rigney

None! My offer was only thoughts since I'm not capable of postulaing or predicating a theory without some fact, formula or theory. Had I done so, then you would have a point. But for me to say, "WOW", looks like it's gonna be a nice day, and my neighbor beats me over the head because it starts raining 20 minutes later doesn't seem quite fair. If the universe came into being as science calculate, something, a humongus power of some sort surely must have been responsible for its happening. But what, I have no idea. In this case supreme entity was used to describe a situation similar to our supreme court, nothing more or less. The supreme court has full control over the yea and nay for the rest of our countries laws. Neither should be confused with how a deist might use the same words. Even if the Higgs Boson proves out, there is something far greater than the Higgs. What? Science will speculate until a theory is formulated for something different. Until then, it's only well calculated ideas. Look at this link, if nothing more than just the last 3 minutes or so.Thinkers only think, doers get it done.

I'd have to call that a decent summation.

Be very careful Joatmon, saying something is an undeniable fact requires unrefutable proof to some people. Personally, i believe in a supreme entity that has nothing to do with a god or gods, religion, or natural phenomena for that matter. As only a statement, the universe must surely have had a beginning, regardless of from what or how? Even if this is only a dream world we live in, everything must have came from another realm. But from where or what, I haven't the slightest idea and don't believe any human will ever know that answer. This is only thoughts and not a prognostication, or to be assumed as fact in any way.

May I say that my post was only statements, whether in question or comment and you want to discard it for not being factual, in toto? C'mon!

What proof do you have in refuting it?

And why not believe there is an entity that we have yet to understand? Even if you pinch out the flame of what some people think god might be, then what? Everything must still somehow be explained, whether it came from multi-verses, strings or just somehow stumbled in. Was there a beginning to our universe, a Genesis so to speak? How could it have began without a precursor of some sort? Nowhere in this posting did I refer to a supreme God, or that god did it. I merely stated that for a universe to become viable, there had to be a reason behind its happening. Reread my initial post.

Looking Backward into the Future I get totally exasperated at both Science and Theist’s alike for providing such a dichotomy between the two sides of this forum as to who is right or wrong in what the other believes? But as humans; we will likely be extinct long before we come up with a solution to the answer. However, regardless of which side of the plate you swing from, the universe didn’t just simply appear from nothingness. To exist as science theorizes, it still demands a supreme entity of some sort to kick off the show. But what would this absolute power be? Scientist are straight forward in their stance of providing and proving theories. Many use this rationale as the reason for there not being a God, while Religious people have nothing but their faith in which to believe there is one. Well, regardless of an individual’s thoughts, there must be a supreme entity of some sort. But what? Science will continue to theorize the Big Bang, black holes, galactic formations, evolution, and many other aspects of nature ‘til hell freezes over because of the physical nature of things. Meaning? There will always be job openings in cosmology for the duration of mans stay here in the universe, while Religious folks will stubbornly hang onto to a God, regardless of having any proof. Meanwhile, preachers will keep them well misinformed. It's just a matter of who gets on base first?

This link defines lift pretty well.http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/Upside-Down.html?c=y&page=1

I'm with you. I too believe in the theory of expansion. Violent? Perhaps! But in a pure vacuum, who knows? Firstly, how could there have been a Big Bang, and from what, if matter had yet to be formed into atoms and was still zipping around as a plasma of quarks and leptons? It has been calculated that seconds or perhaps even minutes were needed for the transition of quarks into basic elements such as Hydrogen, Helium and Duterium, to take place.

Yes! My bad! But see how physics frighten me? I can't even spell the name of this gentle giant properly.

