killafur

Touché lol I will better structure my future questions when dealing with philosophy and observation. With proper definitions as well as I can state, according to my knowledge.

Still avoiding the answer to that eh? Lol. Its kool. Thanks for the quote stuff too. Its a little like writing a program. Easy enough. A smart phone is kool, but still just slightly lacking to a desktop. Soon enough though lol The more I think about it too, I'll restructure into a formal question. Can you not deny that if there is sound without someone to hear the sound, it would still exist? So just because our intelligence may not recognize the existence of something, it doesn't mean that it can't exist right? Or that it ceases to exist?

Ok. So you kind of answered me lol. "Sound: mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium." The sound by definition would still exist "ex·ist -verb (used without object) 1. to be 2. to live 3. to continue to be or live." , because during observation a tree makes a sound when falling "Sound: the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. (human or animal ears)". Just because we had not heard the sound previous, does not negate its existance. Because we are aware of the existance now only solidifies the it's existance when we weren't. Apologies for my citations. I know that an apa or mla format would be proper. My damn friends finally talked me into this facebook junk. If you would like a more casual setting, feel free to hit me up on there as well. Kyle Smith Casper, Wy. I think there are a few others. I'm in a blue shirt.

Hello everyone, I wanted to have a post that includes these general questions and speculations about to be presented. Before that though, I just wanted to say that I hope I'm not agitating or angering anyone by questioning your work. My goal is only to help. Ok here's where I may differ a little from you guys. Though science may be my "life blood", the advancement of humanity also weighs heavy. I believe if we can answer what has been boggling the scientific community for the last sixty or so years, we can finally break free of our binds that have held us down for so long now, roughly 13,000 years. I know this is way off topic, but I really like explaining myself lol. Also, I'm staying fairly general to avoid bashing anyones beliefs. I should prolly stop there for now. I can start a diff discussion on that if you don't want anything like this on yours. Or reveal more if so needed or asked for. Pan, I can't add your quote to this (on a droid haven't figured out how to paste multiple quotes once the reply has been started), but you say that, "Without intelligence to define and organize them, these concepts and related entities would be generally meaningless.". Ok lol, I've spent atleast fifteen minutes trying to decide on how to write these next few sentences. Oh well, I'm going to go for it. Eccentricities and all. If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? Or, what if another intelligent species, that is way older than us, or even in another "universe" orbiting right next to us, has beat us by a million years defining it? I know it sounds crazy, but maybe that's what we need. Outside the box. Ah ha, maybe this says it better: have you ever tried to ponder these things as an animal, and not a human. I know it sounds crazy, but its amazing the limitations in perception that it can cause. New paragraph because this question is for everyone. What would you say was your biggest hole to your theories? Is there anything that just bothers the $#!* out of you? I would really like you to be open too. You're safe lol. I'm just curious. Mine is that if gravity is basically something that occurs to something with "mass", and space is is only a classification to an area in which our matter resides, then where did our energy come from? Is there ancient nebular type clouds? My mind can run rampant with the possibilities, but the problem is still there. Though I can ramble forever, I'll end this one for now. Happy posting people

Thanks ajb. I've never been scared to get back to the basics. My formal training is in accounting and business, but space and general science has always been my passion. I remember the first time I 'd ever heard of a black hole. I was in second grade sitting in the daycare my mom worked for, and my friend told me of this other dimension on the other side of this "black hole". He continued on with how nothing could escape one of these things, and lemme tell you, this totally blew my mind lol. Only recently have I reached a point where rational thought can take place. I come from a really religious background, and my search ultimately crossed paths with blasphemy. (Sorry for my rambling, but I think this is important) Tying the back to the basics back in: In life, I had to break everything down into its most fundamental of parts to reach my conclusion (why I like physics ). So the basics may be what I need to put my imagination on paper. Pan, I can assure you that I'm not looking for a theory to follow. More like guidelines. These past couple days of thought, and talking to you guys, has showed me that I'm a little lacking. Have no fear though. I may only be a 26 year old assembly hand at a gas compression unit fab shop in casper, wy, but I have hope. And, an uncanny ability to quickly grasp whatever I take on, but that's beside the point lol. I may not know everything, but I can learn anything. Ok, back to the discussion. Has anyone ever considered that space and gravity is older than the universe? Also, I am starting to believe that time is only a unit of measure that man made up to put an ordered classification to things. So we can keep track. Now for my big question: If I take away time from the equation, but I leave gravity and space there. Just make them there before the start. How do I fit that against any model for comparison? Most of our equations that I would be up against, have space, time, and gravity within them, and that they were made at the point of our creation.

