang was barely a bang at all.

The bigger issue you may be seeking is purpose. Is there a greater good requiring hydrogen to degenerate? Without the suns energy what nice things will you find? You might get some nice 24 hr. night sky views but you could be more preoccupied with starvation and cold.

We can’t let any religious model control our thought process but we must recognize that theological and philisophical models are important and certainly can overlap our scientific model. Rationality must be a requirement for all. Blind faith and other related superstition should be highly questioned. Nevertheless, the science model does not serve all of our needs and desires. We are wired to consider great issues such as mortality, love, kindness, peace, as well as, evil and all moral issues.

Allow me to now quote your first statement.


...
People try to create order from chaos.

Yes. Ain't it great? But why is that?

Well, I've blabbed enough I reckon. Don't know if I'm making much sense. #-o

[I edited a change: "psychological" to "philosophical" as this is what I had meant]

space cadet
2003-Dec-06, 06:59 AM
Up with science, down with religion?

Have you ever considered the possibility that science IS religion? Or at least a kind of religion?


I know we're supposed to not talk about religion on here, but I'm a religious person, and I don't go around saying down with science.

Yes. Sorry, I rather wrote that signature in a hurry and may change it if it offends anyone.

Posters have spoken against your view, Space Cadet, but I would rather not have an argument with you.

However, I DID ask posters not to use my links if they were deeply religious.

Perhaps your curiosity got the better of you?

To everyone...

Ladies and gentlemen I expect to post further material after the weekend. Thank you for your comments, particularly the correction with regard to planet going into orbit around each other. =D>





I don't want to have an argument with you either. And I wasn't offended by your link. I consider myself to be a very open minded person. I'm not going to get bent out of shape just because you think different from me.

What I was trying to point out is the fact that someone can appreciate science and still maintain their religious beliefs. But when people go around saying things like "up with science, down with religion," it causes many religious people to feel alienated from the scientific community. Which is very sad, in my oppinion, since many people who believe in God have also contributed a great deal towards science. It's fine to disagree with religious people, and by all means feel free explain your own position... but please, don't try to tear down what many consider to be sacred.

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-06, 12:29 PM
To George,

Thanks for that..will study it later, and I WILL change my signature, Space Cadet, I think I'm behoven to.

But got to go out for a haircut for the work Christmas party..a spiky sticky-up-in-the air cut (at age 55!!!) :lol:

George
2003-Dec-06, 01:00 PM
But got to go out for a haircut for the work Christmas party..a spiky sticky-up-in-the air cut (at age 55!!!) :lol:

:lol: Ok Spike. But at least you have hair on top. I have to clip my spikes after a couple of mm's. [It is so cool doing posts in this board when you can look over to the left and see 20 self-portraits - :wink: However, BA left my ears off - [-( ] !]

Hope the party is a blast!

kilopi
2003-Dec-06, 01:57 PM
I don't want to have an argument with you either. And I wasn't offended by your link.
Yep, no offense taken. But that's not the point. The signature is apparently against the rules of the BABB. Just a friendly warning--the BA hasn't banned anyone in hours, and I think he doesn't want to get out of the habit. :)

Cougar
2003-Dec-06, 05:45 PM
Your approach clearly appears to assume that if someone says "There is a God that created the universe" the burden of proof falls upon skeptics to prove the claim is false. But that's not how it works. Mere claims absent explicit empirical evidence do not warrant any degree of belief. So the claim that some invisible god created the universe does not need to be refuted because it is without content.
Excellent point.

Unfortunately, a majority of Americans apparently require no evidence whatsoever in order to buy into such unfounded claims. As Shermer and Gell-Mann say, such people apparently do so simply because "it makes them feel better - it comforts them." I suppose there's something to be said for false comfort, but certainly not for anyone seeking the truth....
http://www.xmission.com/~dcc/cougarrelax.jpg

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-06, 11:41 PM
New signature! :)

Where is the quote from I ask myself?

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-06, 11:58 PM
But is it chaos? How do we really define it? You seem to be a bit in a cold Dutch oven (hopefully, with some nice “broon breed”) :) . So I will try this approach.

