Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of
thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of
lumping the two together.

My Southern Baptist Mother (rest her soul) always said that
the theory of evolution was an atheist conspiracy. :-)

A wonderful lady I'm sure. My mother also did not believe in evolution.
She always said "Man did not descend from Apes" She was right on that
count, but wrong about evolution.

The theory has stood the test of time. So many other concepts and
measurements corroborate with it, and none disprove it. If it is wrong,
then most of what we know about the universe is wrong. There will always
be details that may indicate that something here or there needs an
update. But the basic concept and most of the details has survived much
more rigorous testing than the reference material of those who declare
it wrong.


And it seems that the theory of evolution has been proved
not to be 100% correct. Man is already, or soon will be,
capable of creating designer species. That's certainly not
random selection. How does manufacturing human blood within
a pig's body fit with the theory of evolution? :-)

I'm not sure how that disproves anything regarding the theory. In fact,
those things we are tinkering with are just an extension of the theory
in the end. Where the pressure to mutate - and therefore change - comes
from is not necessarily important i the end, but say we're talking about
sheep with human organs in them. Ever wonder what happens to the
embryo's and young ones that didn't have the right attributes?


How about "string theory", something that cannot even be
tested? Last I heard, there were seven or so competing
string theories - all "logically self-consistent"????

Lots more than that, even. More flavors than Baskin-Robbins. I can't
really speculate a lot on string theory. String always seemed like a
"just so" story to me.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

Jimmie D wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
Mike Kaliski wrote:

[snip]


One way of imagining a way in which this could happen is if a block of
material is energised to a high energy state. Photons are continually
fired
into the material and are absorbed one by one with atoms within the
structure absorbing each new photon. At some point, the material becomes
completely saturated and cannot absorb any more photons. When the next
photon hits and is absorbed, a shockwave propogates through the material
and
a photon is emitted from the opposite side travelling at the same speed
and
in the same direction as the original absorbed photon. Stability is
restored
and energy is conserved.

But, it is the shockwave that has propogated faster than the speed of
light
and it is not the original photon that entered the material that is
emitted.
The emitted photon will contain exactly the same properties as the
absorbed
photon and the two would be indistinguishable. So the photon appears to
have
been transmitted through the material at faster than light speed, but no
laws have been broken.

A Newtons cradle can help with visualising how this can happen.

Mike G0ULI

Mike,

You had me fooled. It appeared that you might actually know something. But
that response bent the needle on my bull**** meter.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Actually that response is very credable, It is analogous to what happens
when electrons travel in a wire. Put an electron in one end of a wire and
one pops out the other end almost instantaneously even though the actual
speed of electrons flowing ththrough the wire is very, very slow.

Jimmie


Jimmie,

No particular argument about electrons in a wire. However, the stuff
proposed by Mike bears little resemblance to the wire.

How about:

Atoms absorbing photons one by one, i.e. one per atom in a solid?
Doesn't match anything I have ever learned.

Material becomes saturated with photons? What is this, a bag of marbles?

Shockwave propagates faster than speed of light? (Yes, I am familiar
with Cerenkov radiation. Not interesting in this context.)

Emitted photons contains exactly the same properties as the absorbed
photon? How do they get absorbed yet remember everything? How do they
know when and where they should pop out the other side?

Every part of that proposed explanation was nonsense.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Water burns!
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Jimmie D wrote:
And the physicist that explanined it to me made me wish I had never
brought up the subject becuse I had planned other things for the evening
than her 4 hr explanation. From what I got of it nothing is what exist
beyound the boundries of the universe and empty space would have to exist
within the universe.

Outside the universe would be "absolute nothingness"
as opposed to nothing being in an empty bucket within
the universe. It certainly depends upon the definition
of "nothing" that is being used
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Is there any other kind of nothingness than absolute nothingness?

Jimmie

Water burns!
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
Dave Heil wrote:
You might add:
What set it off?

Chaotic conditions? One last electron encountering
the singularity?

Where did all of that matter come from?

A small plasma singularity?

Where did all of the empty space come from?

It's not empty, i.e. not absolute nothing.
Dark matter? Dark energy?

Presumably, the Big Bang was more energetic than
a Supernova. Heavy elements are created during
a Supernova. Why were no heavy elements created
during the Big Bang?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Perhaps the universe existed pretty much thhe way it does now before the Big
Bang, Maybe the Big bang is just one niverse passing from one deminsion to
another.