Hi there, This is Kyle Smith, from a few discussions down. Lame joke I know. Oh well lol. Anyhow, I just downloaded the pdf off of the website listed above, and am looking forward to studying it. Looks like I have some late nights though. Also, just wanted to say thanks for some direction, and hopefully soon I can be more up to speed enough to participate in this discussion.

Completely agree. Everything after BB is fine. We know what things did. Where it came from is what bothers me. When we can scan, or even see past, the edge of the universe, I believe we'll find the proof. There has to be left overs. As for the current singularity predictions and the equations associated, there still seems to be the constant flaw of our complex brain. That being, having an alpha and omega thought process; still having that godly creation type beginning. Sounds an awful lot like when we thought the earth was the center of the "universe". Why are we so special that even the space we reside in was made when we were? Our energy may be 13.6-14.2 billion years old. But, is the space? When we make space, time and gravity a constant, energy starts to become a normal acting item. Say at first "ignition", the raw material our energy came from was just too volatile. Big Bang takes place, and the energy tries again. On a side note: I would really like to thank everyone for their reponses. Even criticism is very helpful. I apologize to those who I couldn't cover today, but I will try to keep up with my end of the banter. I think the more I explain myself, the more it will become clear as to: Why? What for? And, who cares?

Can they be tested? Not yet. Unfortunately. My hopes are that whoever reads my post may get a different perspective. Who knows? Maybe someone who has the capabilities, may read that and try it in a model. Dreaming. I know lol. But, even someone to help me refine my currently scattered thoughts would suffice. I agree that mainstream science is definitely not guesswork, but early theories are. The beauty of science is that it can evolve; as the things it studies does. Any comments on the fundamentals?

Hello reader, my name is Kyle Smith. I've only recently started to search for those who I can share my ideas with. So far, my search has led me here. I have many ideas on many things, but I would like to start from the beginning. It seems as if the scientific community is leaving an important factor to the equation of the theory of the formation of the universe out. What if the beginning is wrong? In my opinion, we are putting too much into what we "think" we know. Countless times in history mankind has "known". In a not too distant past, the world being flat was taken as a known fact, and I'm sure equations of that time would have showed it as well. If they would have only taken some of what they know and guessed the rest, early scientists may have formulated a closer hypothesis to what is actually true. Sorry for the bashing, but my point conveys why: Say they took the fact that the sky appears to curve away from you, and add in an unprovable factor, or a guess: Sky being curved+knowledge of how round things work "the guess"=If you were to travel in a staight line on the surface of a round object, you will at some point reach the place in which you started. Hence, the world is round. Now keep thinking on those lines and move ahead to current day. We take something we know about physics presently, and add our unprovable "guess": We know that from atoms to galaxies, things orbit things and things evolve, or change, in some way. So why can't our "universe" be something that started as a cloud of something, say "pre-energy", that orbits something else? I know that would mean that gravity, space, and time would have already been there, but it makes sense. It's also simple. Plus, I think that time is only a label. Nothing else. That's a totally different topic though. Within my idea, many things can be answered. Starting with dark flow. Through my idea, the existance of a multiverse system is completely possible. It could also mean that the action that created our universe was so violent it could have altered gravity, or even change its state since gravity was already there. Which would explain why galaxies are moving apart, or dark energy. Maybe it's an altered state of gravity, and not energy at all. With that being said, even as I'm writing this I am refining my ideas. So, I apologize if I am too vague to make a valid argument. Or, that I am really jumping around within the topic. There's just so much to cover. But, I'll wrap this up for now. I look forward to responses.