rigney

Had to give each of you guys an "A+" on those last two inputs. My reason? I know absolutely nothing of what either of you were talking about. All of it was well over my head. Tar, you made the statement, Quote: I sort of understand that gives a workable "now" reference point. Our area of the universe is a certain age, and everything we see is younger, and if we make the necessary allowances for distance we can imagine that that other area we are seeing is "now" still there, in a condition similar agewise to the situation locally.Unquote My understanding is that the entire universe was born at the same instant, so everything in it must be of the same age. Now, I know this post may have moved off topic a bit, but I don't mind. It just hones my curiosity. When we look at galaxies, even our own; we see them as they must have appeared those millions or billions of light years ago. Like you, I believe that if those galaxies still exist today as ours does, any intelligence in them will be going through the same rigors as we are. As for exceeding light speed, I believe the universe per se, is either speeding up or slowing down, but maintaining a speed set for it those billions of years ago.

It's around 5:15 AM Tuesday morning here in Lakewood, Ohio. And honestly, I didn't sleep well just thinking that I may have messed up your thread. There has been much input to your many questions and much more to be learned. Started looking through some stuff I had filed away? While it isn't on the micro-cosmic level, and someone may have already put it in the thread, or perhaps it has no revelence. But just thought, if it is written well enough for me to understand, it isn't going to hurt your cause. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Let me apologise to you owl for what someone might have thought as a plan to hijack your thread. Saw it and just wanted to interject an idea. Evidently, my statements to the issue were not germane due to my lack of knowledge, but nothing I said was meant to be disrespectful or dishonest. It's only in my thoughts that distance is always a positive; regardless of how long or short that distance may be. Time is merely a tool to measure the speed necessary for getting the job done. Have a good one.

Then, why did you bring up the "Arrow of Time"? Your quote; One area where we are lacking is the arrow of time! Unquote. I merely gave you a couple links to look at. Perhaps I don't understand the total emphasis of what "Time Ontology" means, but to suggest plagiarizing either the thread or links is a bit steep.

If I may ask, who recently installed you as God, or a god of any consequence? Did you even bother reading this physicists revue, or simply think I was too stupid to understand his meaning? The "arrow of time" was mentioned in his opening statements. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/ Here is another you may, or may not want to revue. http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/02/ontology-of-time.html

I know thing of the man myself other than this bit of information I found about his experiments. Evidently he worked with Edwin Hubble some years ago and over time, likely came up with his own ideas. And the Big Bang?, hopefully it was more of a Big Diversification, "without the heat". And lord knows, when I see links like the one below, I'm even more lost!http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html

I didn't make the "Tick-Tock" statement to add drama, just a metaphor reminding us of how little we really know about time. If you thought my reasoning added confusion, give the below link a "5 minute" read. And this guy is a physicist! http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/ Don't you find it strange looking back 13+ billion years into the past using infrared, yet can't remember what we had for breakfast this morning; or our plans for tomorrows future?

What was time before man decided to inject his ideas? Even the notion of it is absurd unless we can determine how sub-atomic particals and a celestial universe feel about it. Time is of the essence only to humans who think of speeds and distances only as scientific measurments. A 'tick" at this moment is the future. A 'tock", the past. Let's just consider ourselves lucky enough to be in the in-betweens of nature, "not our own makings".

I have seen the below link before and others similar to it and am still totally confused. Is there a reason two galaxies, if linked together; would have such distinctively different redshifts? Is this guy Arp a nutcase or simply getting in the way of proverbial astrophysics? http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

I really like the way this post was presented. Nothing fancy or all knowing, just questions. Personally I have always been of the advocacy that we really know very little of natures reasoning of why things are as they are. Having seen "machine building" since the 40s I know that only a machine of superior quality is capable of producing one superior to itself. So, respect both the pros and cons, eventually we will find out what's happening?????

Jackson, I am not striking out at anyone or anything, yet my eyes only see the mechanical functions of a universe which will always be controversial. I've looked at a slew of theories these past few months that many of you may have filed away years ago, but it's all new to me; every bit of it! If I seem to be jumping from topic to topic it's only because I haven't spent any time pursueing even rudimentary science. Now I read and skim the surface of many items hoping to find answers to some of my ideas and thoughts; but math is my stumbling block. The physical and even the metaphysical world in which much of our sciences are rooted, leads me to conjecture that I can assimilate; but the math is much too deep for me. Thanks for your input.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcyiQ5mbJ-Y&feature=related. The reasoning for this goes back a few years, but makes a lot more sense.

