rigney

insane_alien (Genius) Yesterday, 9:33 PM #2 this is an international forum. barack obama may be the president of the US, but thats only 4% of the world. "Touche" insane_guy. Americans should begin to understanding that they can be secular and spiritual at the same time without being dictartorial from either direction.!! But also an equal opportunity "Ass Kicker " as the need arises.

What if Cosmologist, even with every extended model of our universe being examined to completion, find that "it" is cyclical and 'eternal"? Who will profit from that discovery?

But, are you absolutely certain that we are on the outside of this envelope rather than being a part of the content? The metacenter thing? It's the only method I can think of to describe the axial core of our universe.

How long will it be before a parent telling a bedtime story to their children will be shocked to hear one of them ask: Mommy, what are holidays? The Mom replies: Where did you hear such a dirty word? But yes, there was a time when Holidays were a fun thing to do. Let me see!! There was, Christmas, Easter, Memorial Day, the 4th of July, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, and even more, but I cant remember their names at the moment. Some years back the government thought we were taking too much time off from work and decided we really didn't need Holidays, so "bingo" they're gone. Does anyone honestly believe this could happen?

Since I don't know how to do a poll, I was just wondering; in your honest opinion, how is President Obama doing in running our country? I'm a "Hill Billy" tweener, so there's no offense taken one way or another. If my question is too provocative, I hope an administrator will kick it to the curb before anyone can reply. Otherwise, can we turn it into a poll?

I don't know how to do a poll, but in your honest opinion; how is President Obama doing in running our country? I'm a "Hill Billy" 'tweener, so there's no offense taken one way or another. And if my question is inappropriate, would a moderator please kick it to the curb!!

Don't get wrapped up in this video until you have researched it to it's fullest. But give it some thought? I love this country, but debauchery is a taboo no matter what!! OBAMA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THIS

KuaRk(t) (Lepton) May 6th, 2010, 1:38 PM What Is a Quasar? Hi, I would like to know what a quasar is? Thanks!!! It may sound strange KuaRk, but what you need is a simple answer. Google up "Quasar" on the internet. There are many examples to answer your question. Good luck.

Mr Skeptic (iDon't-Believe-You) OK, so where on a spherical surface is the center? But, are we on the same page Mr. S?

AJB, I do appreciate your condolence of my ignorance. And while not being submissive, I yeild to your supeior knowledge of the universe. Don't get me wrong, on a given day I'd probably try arm wrestling you one on one to the ground? In all seriousness though, with our earth spinning @ a thousand miles per hr, zipping around our solar system @ 65,000 mph. and tracking through our galaxy @ 600,000 mph?, what can I say??? And at the same time, our galactic universe is racing into infinity at "what speed"? Me, I believe those four quantum speeds that I just mentioned, say it all. If we are in a perpetual rotational time warp or headlong into oblivion, I'd just like to get some sort of idea of where we're going, before we get there? Thanks again.

Thanks AJB. While your reply was a bit more than what I'm about, I question everything I read about the cosmology of our universe. And as I find it, knowledge is not an issue when asking questions, but it's nice to question the answers, if only to mull them over. A lot of what you said, I can vaguely relate to; but not in a sound technical sense. My one multiple question now is; Even knowing Einstein was a mathematical genius, how or why did he come up with a space/time warpage analagy and present it as a bowling ball rolling around in a circle on a rubber sheet? And how is it plausible to describe our universe as the huge outer perimeter of, "what", when we can only guess as to how fast it's traveling? And the tensor thing? That's why I like radii and vectors, neither bend, according to Euclid. Personally, I like everything about our universe other than having so many different platforms to view it from??

Railton2. Tried this on another venue the other day and was shot down immediately. "Instantaneous Transcendental Teleportation". Think I remember it from Star Trek with the quote, "Beam me up Scotty". Someday, we may get there from here!!

npbreakthrough, I believe questioning is much more apropos. In challanging these guys to a "Winner Take All" you'd best be bringing along a big stick, knife or a gun. Face it, if any of us were as smart, we'd be in their "Hall of Fame". Good Luck

Mulreay, you and I may share a concurring opinion, and while I'd definitely like to get feed back from everyone, your short sentence on "insignificance" intrigued me. Jump back in with both feet, I'm not smart enough to get flustered, just more inquisitive. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe U began with a "singularity" some 13.7 billion years ago is a delusion which has been fostered by commercial popularizations. You can sell books and illustrated magazines by peddling halfbaked speculation that excites people. I'll give you a big "Amen" on that Martin. Having a Phd in HK, I have no compunction to questioning everything I read and literally all that I see. Touche!

