You cite Penrose's paper. Again, he's the only one who's making the claim that the concentric circles mean something beyond random noise.
We are not robots crowtrobot, like your name. We actually have emotionally driven needs. Einstein wondered, used his noggin and discovered relativity. It wasn't just by chance. He actually had an agenda and seeked it out. At the time, it didn't exist. When he was finished it became.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-penrose-and-gurzadyan-have.html Wow not bad man! Getting really lucky!
faith by definition is actual belief something is true in the absence of proof. it is not 'wondering' what might be true or instinctive feeling something might be true. scientists aren't required to believe something is true in order to have an agenda to test it. also as noted the point you are trying to make would be trivial anyway, since scientific hypothesis are wrong way more than they are right. if you define faith as something that is required to formulate one apparently faith isn't very reliable.
Before Einstein discovered relativity, was their proof that it existed? Einstein had an agenda and worked to seek out that agenda.
You're not getting lucky. These other scientists are seeing the concentric rings all right. That's not in dispute. Penrose proposes that they're the echo of something older than the universe, somehow. The others find the rings to be consistent with our model and understanding of the universe. In other words, they in no way find that there's any sort of echo of anything.
Okay I see that point and can agree with it. But there are agendas in Science. We observe, but we hope for certain outcomes. The scientists that work for me are proof on my end.
You should take some of the advice. Still waiting on your rebuttle on the eternal matter concept. And at least I said I could agree with his statement. Obviously your thick headedness can't ever admit you are mistaken
If i hope I win the lottery; then utilize odds, by purchasing enough tickets to win; does that guarantee a win?
Sort of plasma is just as wrong as saying plasma. The matter must always exist for your concept to be valid. Sorry, there is no way around it.
I had a pesonal conversation with TripTango. He said something very eloquently to me. He said "In the beginning, there was energy". Then he went on further saying "I call it energy, you call it God" I may disagree with his idea that there is no God, but that was about the best answer I ever got from someone that doesn't believe God. He believes in eternity, just not an intelligence that's eternal
Mags, I don't believe that any of this proves or disproves God. So don't go looking for that in this post. But, I thought I would try a different way of explaining before and after the big bang. This is not my forte, so hopefully I don't fall on my face trying to explain something that I hardly grasp. There are many different types of universes, but by measuring those background echo's from the big bang, theoretical physicists were able to determine that the universe we reside in is a flat universe. This is important because in a flat universe, all positives and negatives add up to zero. So, matter and anti-matter would add up to zero, positive and negative charges add up to zero, and so on. The reason this matters is because when there is no big bang (I use that phrasing instead of before the big bang, because before and after only happen during time) the natural state is that zero and not zero would both be occurring. So the natural state of “nothing” (which is not nothing as we perceive it, but a different existence outside of our laws of physics) is to be both zero and not zero and then there is the big bang. Everything now exists.
I actually like what you are saying, but it still gives me the same pressing question. You wrote "but a different existence outside of our laws of physics". This is the missing piece. What is this existence? Is it God, energy, beings from another universe, etc?
For me, “what is this existence” is just the laws of nature, not our nature, but of the bigger non-universe nature. For you, God. As I have said much earlier in this thread, I cannot prove or disprove god, and that task will most likely always be futile. but that does not mean that we can't prove or disprove other things that may be part of the belief structure of a particular god or religion. I don't ever try and talk people out of believing in god. I do however try and get them to believe in the rules of science and to appreciate what science can teach us. You do not seem to be extremely dogmatic in your beliefs, you believe in god, but not in the earth being only 6k years old. I think you also said you don't believe man and ape have a common ancestor. This is something that could be addressed even if we never touch on god. (not now) Here is what I know. I love the Blazers, you love the Blazers, and Denny Crane loves to be right. Outside of that, I think it’s good that we have these discussions even if we don’t have a final answer. In this thread, I along with Trip, Denny, Crow and others have been trying to explain the scientific view on ‘everything’, but the problem is that not even Krauss (perhaps Hitchens does) really understands all of it because of the nature of science, we ask questions that we don’t know answers too. We try and formulate a most likely scenario but remain ready to throw it all away the instance better information contradicts our scenario.