As I stated, all I do is read and think. Everything is so conflicting it's hard for me to gain a foothold. I made a statement about the Higgs Boson and Incendia answered with this portion of a quote: I don't think you understand...Higgs has nothing to do with this. The only thing higgs does is give particles mass.This is the video.Higgs boson field... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFGpNMe5eEQ How can Incendia's statement or the Higgs field video be taken seriously, since both are only ideas? And heck, I'm full of those. Looking at the little squigglies in the video a bit closer, it appears someone may be trying to tie super string theory into it as well.

Perhaps I don't understand how everything works in the universe, but if you have read anything on the Higgs Boson, it supposedly is the reason for all things meeting a quiescent stability. Never believing in a big crunch or any other unfalsifiable hyporheses, I just keep on reading. Einsteins E=MC^2 is very compelling, but what if we find that in all instances it isn't necessarily the case? What then?

I agree!. But then tell me, if the Higgs Boson is mythical and nothing etherel is maintaining a universal speed; why has it taken so long for it to start speeding up again?

Supposedly, microseconds following the big bang; an absence of the Higgs boson allowed our universe to expand at a runaway speed many times that of light. After a short span of time, a few milli/micro seconds or so; the Higgs boson materialized to infuse the entire universe, and light speed became the norm. Theory is that the Higgs controls the speed of everything in the entire universe from a feather to a meteor to a galaxy. A fascinating conjecture, but now the theory seems to have fallen on hard times, and red shift once again is dictating that the universe is now speeding up. Are we to believe that after fourteen billion years, our universe is speeding up to surpass light speed again. What happens to the Higgs boson theory? After controlling universal speed for these billions of years and with no empty space; how can we be speeding up again? Since the equation is math, I'm lost.

As a bachelor, when going to the market yesterday I bought only 2 ears of corn. Brought 'em home, shucked them out and left them on the kitchen table to steam for supper. Didn't use them, so they lay there last night. Thought I'd put them in the fridge this morning but, "Zap", there's a "big" golden spider claiming one of the ears as if it belonged to her. It became a Mexican standoff, so I took the ear and her outside and shook the girl off my porch. Since I spray my entire home with insectiside each spring in early May and havent seen any evidence of spiders or other critters til this morning. Tell me? Is that instinct, good olfactory glands, or what?

I've heard it used several times and now finally realize what "trolling" means on this forum. Crazyx, below is a good explanation of how science works as opposed to religion. http://wilstar.com/theories.htm And if Dr. Rocket hadn't made such a nasty remark in his post #12; Quote:The most common misconception of the creationist wackos is that science and religion are incompatible.Unquote, I could have believed his every word.

Not being attuned to Hi Tech in any capacity I stay puzzled. I've read much on Dark Matter and Dark Eenergy, yet nothing of proof to substantiate if either is more than a phantom. And if so; what? It's speculated there is no empty space in the universe and it is filled with something. But again, what? http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/dark_matter.html

Since you have gone thus far in describing the undescribable issues of dark matter and ant-imatter, why not include "anti-energy"?

There are many on this forum who can help you. I'm in the same boat. Totally an amateur in trying to discern our universe. You seem to be young and full of wonder. I'm old and full of the same thing, "WONDER"? So get an education! I was too lazy. This link describes almost verbatim what you are asking. The guy doing this paper has somewhat of an education although he never gives his name, degree; nor uses physics to describe his theories. Good Luck! http://www.gregvanarsdale.com/Universe.html PS. Personally, I'm a terrible speller. But try potential.

ote name='swansont' timestamp='1306834968' post='609953'] Right. Because calling him a Pivoting Optical Servo makes soooo much sense. You copied and posted it, and while you won't retract it you deny responsibility for the slur by admitting to plagiarism. Out of the frying pan, into the fire. I'd suggest looking up "haters gonna hate" to get a better understanding of how it is meant in context. It's a reference to someone who will always find a negative about someone else, when nothing the target does could ever be good enough to earn any kind of positive comment. "Passionate dislike" is the primary definition in several dictionary references. If you want to argue about the modern context of the phrase, I've given it above, and here's the contextual modern definition of "hater" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hater A person that simply cannot be happy for another person's success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person. Hating, the result of being a hater, is not exactly jealousy. The hater doesnt really want to be the person he or she hates, rather the hater wants to knock somelse down a notch. But I did retract the slur in post # 17 explained why, and thought it more than apologetic. If copying that post from an acquaintance of mine in it's entirely is plagiarism, then I'm guilty as charged. Is that enough eating crow and humble pie for now? Quote]"I do retract the POS slur" even though it was done through my ignorance, not malice or to be insulting or harmful. And if someones feelings were rankled, I am sorry. But I'm sure the Presidents back is made of much stronger stuff.