Water burns!
 

John Smith I wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of
thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of
lumping the two together.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -




I believe "theory of evolution" is highly correct.

Ever toss a hand full of metal, glass and plastic into a mud
puddle--come back a few million years later and start digging up
microwaves, cell phones, mp3 players, etc.?

If not, then you have a faith greater than it takes to have faith in
aliens or God ... our existence is about as strange a mystery as you
will ever find.

I just love those with over-simplified explanations ... occams' razor
seems to dull a bit on this problem.


Did you mean over-simplified explanations (in this case posing as a
question) such as?:

Ever toss a hand full of metal, glass and plastic into a mud
puddle--come back a few million years later and start digging up
microwaves, cell phones, mp3 players, etc.?

Is a specious argument, for some folks. it is wrong for all folks.
If you just want to say "God did it", then have at it. No further
explanation is required, and your argument is noted.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

Jimmie D wrote:
Is there any other kind of nothingness than absolute nothingness?

"nothingness" is defined as empty space. It's
difficult to come up with appropriate words.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Jimmie D wrote:
Perhaps the universe existed pretty much thhe way it does now before the Big
Bang, Maybe the Big bang is just one niverse passing from one deminsion to
another.

Or maybe it is simply a self-generating fractal. :-)

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Is a specious argument, for some folks. it is wrong for all folks.
If you just want to say "God did it", then have at it. No further
explanation is required, and your argument is noted.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Does nature have a conscious? What purpose does man serve nature? What
"pressures" caused nature to create and develop man?

I don't see nature doing anything which suggests an intelligence ...

I don't see chance and probability constructing highly complex "anythings."

Your logic escapes me ...

JS

Water burns!
 

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Jimmie D wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
Mike Kaliski wrote:

[snip]


One way of imagining a way in which this could happen is if a block of
material is energised to a high energy state. Photons are continually
fired
into the material and are absorbed one by one with atoms within the
structure absorbing each new photon. At some point, the material
becomes
completely saturated and cannot absorb any more photons. When the next
photon hits and is absorbed, a shockwave propogates through the
material and
a photon is emitted from the opposite side travelling at the same speed
and
in the same direction as the original absorbed photon. Stability is
restored
and energy is conserved.

But, it is the shockwave that has propogated faster than the speed of
light
and it is not the original photon that entered the material that is
emitted.
The emitted photon will contain exactly the same properties as the
absorbed
photon and the two would be indistinguishable. So the photon appears to
have
been transmitted through the material at faster than light speed, but
no
laws have been broken.

A Newtons cradle can help with visualising how this can happen.

Mike G0ULI

Mike,

You had me fooled. It appeared that you might actually know something.
But that response bent the needle on my bull**** meter.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Actually that response is very credable, It is analogous to what happens
when electrons travel in a wire. Put an electron in one end of a wire and
one pops out the other end almost instantaneously even though the actual
speed of electrons flowing ththrough the wire is very, very slow.

Jimmie

Jimmie,

No particular argument about electrons in a wire. However, the stuff
proposed by Mike bears little resemblance to the wire.

How about:

Atoms absorbing photons one by one, i.e. one per atom in a solid? Doesn't
match anything I have ever learned.

Material becomes saturated with photons? What is this, a bag of marbles?

Shockwave propagates faster than speed of light? (Yes, I am familiar with
Cerenkov radiation. Not interesting in this context.)

Emitted photons contains exactly the same properties as the absorbed
photon? How do they get absorbed yet remember everything? How do they know
when and where they should pop out the other side?

Every part of that proposed explanation was nonsense.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Yes, nonsense as we now understand it, most great breakthroughs in physics
have at one time or other appeared to be nonsense, The Earth is a sphere,
the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, pepole can fly were all considered
nonsense at time. It is sometime difficult to keep a grasp on reality while
still being able to ponder the things that make for truly great break
throughs in science.

Jimmie

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
Or maybe it is simply a self-generating fractal. :-)

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Or, maybe I am just imagining all this, and y'all don't even exist!
Just a "brain in a bottle" on some aliens shelf in his lab!

Hey, don't get me wrong, it could be worse, at least it keeps me from
being bored. ;-)

Regards,
JS