Imagine you’re a happy-go-lucky hydrogen atom in a vast uncrowded gas cloud. Suddenly you, and all your friends, get slammed together by that blasted supernova. Next thing you know you are getting clobbered more and more as you are sucked in toward a massive ball. Next thing you know you are sweating your little electron off and there’s no end in sight. You are stuck forever, so you think. But after a few hundred million years go by of constant battering and gamma ray attacks, you see your friends explode and become things you ain’t never seen before [this reminds me of a 3 Dog Nite song - your mama told you not to come]. You long for those easy days back in the cloud.

So which is chaotic? The nice thing with science is it makes clear that the difference is not just a matter of opinion. In this case, there is a constant direction downhill in available energy in the universe (which is why your old hydrogen friends aren't getting back to normal). The best it ever was, was when the Big Bang was barely a bang at all.



I can't make a truly spot on comment about this, George as I'm a non scientist (though hopefully that will change in the next 10 years!) but you seem to be arguing that we will eventually come to the 'cold death' (is it?) Which, of course, well we might.

But as my Dad (83 not out) says, "There seems to be some assumption in the scientific community that the Big Bang and what has follows is, or must be, a unique event."

Can we make that assumption?

I argue against that in the Chelmsford Theory which I will post on Monday..sorry not to put it all on in one go, but I get bogged down with my hair and my breadmaker.

The party?

About 5 blokes and about 30 women, all bursting with testosterone. My wife hasn't given me my pass out yet! :lol:

George
2003-Dec-07, 02:25 PM
I can't make a truly spot on comment about this, George as I'm a non scientist (though hopefully that will change in the next 10 years!) but you seem to be arguing that we will eventually come to the 'cold death' (is it?) Which, of course, well we might.

I wanted you to rethink the idea that universe is going from chaos to order. Overall, this is counter to what I blieve. Of course, fantastic "order" exists in evolutionary life, for instance. However, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that, overall, the universe is loosing useable energy. I wasn't sure if you were wanting to use a natural orderly advancement in the universe to help negate a Creator.



But as my Dad (83 not out) says, "There seems to be some assumption in the scientific community that the Big Bang and what has follows is, or must be, a unique event."

Can we make that assumption?

Not all agree that it even happened but you're in the right board to learn.

kilopi
2003-Dec-07, 07:40 PM
30 women, all bursting with testosterone.
Interesting. Let me know how that turns out...

George
2003-Dec-08, 12:17 AM
30 women, all bursting with testosterone.
Interesting. Let me know how that turns out...

Yeah really! Speaking of chaos! :lol:

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-08, 10:01 AM
30 women, all bursting with testosterone.
Interesting. Let me know how that turns out...

Alright kilopi!

The party was last night actually (a bit early for Christmas!)

All I can say is that if you're in your 50s and you spike up your hair all sorts of things happen which never happened when you were in your 20s!

When a girl in her 20s grabs you, pulls you onto the dancefloor and rubs her entire body up against you in a slow dance, you tend rather NOT to think about astronomy at that particular time! :lol: :lol:

For those of you with hair, get some hair gel and get your hides to the Christmas party.

But don't make a chump of yourself.

It's more effective than buying a Porsche. :D

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-08, 02:39 PM
I'm still having trouble getting all my words up on my site for the links, as it keeps tailing off.

As a non-computer nerd will exalted posters please bear with me.

I have now split up The Chelmsford Theory into a number of parts to get it posted and I now give you herewith the links for parts 1 and 2. 3 follows shortly.

Part 1 tails off, but it should just read..go to Part 2.

Awfully sorry.

http://www.instantmessageboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=10320192

http://www.instantmessageboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=10320823

George
2003-Dec-09, 12:16 AM
Time is affected by matter. I do not know enough to suggest that time would not exist without it. It seems unlikely to me. Time is, apparently, a true 4th dimension. Therefore, eliminating time by eliminating matter would be like removing the height or width of the universe, I suppose.