I would make one hell of Defense Attorney expecting anyone to not believe that I didn't write that into the message on purpose, but honestly; I didnt. That was the exact text I received and copied. I knew ir was an acronym of some sort and tried to google it up after Swansont brought it to my attention. After the broughaha, it was too late. In using SOT when referring back to Swansonts post was also meant as an acronym. "I do retract the POS slur" even though it was done through my ignorance, not malice or to be insulting or harmful. And if someones feelings were rankled, I am sorry. But I'm sure the Presidents back is made of much stronger stuff. Below is a single list of acronmys for POS. I didn't even bother looking at the others. Acronym Definition POS Point-Of-Sale POS Positive POS Parent(s) Over Shoulder (chat) POS Position (sports statistics) POS Point-Of-Service POS Political Science POS Part of Speech POS HIV Positive POS Packet Over SONET POS Plan d'Occupation des Sols (French: Estate Layout Policy) POS Program of Study POS Plan of Study POS Place of Service POS Polycystic Ovary Syndrome POS PPP Over SONET POS Plan Obligatorio de Salud (Spanish; Colombia) POS Power of Suggestion POS Port Of Seattle POS Probability Of Success POS Public Opinion Strategies POS Positive Organizational Scholarship POS Position of Strength POS Period Of Service POS Poselok (Russian, small town; used in postal addresses) POS Preliminary Official Statement POS Polytechnische Oberschule (Germany) POS Palm Operating System PoS Priory of Sion POS Personal Operating Space (IEEE 802.15 TG1) POS Public Open Space (UK) POS Product of Sums POS Partially Ordered Set (abstract algebra) POS Probability of Survival POS Primary Operating System POS Persistent Object Service PoS Plane of Sky (gaming) POS Pivoting Optical Servo POS Positively Outrageous Service POS Planet Of Sound (UK nightclub) POS Listening Position POS Position Played (baseball) POS Public Offering Statement (bond financing) POS Political Opportunity Structure POS Plasma Opening Switch POS Place of Skulls (band) POS Porcelain-On-Steel (cookware) POS Player Owned Station (Eve-Online MMORPG) POS Proof of Shipment POS Polar Orbiting Satellite POS Pennsylvania Orthopaedic Society POS Piece Of Stuff (polite form) PoS Plane of Storms (gaming) POS Project Overview Statement POS Policyowner Service (insurance industry) POS PERQ Operating System POS Post Oil Solutions (Brattleboro, Vermont) POS Peacetime Operating Stock(s) POS Prince of Space (movie) POS Perspectives on Slavistics (linguistic conference) POS Polyorganosiloxane POS Pictures on Site POS Port Of Spain, Trinidad, Trinidad And Tobago - Piarco International Airport (Airport Code) POS Phoenix Online Studios POS Partial Order Schedule POS Priority of Support POS Proof of Stock POS Peninsula Orchid Society (San Mateo, CA) POS Ports Of Support POS Pacific Orchid Society (Hawaii) POS Peacetime Operational State POS Persistent Object Server POS Pacific Oceanographic Synopsis POS Purchase Order Specification (quality assurance) POS Process Operating Station POS Prime Orbital System (gaming) POS Plant Operating Specification POS Path-Over-SONET (synchronous optical network) POS Portable Oxygen Subsystem POS Procedings of Science POS Purchased Operator Service POS Process Override Switch POS Programmable Object/Option Select POS Pre-Operational Support (US DoD) POS Pair with Overall Shield (cabling) submit new definition

Gotta ask you SOT, where did I refer to President Obama as a "POS", as you put it? Until your annotation and Moontans acronym in bringing it up, it could have had many meanings since i've never used the phrase or acronym before. Obama is our president! Do I dislike his policies?, absolutely. Vote for him? Never. But the word 'hate" fits into a category I'd rather not associate myself with.

Heck, I can see your point without even looking! I had just picked up a nice nasty about Bush and wanted to attribute it to his poor showing as an Air Force Officer. So here.