Thanks insane guy!, all information appreciated. Went there and looked at some ideas of which, are only ideas of someone else. Trying not to be a smart a--, but if gravity, known as the weakest of what is "supposidly" the four main forces, pulled everything into such a small space, how? Don't ask what the definitions below mean, I just read them and try to understand. But what wasn't mentioned below was that magnetism has the same reach, only more powerful. Definition:::: Gravitation is the force of attraction between particles or objects of matter. It has the greatest reach or range but is also the weakest of the fundamental forces. The gravitational strength is only 6*10−39 of the strength of the strongest nuclear forces. Note: 10−39 equals 1/1039, where 1039 is 1 followed by 39 zeros. That is a very small number. The strength of the gravitational force decreases as the square of the distance between two objects. This means that if you triple the distance, the gravitation will be reduced by 1/9. The force of gravitation is most apparent in objects of large mass, such as planets and stars. Gravitation is what keeps the Earth and other planets in orbit around the Sun. Note: Gravity is defined as gravitation near the surface of the Earth.

How do we define a Singularity? How big does it have to be? How small? What shape? Did our world actually begin as something less than the size of a pin point of light? While I believe our universe was the instantaneous transitional phase of a singularity into becoming matter, could "it" have possibly been billions of miles in diameter at the time? American Heritage, definitions of: SINGULARITY 1. The quality or condition of being singular. 2. A trait marking one as distinct from others; a peculiarity. 3. Something uncommon or unusual. 4. Astrophysics: A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted. 5. Mathematics: A point at which the derivative does not exist for a given function but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative exists. Also called singular point.

Why go back to the parallell line way of thinking you ask? I don't know? But as we look around the universe, line of sight is likely the optimum way of viewing this miracle. Using parallel lines to convey the starting point of my earlier thought was probably the worst choice of words. So, let me try again, "Lineal Vectoring", which will probably be frowned on as well, since the Big Bang was supposidly anisotropic. In a word, if you don't know where the center is, it simply doesn't exist. And if there's no center, there can be no radii? No radius?, No Vectors?. But, since this vectoring thing will likely get me in hot water also, I may as well have some fun with it. When we look out into the universe, we see only that portion which is visable through our most modern telescopes, both optical and radio. What we observe from our position here on earth looking in any direction may be thought of as a central point? Hey!, fourteen billion light years may only be a drop in the bucket and one sided at that? Is there more to the universe? I'd like to think there is, though I really don't know. But, what if we find that our universe has a meta-center and is not anisotropic as thought? And what if the universe is still moving away at a vectorial constant from that central point of creation while pushing along ancient galaxies formed during that millinia of travel and using their circular patterns along these lines to confuse us? I know, we have crack ups ever now and then, but not often. Our Milky Way for example is calculated to be rotating at some 600,000 mile per hr.(2009), with our planetary system circumventing a path around this galaxy in accordance to it's placement. Meanwhile, our solar system orbits the sun, with our earth speeding around it at 65,000 mph., in its annual journey. Plus, we have a daily axial rotational speed of 1,000 mph. With all of this going on, the entire universe is zipping along at some unknown speed and we haven't hit anything yet? Ok!, I've worked up a sweat and was wondering if someone would toss me a paper towel. This is only an idea folks and some questions that I ask. Theory, I'll leave to the theorist. And someone actually came up with the term, "Lobachevskian"?

Thanks Moo, Perhaps this article should be taken off the forum. I meant no disrespect or would have it seen as an act of trying to be condescending, since I'm not capable. But I can see where a person has to be careful when voicing an opinion or making a suggestion. Accept my apology.

No intent to appear kabala Michel, I'm not that smart. But you have surely went on vacation, to the beach or a ball game and realized after the fact that there was something you hadn't taken along that may have been essential to the trip. From Pythagoras to Hawking, it's doubtful that any of these guys ever got it right the first time. If so it was a miracle. I'm sure Einstein must have bitten his tongue on many an occasion for overlooking a simple principal that he himself had laid down. No, there is nothing hidden in my meaning. Just thought it might be a good way to stoke the fire. Jump in! More than likely I'll not have an answer to any question asked of this agenda, but in all honesty, "consternation" is not the best way to fly!! Somewhere, exchanging ideas is what it's all about. See! even knowing that I'm out gunned, I still hope to read your reply.