Note: If you do not want the idea of a Creator you may choose to remove the term "Creation". I happen to like it but I am convinced of God - the maker of Creation].

Kebsis
2003-Dec-09, 12:30 AM
I actually spoke to God the other day (in sign language, the only method of communication he is willing to use) and he told me that everything, in actuality, is pudding. He didn't specify what kind though, and you can imagine how let down I was about that.

kilopi
2003-Dec-09, 01:58 AM
in sign language, the only method of communication he is willing to use
I knew it was digital

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-09, 10:10 AM
Chaps!

Three more links for you.

More to come soon.

http://www.instantmessageboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=10345407

http://www.instantmessageboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=10345412

http://www.instantmessageboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=10345413

Good look, fellow hair gellers! :)

kilopi
2003-Dec-09, 10:20 AM
http://www.instantmessageboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=10320192



The Chelmsford Theory is an attempt to explain why matter formed in the Universe.


http://www.onstantmessageboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=10345412


Existence exists. Non-existence does not exist.

It's that simple.

I suppose you could stop right there, eh?

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-09, 11:39 AM
http://www.instantmessageboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=10320192



The Chelmsford Theory is an attempt to explain why matter formed in the Universe.


http://www.onstantmessageboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=10345412


Existence exists. Non-existence does not exist.

It's that simple.

I suppose you could stop right there, eh?

Perhaps I could at that, kilopi. I did ask for crits, however scathing. I can take any old beating after some of the batterings I've taken on religious sites.

But also as I've said, I am a non-scientist so I don't have a reputation to protect. If this is all rubbish all I get is egg on my face. But even if there is a grain of truth in it, let's just at least consider it.

After all, it DOES seem to be that matter just came into existence. Out of nothing.

The rest of the Chelmsford Theory is on a slightly different slant, kilopi, and thanks, at least, for having a look. =D>

Eroica
2003-Dec-09, 08:11 PM
Richard, if you're having trouble finding somewhere to post all your theories, you might go over to Ikyoto's open forum, From Where I Stand (http://loresinger.com/FWIS/), which was partly set up to deal with issues that are off-topic for the BABB (religion, politics, philosophy etc).

(Okay, so this is a shameless plug for FWIS. But we've only got 13 members so far!)

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-10, 02:53 AM
Richard, if you're having trouble finding somewhere to post all your theories, you might go over to Ikyoto's open forum, From Where I Stand (http://loresinger.com/FWIS/), which was partly set up to deal with issues that are off-topic for the BABB (religion, politics, philosophy etc).

(Okay, so this is a shameless plug for FWIS. But we've only got 13 members so far!)

Thanks Eroica. I'll do that shortly though I will conclude this thread even if it's not really drawing much interest here.

As you say, perhaps it's not suitable for all these cerebral chaps.

Loved Dublin when I brought my family. We had a walk along the Liffey late one night, saw that boat that's moored and the big floodlit building. Plus the Guiness factory (I'm going to have a Guiness in 5 minutes!)

Great town and lovely country. =D>

kilopi
2003-Dec-10, 09:49 AM
Thanks Eroica. I'll do that shortly though I will conclude this thread even if it's not really drawing much interest here.

As you say, perhaps it's not suitable for all these cerebral chaps.
Your last paragraph, on your last link, says


So too with small size. No matter how small something is you can always get something smaller. You could collapse the walls of a quark at the speed of light for a billion years and still have a tiny quark at the end of it.
_________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

I need some clarification here. When you mention collapsing at the speed of light, what do you mean by that? What is moving at the speed of light? Do you mean the whole quark is moving at the speed of light while it is collapsing? Do you mean the radius is decreasing at the speed of light?

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-10, 09:55 AM
Thanks Eroica. I'll do that shortly though I will conclude this thread even if it's not really drawing much interest here.

