There are NO such things as aliens...

[DaveC]

"No one except creationists think that the Big Bang theory has anything to do with dust. The Big Bang was a singularity according to current theory, meaning we don't know what happened before and don't really have any way of finding out."

Although it's difficult for the human mind to fathom, there was no "before" the big bang, unless we invoke a different concept of time and space than what exists in our universe. Time isn't a constant, independent commodity - it is inexorably tied to change in the universe. If the singularity was the only thing in existence prior to the BB, and it underwent no change until the BB, time would have no frame of reference - that is, we could expect that it stood still.
The dust to which creationists refer came a long time after the big bang when the universe had expanded and cooled enough for matter to exist. Life came a long time after that.

[SeanF]

DaveC said:

Although it's difficult for the human mind to fathom, there was no "before" the big bang . . .

and then:

If the singularity was the only thing in existence prior to the BB, and it underwent no change until the BB . . .

It's so hard to fathom that even DaveC, after stating how hard it is to fathom, doesn't fathom it! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

(I don't mean to pick on you, Dave, I just found this an ironic demonstration of just how difficult of a concept this really is!)

[DaveC]

I was invoking a different concept of space and time!

Thanks for pointing out the irony of my words. I'm usually more careful when I talk about the "time before the big bang" by refering to it as "the instant of the big bang." It's Monday and I'm not fully functional yet.

[ToSeek]

On 2002-04-15 08:38, DaveC wrote:
The dust to which creationists refer came a long time after the big bang when the universe had expanded and cooled enough for matter to exist. Life came a long time after that.

I have read some creationists who claim that the Big Bang was caused when a bunch of dust came together and exploded - and that this explanation can be found in textbooks. Where they got this from, I don't know.

[DaveC]

What they are referring to is the "big crunch" - a theory that actually had some currency years back and likely still appears in older books. Modern cosmology doesn't support the big crunch or oscillating universe theory - not enough mass in the universe to make it collapse. But - we don't know everything yet. There may be hidden forces that could tip the scales toward contraction and another big bang.

[ToSeek]

On 2002-04-15 13:33, DaveC wrote:
What they are referring to is the "big crunch" - a theory that actually had some currency years back and likely still appears in older books. Modern cosmology doesn't support the big crunch or oscillating universe theory - not enough mass in the universe to make it collapse. But - we don't know everything yet. There may be hidden forces that could tip the scales toward contraction and another big bang.

I think you're making the unfounded assumption that they actually know what they're talking about.

[DaveC]

OK - tooshay - as they say in Quebec. I perhaps leapt to the conclusion that the books to which creationists refer actually exist and that they speak with something more than an "intuitive understanding" of how things work. It won't take much to convince me that the YEC crowd just makes up their "science" on the fly, though.

[ToSeek]

On 2002-04-15 14:23, DaveC wrote:
OK - tooshay - as they say in Quebec. I perhaps leapt to the conclusion that the books to which creationists refer actually exist and that they speak with something more than an "intuitive understanding" of how things work. It won't take much to convince me that the YEC crowd just makes up their "science" on the fly, though.

What has been suggested is that they're confusing solar system formation with the Big Bang.

[DaveC]

"What has been suggested is that they're confusing solar system formation with the Big Bang.

Yes that would make sense, since they also confuse evolution with the big bang. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-04-16 08:04 ]</font>

[DJ]

It is more than just a crude theory that there is an oscillating universe.

The initial conditions for the universe do seem consistent with a singularity, and the original expansion of the universe would be nice and euclidean, and very very smooth. (Smooth in this context means nicely distributed.) However, after a certain point, there are fundamental changes to the wave and ground state functions and how they interact at the Planck constant. Once these start interacting (I'm no expert here, just relaying from Hawking/Penrose), we quickly see that the expansion will take on lorentzian expansion, which would remove homogenous structures, allowing clumping. The theory goes that certain parts of the universe have expanded, and in those regions, we see life and other bounties, while in others, where a clump didn't form, we would not see expansion.