Many of you may be too young to remember the Exxon Valdez, a mega-tanker that went aground off Alaska in 1989 because, "supposidly" the Captain had a few too many, lost control and "zap", millions of gallons of oil into the drink. The huge difference here is, where as the Valdez had a specific lade, nature may be almost unlimited in what she wants to push up from the sea bed until it is stopped. Even at a mile down the well will "eventually" be capped, but at what expense? I don't want to see Brit.Petro. put out of business, but the two incidents are similar and aught to make the case for better "engineering and mind control". This is not natures Katrina, but both the Exxon Valdez and this boondoggle are man made catatstrophes. Lives lost in the disaster and the habitat destruction has to make one sick at their stomach. Then there is the folks who look at this coast as their only sustenance. What now?

To distinguish the Philosophical context of ignorance as opposed to stupidity, a person must first ask themselves two questions: Can I spell both correctly, and do I know the difference? Sadly, most of us don't! In a constant endeavor to expand mans knowledge of his environment and the world in general, scientist's have made amazing revelations over the past centuries by re-discovering or uncovering diverse new fields. While medicine, engineering, and the physics of inner and outer space command and demand the largest portion of this pie, each field must be constantly reevaluated to bring us into better prospective. Our universe is one such topic. During a brief Q & A session with his tribesmen, an ancient Shaman described how the world sits on the back of a giant turtle with its' legs extending the "rest of the way down"!!. And to where, one man asked? In reality, even with all of our Mathematical Genius and Philosophical Wizardry, we are only slightly closer to understanding the reality of our universe today, than did the Shaman. From the "dark ages" up through the 18th century, to blaspheme authority with questions could mean a one way trip to the "stake", or pleasantly, the "rack" for a re-enlightenment. Little has changed since then. Suggesting new ideas, or rehashing old ones is taboo unless it has been sanctioned by the dictates of observance. Yes, we must absolutely move forward if there is a chance for civilization to survive. But if we do not on occasion look back to see if we may have missed something, there is little reason to try rationalizing an extended future. How does that old saying go: "The operation was a suscess, but the patient died"! Feel free to comment on this argument.

Thanks Spyman. "Deep", is the only word I can use to reply with. And I will read the "misconception thing". Gotta blame it on the Einsteins though. If it weren't for guys like him and Hawking, I could still be justified in believing the turtles legs reach the rest of the way down. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust went there and read it, the misconception thing. Not entirely, but several excerpts. I'm just thankful that "not being" a Physicist has perhaps saved what little rationale I do possess. How these guys can come up with such ideas, I will never understand. That our entire universe could have been spawned from less than a thought, is beyond me, unless there is something deeper than what is imaginable? Personally, I don't believe in the Big Bang "as such" either. While I do believe at some point in time there was a beginning and recurring cycles to this universe, I believe it is impervious to an ending. Thanks again.

Dismissive? Disrespecable? No way Moontan. I had heard the expression somewhere before and thought perhaps it covered all the bases from anywhere in the universe. The Transcendental thing are the three expanations below. 1.Asserting a fundamental irrationality or supernatural element in experience. 2.Surpassing all others; superior. 3.Beyond common thought or experience; mystical or supernatural. The Teleportation thing is a," hypothetical method of transportation" (Star Wars or Star Treck) I think; in which matter or information is dematerialized, usually instantaneously, at one point and recreated at another. Heck of it is, I'm dumb enough to believe it will eventually happen!! My intent was to say that since Alpha Centaur, the closest star system to us (a three star system), is about 4.5 light years from earth, and we know so very little about it, would it really matter where aliens came from if they had such a capability? I believe many "civilizations" are likely scattered throughout the gadzillion star systems of the universe. And if any of them are more intelligent than we are, and can get here from wherever, we could and probably would learn a lot from them.

If instantaneous transcendental teleportation is possible, would it really matter from whence they came?

I'll not question the logic in any sense Moontan. It's really only a matter of semantics and a toss up at best! But If instantaneous transcendental teleportation is possible, would it really matter from where they would come?