As you say, perhaps it's not suitable for all these cerebral chaps.
Your last paragraph, on your last link, says


So too with small size. No matter how small something is you can always get something smaller. You could collapse the walls of a quark at the speed of light for a billion years and still have a tiny quark at the end of it.
_________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

I need some clarification here. When you mention collapsing at the speed of light, what do you mean by that? What is moving at the speed of light? Do you mean the whole quark is moving at the speed of light while it is collapsing? Do you mean the radius is decreasing at the speed of light?

Sorry kilopi, that wasn't very clear.

I don't mean it absolutely literally ..I at least know the implications of speed-of-light travel! #-o

I mean the radius is decreasing at a phenominally fast rate, so the quark is shrinking before your very eyes.

Have I blundered again?

kilopi
2003-Dec-10, 10:07 AM
I mean the radius is decreasing at a phenominally fast rate, so the quark is shrinking before your very eyes.
But how fast? You mention that it shrinks for a billion years. If it takes a billion years, how fast could it be?


Have I blundered again?
If you haven't, you're not keeping up. Pick up the pace. :)

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-10, 10:23 AM
I mean the radius is decreasing at a phenominally fast rate, so the quark is shrinking before your very eyes.
But how fast? You mention that it shrinks for a billion years. If it takes a billion years, how fast could it be?


Have I blundered again?
If you haven't, you're not keeping up. Pick up the pace. :)

Yes, sorry Kilopi, I sense you're getting exasperated with me. (What time is it over there? Do you get up early?)

All right, let's be definate.

I'm trying to envisage shrinking a tiny object at a very fast speed. I can't to be truthful, give a precise speed, but just try to imagine a quark shrinking in size like a balloon going down.

What I'm saying is that it is possible to shrink that quark and keep on shrinking it for a long period of time, but you will still have a tiny quark at the end of the exercise.

Mathematics are not my strong point, but half of 1 = .5, doesn't it?

Half of .5 = .25.

Half of .25 = .125.

And so on.

You NEVER get to zero, do you kilopi?

So there is no size which is 'the smallest size.

And no size which is 'the largest size.'

Thank you for your patience.

More Chelmsford Theory coming up tomorrow on. :-?

kilopi
2003-Dec-10, 11:29 AM
All right, let's be definate.

I'm trying to envisage shrinking a tiny object at a very fast speed. I can't to be truthful, give a precise speed, but just try to imagine a quark shrinking in size like a balloon going down.

What I'm saying is that it is possible to shrink that quark and keep on shrinking it for a long period of time, but you will still have a tiny quark at the end of the exercise.

Mathematics are not my strong point, but half of 1 = .5, doesn't it?

I understand how you can take half forever--mathematics is one of my strong points. The other is reumatuma. But, if a quark radius were on the order of 1x10^-15 meters, and shrunk to half at the speed of light, it would take 3x10^-25 second. If it continued at that rate, it'd be gone to zero in 6x10^-25 second. If it continued halfing every 3x10^-25 second (its speed would reduce by half though, each time), it would be reduced to less than the Planck length after less than a hundred halves--which would only take 3x10^-23 seconds--much, much less than a billion years.

However, I am disappointed that you start off declaring to be definite, and then are not definite. We'll need some specifics eventually.

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-10, 01:31 PM
However, I am disappointed that you start off declaring to be definite, and then are not definite. We'll need some specifics eventually.

Yes. :oops: :oops: Sorry.

I consider myself well told off.

But I reiterate that this is a philosophical theory not a scientific one (accepting the fact of the probably mistaken venue)

But I'll do my very best.

No time today.

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-11, 10:14 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to wind up this thread with this posting. I'll put the last of the Chelmsford Theory here as it doesn't mention religion in large measure, rather than on that fiddly accommodation address. :cry:

Now, kilopi has taken the time and trouble to look at all of this and I thank him for that, plus all other comments.

Sorry if it's been a bit vacuous, but I more or less just copied what I wrote out for a religious site, to people who don't understand science.

My mistake was to fail to fully prune out all my schoolboy science..hence the 'shrinking quark' theory.

kilopi, for your benefit (and stragglers, ghosts and cosmic posters) re the quark..all I was trying to do was make a vision of a very tiny size.

