HenryB

I am having trouble following the argument. I think it might be the terms "Main stream science" and “Universal Source”, is there a difference? Can it be explained in terms of Copernicus vs. Einstein? Suppose in school each were asked to turn in a paper on astronomy and one gets an A and one goes to jail, does it matter?

After a half a billion years a sponge is still a sponge. Like all of life, sponges need sex to keep the bloodline going. Sexual reproduction is needed to evolve. If a trait is to pass on it must be a part of the act. Evolution is the work of young adults. I believe the brain evolves but I do not think reason does. We are probably as smart as we ever have been or ever will be.

I believe that time is all in your head; a tool for trying to understand two items moving apart from each other. It is a figment of the imagination that can be manipulated in any fashion (like being bent), but it should not be a factor in any consideration of how the cosmose works.

Yes, I think the closest dust (like fine particles of soot) is 50 trillion miles away. I think we should wait a while 'til we get a little closer, like maybe a few feet.

If you are saying that the cosmic whiz kids are just pulling our leg you could be right. For sure there are tiny grains of dust moving around in the universe, but identifying them from millions and millions of miles away is a bit much. I'd sooner believe that there is someone out there sweeping them up with a broom.

Not to confuse creation with “creation”. If there is such a thing as divinity it is way beyond me. I try to understand motion and size and work from that. Motion and size started somewhere. Motion is when one thing moves with respect to another. I try to understand how that first motion happened. As far as size is concerned I do not put a limit on how small or how large something is. It is not how many angels will fit on the tip of a pin, but how large was the first particle to move, and why did it move. Also I do not believe what happens in the universe is random. I believe that if there were another universe that it would behave exactly the same as the one we are in, right down to the thoughts in our head (they probably all happened before).

Keep in mind that this forum is for speculation, to throw it out and see what sticks, and have fun. I don’t go along with the idea that everything shot out of nothing. If I look into an empty box I do not expect to see things move. My theory is that everything begins as a particle with a basic brain and started the journey from its source long before any big bang. The particle is small in the beginning, like the size of the quark compared to the Milky Way. However, each one is able to make a simple yes or no decision and has the ability to remember and learn. It has only one purpose in life and that is to resist motion and to return from where it came. It came from a place where there is no energy or motion, a place where speed = zero, and energy = zero. If you look into the box it shot out of you will see nothing move. Only after a very long time does the particles, as groups, grow to become chemical and biological in size. A particle leaves the source with a trace of negative force, which is the reason for it having to leave home. The particle learns during its journey that combining with other particles that the combinations slow down. The combinations become blobs. The blobs leave the uncombined particles to continue their pace. The blobs move at different speeds, each with its own degree of force. But the selection process is not random. The combination process is natural selection and it progresses according to a fixed pattern. The blobs, as a community, still retain that one thought, though. Having slowed down (to a speed much, much faster than that of light) the blob attracts other blobs and the blob begins growing, with each blob having its own force signature. At this stage no blob is anywhere near the size of the imagined “God Particle”. The “God Particle”, or “God Blob” is a collection of particles that have slowed way, way down and in the earliest stage of becoming a chemical. It took eons for an actual “God Blob” to form. When it did it was much, much smaller than any machine can detect. Anything flying out of a proton under duress is a colossus compared to the “God Blob”. If science is to understand creation it must use the brain that it was born with and not try to create something out of nothing.

Nothing for nothing, but nothing is no longer nothing. Looking into a box of nothing you will see something. The something just comes and goes, just like the thoughts in your head. What ever it is, it must come from somewhere, because if it does not come from somewhere then it comes from nowhere and that is where God exists. This is where my nothing comes from: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/09/10076985-how-to-get-a-cosmos-from-nothing?lite

If everything in the universe is destined to return to its starting point and become motionless what’s the point?

A child’s innate behavior, like any other animal is adaptive to what’s good, not what’s bad. A healthy newborn brain knows what to do before its first inhale. Every innate thing in the brain knows what’s good and reacts accordingly. The brain is born with a lot of stuff it knows to do before it does it. As for the bad thing aspect, unfortunately, that’s something the brain learns after birth. The adaptive nature of the “inherited” brain is a product of all the good things that were experienced by the parent. A good thing makes you feel good. A bad thing is not worth remembering

Hawkins is just having fun with us. Anyone peddling a yarn that in a billion or so years all of the universe will dissolve into nothing got to be a joker. He is being ridiculous and trolling for fools. Don’t fall for it.

The Laws of Physics condense us into nothing. I have no problem with treating nothing as non-existent. It could turn the Laws of Physics on its head and allow me to stop thinking that I am about to be sucked into a black hole.

Time is a construct. It is an understanding of motion at the moment. It is meaningless without motion as a reference. Nothing about motion is foreseeable. Motion can stop in the next instant. You must be satisfied with the moment because that is all there is.

Disclaimer, I am an idiot, too. Apparently a singularity, for lack of a more descriptive term, is a very dense point around which suns orbit. Our sun supposedly orbits around a point in space about thirty thousand light years away (70,000 orbits in all since the big bang). They say black hole force fields swallow up the stuff contained in these dense points. But what does that point in space orbit around? Whatever it is it must be some strong singularity, or one strong ass, hole. Is the singularity growing from that strong ass, hole stationary? My guess is that it is. My guess is that we are like the Uwhackit bird that flies in ever decreasing concentric circles until it flies right up its own ass hole.

I cannot think of the moving part that created the numeral 1.