It's all very complex.

But, since we can't see before the beginning, at some point we're going to need faith. Otherwise, the correct and observable answer will be: there is a beginning we cannot see and will never understand. Or the cop out: since I can't see or understand a beginning, it must be thus that it never happened. Whammo, you're a steady-state theorist.

Seems like something must fill that gap. I know of only one solution that fills the gap, and it doesn't break down depending on the size or shape.

DJ

[DaveC]

I have a simpler view. I don't know conditions at the instant of the big bang, I don't know if there was another universe in existence, and I am comfortable with the knowledge that I may never know. I don't really need faith, nor do I need to buy the steady state cosmology to help me over my ignorance. It would be nice to know, but invoking a creator doesn't, in my mind, get me any closer to the answer - it just pushes the unknown further back. The mechanisms are still a mystery.

[Thr0n]

On 2002-04-10 17:23, Prince wrote:
You ask for evidence of a 6000 year universe?
Records show that for the average galaxy there would be one supernova
about every 25 years, and with this frequency, thousands of SNRs should be
visible. Totalling the three stages they pass through, 7,291 should be visible if
the universe is millions of years old, but only 270 if it is only 7,000 years old.
The actual number observed is 205, which supports the young-earth view
Davies reports the puzzlement of astronomers who ask "Where have
all the remnants gone?!"

Where are you pulling these numbers from? And are you sure they account for the amount of time light takes to reach us?

Aside from that, why would a discrepancy in the number of massive star deaths be evidence of a younger universe? That's arbitrary. There is no law stating that a star must SN every 25 years. When you start relying on statistics instead of actual data, you get bit in the arse.

There is simply too much evidence pointing to a 15+ billion year old universe for a petty amount of 'evidence' such as this to convince anyone otherwise.

[dapted]

I don't see evidence of a big bang, It looks more and more to me like a pop corn event. Multiple big bangs going off each one expanding its own galaxy, some overlapping and some rather further apart. Perhaps all the kernels started popping when some unknown event "heated" up the universe enough to start the reation. Perhaps something along the lines of a sypathetic explosion of all the "kernels" because of the explosion of one. Kind of like one stick of dynamite exploding just because it is close enough to another which exploded.

[DStahl]

dapted, oddly enough the galaxies probably didn't explode outward. They curdled and clumped together instead, leaving vast areas between them almost void of matter. This gravitational clumping of matter is pretty well predicted by theory and can be modelled to a degree on computers, I think.

It's interesting to read a good narrative of the current best guesses at the sequence of events that are generically called the big bang scenario--it has very little in common with a chemical, nuclear, or even a supernova explosion. The details of how matter and antimatter annihilated, how the observed ratios of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium formed in the first several minutes of the universe's existence, and suchlike are fascinating.

Well, fascinating to a geek like myself, I suppose! *grin*

--Don Stahl

[Firefox]

Another good way of thinking of it is that the galaxies are not flying farther apart...rather, space between them is expanding...I think.


-Adam

[Thr0n]

On 2002-04-17 07:35, Firefox wrote:
Another good way of thinking of it is that the galaxies are not flying farther apart...rather, space between them is expanding...I think.

Imagine the singularity that existed as the entirety of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang. This point encompasses not only all matter and energy (same thing [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]), but all space as well. When the singularity explodes "outwards", it is, in a way, exploding "inwards". There is nothing outside of this singularity -- indeed, there is no outside. [This may be assuming that the universe is closed]

So according to most modern theories, you're right. The galaxies aren't flying away from some central point out into nothingness. Space is expanding, and they accelerate "outwards" with it.