Let's try just once more.. :oops:

Take one Planck length.

Halve its length.

Then halve its length again one hundred times a second for a Billion years.

Would you have hit zero before your billion years were up, or would you still have a recognisable length which we could write down if we had a big enough computer display or piece of paper?

A difficult and quite pointless exercise, you may say, but only because such small things are of no relevance to our world or our lives.

But that might not always be so.

Anyway, here's the last of the Theory, as I wrote it out for the Christians, minus obvious science.

I will also say here that I suspect that there are other reasons why my commentary is drying up, apart from the fact that I may be talking rubbish or boring people.

PART 6.

If we agree with the notion that size can only ever be relative, then the point can also be made that time is also relative. We may imagine a period of time but as with size, you always get a shorter period, or a longer period. The only difference here is that time stops in a vacuum because there is no matter there to register it. Time is just the movement of matter.

If the Universe does 'bounce' as has been described, then an imagined observer would see it expand and contract, expand and contract. If you could speed up the process, then you would see a blurry white ball.

To a very large observer the tendancy would be for the process to move more quickly, in a sense, a little like we see flies whizzing around very quickly and elephants moving very slowly.

With regard to the blurry white ball..our Universe as we know it...suppose there was another one Out There? There very easily could be. Conditions Out There are exactly the same as they were at the time of the Big Bang.

If there is another one out there then it is either heading for us and we'll have a cataclysmic accident, or it's in orbit around our Universe (accepting our definition of 'Universe').

If the other balloon of galaxies is orbiting ours, what have we got?

Answer. A hydrogen atom. A proton with an electron rotating round it. (accepting that as the old view of atoms)

And if there are millions more balloons of galaxies, then we might just be inside a particle in an unimaginably vast 'higher Universe.'

(Science excluded here...)

Having atoms as tiny planets with people on them is an old sci-fi chestnut (most recently, Men in Black) and it is not quite what I am suggesting here. The idea would not work for all kinds of known physical reasons. What I'm saying is that Universes as we know them could be particles and particles could be Universes. Space is vast enough to accommodate them.

Which gives us a reason to be interested in that tiny part of a Planck length (kilopi).

And the 'higher Universe' could in itself be part of a "higher" 'higher' Universe. If there is a God, would anyone doubt His ability to create it?

And perhaps each atomic particle which is a unit in itself..a quark perhaps..could be a tiny Universe of stars and galaxies. We wouldn't feel the heat from them because of the tiny wavelength.

And so on, down, down into the atom and out, out into space.

Forever.

If this is so then the Universe in infinite.

(Science deleted..and I've already produced an argument against the 'white sky' argument.)

One interesting effect of such a notion is that you could never get to know exactly what matter is. What it is made of.

Simply because all matter would be made of...all other matter. The sun, for example is made of hotr plasma, which in turn is made of other timy suns (in the atoms)..of more plasma, and so on.

As to whether or not matter could exist spontaneously because of this process or if it has to be created by a God or some unknown process is only something which higher knowlege can make us sure of.

As Stephen Hawking said of the Universe, "It might simply be."

N C More
2003-Dec-12, 02:40 PM
Well, Mr. Hawking has a point "it simply might be". I certainly don't know any of the "answers" to this one!

From what I know of Zen Buddhism your theory seems to fit with a more eastern concept of the nature of the universe. It certainly doesn't seem to me to be offensive but then again I'm not a "religious" person in the sense that most understand!

Keep thinking...I agree with Arthur C. Clark that we need to allow ourselves to think about what some may call "the impossible" in order become "better" human beings!

"The smallest snowflake never falls in the wrong place" Zen saying

Richard of Chelmsford
2003-Dec-13, 11:48 AM
Many thanks for that comment, N C.

I don't know much about Zen Buddhism and admit I've got in deep and over my head here. Particularly as I have no facts, nor even much established knowledge to back up my ideas.

One thing I've learned here is that even a philosophical theory needs at least some known facts before it can be considered and taken seriously by Mr Average, Dr Average or Professor Average. :(