zapatos

I understand the idea that there could have been a vast amount of mass packed in a very tiny space, and that it then rapidly expanded. But when you say that large mass and small space resulted in the Big Bang, it sounds as if the Big Bang was inevitable, due to the large mass/small space. Is that correct? Is that the scientific thought on the process, or is it unknown what caused the expansion/explosion. In other words, if we packed enough material in a small enough space, would we expect an explosion/expansion to be inevitable?

I couldn't disagree with this more. Emotions are not something to call up on demand. They appear when they want to, not when I want them to. Emotions happen at a lower brain level, more similar to an automatic release of adrenaline than a conscious decision to sit down. We can consciously manage our response to emotions to some level, but we do not have the level of control over them that you suggest.

That was around the time I invented standing in line. Before, everybody milled around. It was a mess. So one day I said, "Why not make a line?" -- Michael

Right.

That is good to know. It did not, however, answer my question.

Every time is a privileged time as the universe is constantly changing. I see the universe (slightly) different than my father did. You could just as easily say that future generations on future planets are the ones who are privileged as they will observe the universe in a different way than past generations on past planets.

I don't think life on earth proves that life forms very easily. As far as we can tell life only ever began once in earth's history, and no new life ever began at extinction events. You can look at the numbers that are ''too high" all you want, but cold hard observation doesn't support your position.

Are you the only subject of this experiment? If so I'm not sure that will be sufficient to finally prove the consequences to the world. The world is a bit more skeptical than that.

There are 453.59 grams in a pound. There are 9 calories per gram of fat. It takes about 3500 calories to gain one pound of body fat. If you ate one pound of fat, that would be 453.59 x 9 = 4082.31 calories. That would seem to indicate that you can gain more that one pound of weight by eating one pound of food (made of pure fat). I assume it is because we don't typically count water as food, and my guess would be that water gets incorporated into body fat. I don't think it is possible to consume less than one pound of all substances combined (food and water) and still gain a full pound of body fat.

So then if I've got this right; Bigger is often better because it obviously eliminates some of the predators who are smaller than prey. (e.g. A fox is not a threat to a deer.) On the other hand, a predator prey relationship could just as well drive the animals to smaller size, if say the animals lived in areas where the prey likes to hide in small nooks and crannies. In this case, smaller is better. And size is only one aspect of adapting for the environment. For example, it wouldn't matter if you were bigger than any predators if you were in an area of limited resources and couldn't find enough sustenance to support your size. Is that about right?

So predator/prey relationships are not part of environmental fitness? Why not? Aren't predators part of the environment? The following link seems to indicate that 'bigger is better' when it comes to predator/prey relationships. Since this is not my field I may be misreading the document (or it may not apply here), but I thought I would add this to the discussion. Of course if predator/prey relationships are not part of the environment then my point is moot. http://www.rockefeller.edu/labheads/cohenje/PDFs/204Cohenpimm.pdf

What does that mean? How does a theory stop? How does gravity stop? How does time stop? Do you have any references to support this position?

How would time or gravity stop? Just because some particular relative motion stopped?

Ok, so you aren't going to supply evidence to support your position... ...and you aren't going to refute existing evidence of expansion, but instead just pretend it isn't there. I think I'll move on to other topics.

I used to live on Long Island, not far from New York City. I am in my 50's and didn't find the name Sidney particularly associated with older Jewish gents. When I saw the title of the thread my first thought was Sidney Poitier, who was raised Roman Catholic in The Bahamas.

So you are suggesting that people are supposed to be straight? The toy was consciously designed to drive left. There was no design for people. So according to your definition males are not normal as we are not what the majority human being is. That is ridiculous.

I am not defending the prevailing theory. I am told that the prevailing theory is correct and am given evidence by others to support that position. You are now stating that the prevailing theory is wrong, that the universe is not expanding. If the universe is not expanding, it is either static or contracting (unless you are suggesting another possibility). All I am asking is that you do the same as those who support expansion, and give me some evidence. I am not asking you to prove the prevailing theory is wrong. I am asking you to prove that you are right. Not the same in detail, but in many ways similar to the big bang. I realize this is just your speculation at this point, but have you compared your ideas yet to BBT and found problems with it that your theory corrects? Time would tick the same tomorrow morning as it does today. I'm not sure what background gravity is, but if mass is closer then it would of course have a greater impact on me. Distance itself doesn't change, but obviously things would be closer. Are you saying the universe is collapsing at this point? I guess I'd then expect to see a blueshift instead of a redshift.

First of all, I never made the claim that the cosmological redshift = an expanding universe. Therefore I'm under no obligation to back up that claim. You on the other hand have suggested the universe is not expanding. That leaves steady state or contraction. The obligation belongs to you to support that position. You cannot simply say "here is my theory, prove I am wrong". Can you explain what you mean by "gravity must have been mad, once in the past, and since then decreasing"? What do you mean by 'mad' and what do you mean by 'since then decreasing'?

If the universe was not expanding then I would not say that the univeverse must collapse, but that the univers is collapsing. Unless you are suggesting that some force is keeping the universe in a steady state? Do you have any evidence that the universe is collapsing? Look around. It would appear as you now see it.

Transfer useful genes from animals to plants.

Nope, still not subtle enough...

If you are walking away from me at 2 mph, slowly accellerating, and I am throwing baseballs at you at a 20 mph, they will hit you. Baseballs thrown at you while you are at 10 mph and 15 mph will also hit you. But at the point you are moving at 25 mph, the balls I am throwing at you at 20 mph will never hit you, even if they travel for eternity. Similarly, photons travelling toward you at c from a distant galaxy will never hit you once the gap between you and the galaxy is growing at a rate faster than c.

To be better informed; to understand others better; to prepare for a job as a tv evangelist. See above. Too broad of a question to answer. What is your point of this statement? There are also many religious people who have not read the bible or received extensive exposure to religion. Not necessarily. As soon as you realize you don't believe in God you should label yourself an atheist. A question in return: Should Christians get extensive exposure to different religions before labelling themselves as Christian? By 'most popular' do you mean most copies sold? Probably because of the built in audience. Every Catholic I've ever known has received a copy on their First Communion. It's like giving someone a card on their birthday. I cannot think under what category you might label the bible as the 'best book ever created'. Maybe under the category of biggest profit of all time.

I agree with iNow.

Does this mean that a photon can never travel from its location inside the event horizon in a direction toward the event horizon, as travelling toward the event horizon requires velocity greater than light speed? For example, if a photon is generated inside the event horizon, will its path only be directly (or indirectly) toward the singularity, but never toward the event horizon?