<a name="2-10-24.rlw"> page 2-10-24.rlw aka arl w
On 2002-04-09 16:06, Karl wrote To! 4:11 A.M.HUb'2-10-24
I did do a search, to find obsidian;
hopefully still present in the text below
there were at the time three occurances
once found {i then used LYNX search } to locate the page
that was a first ever and quitee a trip .. to arive{hip hi..}

[b]One interesting radiometric technique which has use in dating both human artifacts and geological features is known as "fission-track" dating. This method uses the fission decay of Uranium which emits a high energy alpha particle leaving a damage track in glassy material. The material is etched and the tracks can be counted. By irradiating the remaining material, the actual amount of Uranium in the sample can be determined, and given the fission decay rate, the length of time since the material was annealed or hardened determined.

The "clock" is reset by heat, which anneals the track damage. This makes the method useful for dating pottery glazes, glasses, obsidian spearheads, and making thermal history profiles of oil bearing rock.

<a name="2-10-24.MFS"> page 2-10-24.MFS aka Magnetic Field Spikes
On 2002-04-09 13:27, ToSeek wrote: To?: HUb'


This is not true. As this site points out, the field dropped noticeably until 1935 but has been basically steady since then. I also find it hard to believe that one could deduce a definitive exponential decay rate from the data, which is graphed as a meandering little line on this (Creationist) page.




i've no data:
however
i always did wonder::
about the Earths Magnetic field 'PLOT"
{when was it exactly agan}
{{ April 1958? Yes but i mean a Spike{absorbtion}(DIP) ?/? in the morning ? um NIGHT Cut}}
well if you have a link to
PLOT
_________________?
4:44 A.M. PDT October 24, 2002
20021024.xxx

<a name="2-10-24.plu"> page 2-10-24.plu aka +
On 2002-04-09 23:06, Karl wrote: To# 2HUb'
yeah:
Q1= in the dust / in the ice core /
how much of its extra_Teristral
Q1b: How much extral terstrial dust falls / MILLION years (in Centimeters}
q2: to be added when it returns to active memory

[Chip]

On 2002-04-09 07:13, The Rusty Lander wrote:
The anti-gravity technology I'm talking about...is more to do with...making use of the pull of the two poles and magnifying that force with electricity and turning it into a propulsion system.

...............................steady! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
..............................whoa!
..........................oops!
...........................
......................oh my!
.......................
..............whoops..
........hey!....
Nope, can't be done. We tried it here and...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-10-25 01:35 ]</font>

[The Rusty Lander]

Electro-magnetic propulsion. In the 1950s they seemed very close to a breakthrough; I've still got phtocopies of articles with me at home. Then suddenly - all went quiet. Nothing. Zilch. Not even a "well, didn't we go way off track back there in the 50s". My contention is that they did indeed invent it but them hid it from the world as the implications to the world economy would be giantic plus they like the power of monopolising these things much like other secret technology like water cars and so on. Some of those UFO sightings are in fact this hidden technology, others are hoaxes. While officially denying aliens exist, they unofficially keep the myth alive thus detracting from the fact that they have this tecnology themselves.
_________________
Behind every conspiracy is another conspiracy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Rusty Lander on 2002-10-25 03:33 ]</font>

[DaveC]

Who is this mysterious they that have had this revolutionary technolgy since the 1950s? You seem to have bought into the standard conspiracist propaganda that the oil industry somehow keeps them from unleashing this miracle technology on the world. But transportation is less than half of the demand for fossil fuels, and in a world where the oil gluttons in North America can't meet their own needs, where is the political or financial incentive to continue to hide a technology that would reduce imports. The fuel industry would simply raise prices to maintain profitability, and should be thrilled to know they'll be in business that much longer.

Unless your argument is that Saudi Arabia has the "magic magnets" technology. Of course, that wouldn't account for the "UFO sightings" in the U.S. would it? You have a theory about hidden technolgies and a possible motive for them to be kept hidden. But put all the pieces together and the logic fails.

UFO sightings are simply that - unidentified flying objects. On that I agree with you. To conclude that they are either alien spaceships or some completely new technology is a leap of faith that isn't supported by any evidence whatsoever. Some UFO sightings are undoubtedly related to new military aircraft designs that are being tested, but I don't think you can conclude they have anything other than a very conventional propulsion system.