Dawkins is actually who I was referring to. He is a materialist, (Biologist) and Hawkins, he's the real McCoy, a (Physisist). I guess it's only a matter of what someone wants to believe, especially if they are already leaning in that direction. Having read some of Darwins stuff, research; I can see where Dawkins justifies his basis for a constantly evolving system. Everything from a single cell to a blue whale. These are physical things we can touch and see and in many cases able to control and alter ourselves. When science say they can boost corn growh and yeild through genetic engineering and you see the results in just a few short years, it doesn't take much to convince you that the process works. A more plump and juicy turkey for Thanksgiving, no problem. A bit of genetic tinkering and we can grow 25 & 30# ers. Hawkins and physics are to me a whole different ball game. And yes, it's because I understand very little of physics other than basic principals and even then I'm not always sure of the facts. So, when physicists predict the absolutely un-predictable and draw it up like a scrabble sheet, it's troublesome to many of us. And for gods sake, unless you are one of the fellows; never ask a question that you didn't answer with your own question. If it requires more than a wink and a nod. Brrrrr! Well, maybe this whole thing may freeze over in a billion years or so. But to whom are you going to complain if things work out differently?

I didn't quite think of it as an exposition, but that's a fair question. Basiclly, I am a cautious individual, and if you have read or listened to any of Richards philosophy you soon realize he is a total Atheist. Which means, the glass is definitly empty or full. I am dichotomous. No ill intent, just being practical. Actually I like listening to him.

I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins since he is a total atheist, and me a whimpering agnostic. But I must give kudos to knowledge that is not biased, and only making a statement. 22 minutes in length, but well worth the time to watch. Is it phiosophical rhetoric, or does it ring a sense of truth?

Right! But a drowning man grasping at straws can't possibly envision looking at your bail of hay. I simply offered an observation, the government and aid program remarks must have came from someone else.

OK "Rolleyes". Other than the fact that the idea has been thrown under the bus, is there any possibility that the universe is cyclic? I say this only as a subterfuge due to the fact that I'm totally out of the main stream of political physics, which you know. Personally, I believe the universe is in a regressive change every day, yet so subtly; it may take trillions of years coming to a full cyclic fruition. My problem, I've pissed off the powers that be, and not in their good graces. Could our new beginning have been a whimpering expansion instead of a, "Big Bang"?

Evidently neither you nor I have the problem of saving a buck. But only an idiot would think there aren't people out there who doesn't have that extra buck.

No argument with their application and possible savings, but at those prices; how is an indigent supposed to purchase them?

Know what you mean! O'Reilly and FOX drive me nuts, as well as Ed Schultz and MSNBC. Neither report the news to my way of thinking, just take swipes at what they call the opposition. While both are deeply motivated polically, I believew it's based more on the money they make from the crowds they bring in with their drivel. And this is the kind of bull s**t that is killing our country. Phi for all summed it up best in his posting. But how do you correct these issues he points out? You might call it a Mexican Stand Off, 'cept even the Mexicans are laughing at us. This is the most polarized I've seen our country in my eighty years. At times my conservative views overshadow any liberal thoughts I might have. But what good is a shoe or glove without the other to go with it? Even controversy can be constructive if done properly. But as of now, politically we are a disaster. Over the years the very people we have hired to protect our interest have slowly sold us out for their own gain. It has to stop!

I apologise owl, it was my fault. Your questions were fine and on subject. Mine were simply unmindful questions on the issues. DHs answers were offensive, but hopefully he will eventually get over his arrogance. I wonder, does he even play chess?

Right! We just pick up sticks and go on with it.

What will happen if they are violated?

As ignorant as I am concerning both math and physics, I only invisioned the lazer traveling at c. and shooting out a beam also at c It stands to reason that a massless particle such as a photon would likely be the only thing that could travel at c. But now that a (particle/wave?) what ever, with a sub-mass (tactons) are staring us in the face, how do we address the issue? I know it's only theory that they exist, but what if?

Stop making so damned much sense. Go write a book.

You're right in one respect. I'm gullable enough to believe there may be a bit of truth in just about everything I read or hear. Tell me, is this guy on the level or just pounding salt? Since we both know that I'm not, may I ask if you are working at, or above his level of expertise? http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/perakis/L9_00/

You're saying that Einstein was sixteen when he was "musing", or theorizing the train ride incident?