[Kizarvexis]

On 2002-04-08 19:51, The Rusty Lander wrote:
I believe there are no such things as aliens or spacecraft that have crashed here however I believe it suits the government to perpetuate the myth while officially denying it for one simple purpose. They have developed (in Area 51) their own advanced craft based on anti-gravity technology of which there was a lot of talk about in the 50s but which suddenly mysteriously died. The genuine saucers that have been seen are in fact these secret flying crafts and nothing to do with aliens. Even the crash of 47 could have been an early experimental craft that crashed or, how's this for an idea, it might really have been a weather balloon!
Anyway, the conspiracy here is that the government deliberately feeds certain people, organizations this myth that it is alien technology to cover up the fact that it is actually themselves. One good example of a dupe that has been used is someone called "Lazarus" who I believe was deliberately led to see what they wanted him to see (eg: something made to look like an alien) and then let him "escape" to tell anyone who wanted to hear. If he had really seen something of value, don't you think he'd be dead by now?

Who knew J. Michael Straczynski is a Hollywood whistle blower? Check out this page below.

http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countr...guide/512.html

Overview
The Excalibur encounters a pair of aliens who are convinced that humans have visited their world and their government has conspired to cover the contact up.

Hilarous episode. Too bad TNT Atlanta killed 'The Babylon Project: Crusade'. It had a lot of promise in my opinion.

Kizarvexis
Off topic: my opinion on creation, cosmic evolution and biological evolution is the following. "God created the universe. He used cosmic evolution and biological evolution has His tools to create life here on Earth and very probably elsewhere as well. We are working our way towards a fuller understanding of His universe." See, science and religion are not at odds and the Bible, IMO, is not literal. It is allegory, like the parables. end of off topic post, please forgive me.

[overrated]

The oil industry lobby IS responsible for keeping lots of alternative technologies out of the mainstream. But it's not insidious or conspiratorial--it's politics, and it's all well-documented.

So in response to Chip, the incentive to not reduce imports comes from the lobbying of the companies that import oil and the companies that build machines (cars, for instance) that use petroleum products.

But in response to Rusty Lander, it's still a leap of logic to say that a) technology X might exist and b) we don't know for sure because there is a conspiracy covering it up. Neither one of those statements is necessarily true and (a) certainly isn't the antecedent to (b). Further, if the new technology were so marvelous, it wouldn't matter whether it used oil or not... the military would want in on the ground floor. (witness, say, nuclear-powered naval vessels) And since in the past 50 years since this tech was "developed" we haven't seen any antigravitational military hardware materialize, nor have there been any provable scientific claims of such a system... well.... the only argument you're left with is "there are UFOs," therefore "those UFOs must utilized supressed antigrav technology." And that's as fallacious as saying UFOs must be piloted by aliens.

[nebularain]

On 2002-04-08 19:51, The Rusty Lander wrote:
I believe there are no such things as aliens or spacecraft that have crashed here however I believe it suits the government to perpetuate the myth while officially denying it for one simple purpose. They have developed (in Area 51) their own advanced craft based on anti-gravity technology of which there was a lot of talk about in the 50s but which suddenly mysteriously died.

Well, I think it can be considered a given that the government at least allowed the perpetuation of "aliens" to cover the activities of the military. I don't know about anti-grav machines, but the military has come out with some pretty high tech air craft that needed to be kept secret for security reasons. These alone have and would warrent "cover up" measures to safe-guard the technology from falling into enemy hands. Do I have a problem with this? No, because I believe the primary purpose of the U.S. military is to protect our country.

<a name="."> page . aka
IN MY "history of the solar sysem"
theres just one Mainevent {the astroids}
for its my belief {nothing more} that pre
astroides there existed a planet in orbit
at that distance .. that was obliterated..
{smashed into a Billions of pieces}
and it was at that time {when astrolopolis became astroides}
that the Earth aquired .. Lunar Orbits..
Thus Lunar Orbits are only as {less} OLD as
astroids from Astolopolis.. so heres my Question
for AstronohMY .. when did the astroids become astroids
let me rephrase.. 'poise i had a Gin bottle
clearly stamped Made in Austrailia in 1945
but it was now broken into four big pieces
How do you find the date of the breakup?
um assume today was October 27, 2002 at 1:26 A.M. PDt

[Gsquare]

On 2002-10-26 19:48, Kizarvexis wrote:
Off topic: my opinion .... "God created the universe. He used cosmic evolution and biological evolution has His tools to create life here on Earth and very probably elsewhere as well. ... end of off topic post, please forgive me.

Oh yea?, what are you going to do with scriptures like, " He SPOKE and it was created, He commanded and it stood fast". ? Doesn't sound like evolution to me.
I used to feel the same as you, Kiz, but then I realized that by trying to reconcile the Bible and evolution I was really impuning the integrity of God. In my opinion God (of the Bible) by definition is absolutely truthful and if He had used evolution to create the universe then He would have said so rather than giving us the obvious senario whereby He speaks things into existence. Actually, I think its awesome that the Bible talks about a God that has enough power & authority that even at his Word things come into existence. End of off topic response, please forgive.
G^2 [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
"And God said let there be light and....





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gsquare on 2002-10-28 11:04 ]</font>

[Zathras]

On 2002-10-28 10:58, Gsquare wrote:
. . .
Oh yea?, what are you going to do with scriptures like, " He SPOKE and it was created, He commanded and it stood fast". ? Doesn't sound like evolution to me.
I used to feel the same as you, Kiz, but then I realized that by trying to reconcile the Bible and evolution I was really impuning the integrity of God.
. . .

I really don't get this about creationism. "He spoke and it was created?" How can you reduce the language of God to physical terms such as a length of time. How do you know the grammar of God, let alone the oratorical method of God's delivery?

To paraphrase a relative of his, do not judge God by the standards of man. That is why the allegory of Genesis is necessary, so that it could convey deep truths that could not be conveyed literally at the level of science of the time.

In an attempt to tie this to astronomy, I would say that the same applies to the description of the creation of the universe in Genesis, in that it is as well described as it could be described, given the science at the time. "Billions of years" was simply not within the language of the time. To try to use the Genesis book to prove the age of the universe is preposterous, because the literal truth (i.e., BB, et al.) was outside the comprehension of people 3,000+ years ago.

How would you explain the theory of inflation, superstring theory, or quantum foam in ancient Hebrew?

[nebularain]

Didn't Isaac Newton, when he discovered calculus, say something about having discovered the "language of God"?

I tried searching for it, but this is the closest I could find:
"Numero pondere et mensura Deus omnia condidit
God created everything by number, weight and measure." - Sir Isaac Newton

(OK, another debate to throw into the mix.)

_________________
"But I can see the Covenant colors [that] the sun and the rain have woven against the blue of the sky"
- Rich Mullins, The Howling

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-10-28 18:16 ]</font>

[Gsquare]

The Bible is quite clear about the awesome method by which God created the universe. There is no doubt about what it teaches and is quite evident to those who want to understand.
The Bible says, "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth".

That's one powerful Creature!
It was the incredible authority & power of His Word that brought all things into existence:

"For He spake and it was DONE, He commanded and it stood fast".

The power is in His spoken Word and it became obvious to me He needs no puny 'tools' like evolution to get the job done. His methods are not our methods, and I was certainly foolish to believe at one time that He would be limited to my evolutionary understanding of how it ought to have been done. His power and understanding is so infinite its almost beyond belief and probably why some of us don't want to believe it. Nevertheless, that's what the Bible says, and it has convinced me that when it comes to creation, God says what He means and means what He says. When He speaks...things happen!
G^2

"And God said, "Let there be light, and there was light".




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gsquare on 2002-10-29 13:48 ]</font>