Displacement Theory, Time and space and all that c--p. Options

[Fast Jet]

Despite the fact that peole cannot get it into their heads that this is a Non Av forum: I shall post more non-av stuff until the penny drops, tinkle tinkle. Hey don`t take me seriously (or you would go mad!) I am only joking, you can write what you like where you like.

Gravity is a force to be reckoned with. Newton had it off pat when the apple fell on his head, as did Chicken Licken, when he thought the sky had fallen on his head, when it was only an acorn.

The time-space displacement theory from that misguided chap Einstein - states that a mass like a planet floating in space is attracted to another mass by the fact that the masses have displaced space somehow, and that the other mass is moving into trying to take up the ....thus empty space. General poo.

The centre of most, if not all, galaxies is a Black-Hole. This is a tiny little thing about the size of a cannon ball. It is so greatly compressed with almost infintisimile densisty that the volume of a huge star is thus comressed into theis tiny ball or super solid Iron Ore. Despite this, cannon ball, the force of gravity is so great that not even light can escape it.Once beyond the event horizon, there is no coming back. So gravity as an attraction due to mass wins.

Also, TIME does not exist. It is a man-made invention to measure the period between one event and another event. Space is not a medium. It is nothing which goes on forever full of all sorts of stuff. Planets. Suns. Galaxies, Radiation, the Universe as we know it, otherwise nothing and float we do.

Maybe there are more flying jobs that side of the point of singularity.

[Harmattan96]

"The time-space displacement theory from that misguided chap Einstein. (...) General poo."

"Despite this, cannon ball, the force of gravity is so great that not even light can escape it.Once beyond the event horizon, there is no coming back. So gravity as an attraction due to mass wins."

Fasty, I have a hard time following you here. You don't agree with the "theory of relativity". That's fine, it is a theory, remains to be proven; until then it belongs to the realm of possibilities. Yet, on your second quote here you mention "event horizon" of a black hole, and identify that the horizon's boundary is defined by gravitational attraction which exceeds photon speed (speed of light). In doing so, you recognize that photon speed is the fastest speed achievable in this universe, which ironically is part of the Einstein's relativity theory. That's where I get confused. What part exactly of the theory do you agree with, and which do you not agree with.
Also, what do you make of Newton's explanation of the unexplained by just referencing to the "God mechanics" in regards of how does gravity work, when Einstein curving space is not only elegant physics but can be proven with light bending.

"Also, TIME does not exist. It is a man-made invention to measure the period between one event and another event. Space is not a medium. It is nothing which goes on forever full of all sorts of stuff. Planets. Suns. Galaxies, Radiation, the Universe as we know it, otherwise nothing and float we do."

Bravo, hurray. Does that mean that I can count you amongst the ones willing to probe the alternative/parallel dimension theory. Are you acknowledging string physics, and vibrations on different levels?

[Fast Jet]

Fasty, I have a hard time following you here. You don't agree with the "theory of relativity". That's fine, it is a theory, remains to be proven; until then it belongs to the realm of possibilities. Yet, on your second quote here you mention "event horizon" of a black hole, and identify that the horizon's boundary is defined by gravitational attraction which exceeds photon speed (speed of light). In doing so, you recognize that photon speed is the fastest speed achievable in this universe, which ironically is part of the Einstein's relativity theory. That's where I get confused. What part exactly of the theory do you agree with, and which do you not agree with.
Also, what do you make of Newton's explanation of the unexplained by just referencing to the "God mechanics" in regards of how does gravity work, when Einstein curving space is not only elegant physics but can be proven with light bending.
Bravo, hurray. Does that mean that I can count you amongst the ones willing to probe the alternative/parallel dimension theory. Are you acknowledging string physics, and vibrations on different levels?

Why the dancing banana? You are as bad as effte. but in answer to your question, yes I acknowledge the string theories and also wormholes and the like and even anti matter, and subatomic particles, ok, basic stuff. My point was, he, Einstein, has taken a simple universe and made it all overtly complicated. Same with the Lift hoo haa we had - I mean God, all it is, is a platform flat piece of metal inclined upwards slightly (called the angle of incidence) well, hell, of course its gonna fly if you shove it through the air at over a hundred knots, it will simply surf through the air, duh. The smoothly chamfered leading edge and the outflow and span wise flow are all to dissipate the resultant . . . turbulence, of course the thing`ll fly, like a b----y kite, no more complex than that - the string is your Weight by the way.

Back to the string theory. Look, we are merely sitting here in space - we are also travelling at about well, some x thousands of miles and hour due to when we go blasted out of the big bang and subsequently cooled down solidified and materialised into pilots. Or, was it one of many little bangs hmmm? After all, stella nurseries are producing suns and galaxies all the time as we speak. Any bang, BIG med or small will also be `omnidirectional` - just like the emissions from a VOR. Omnidirectional would then determine that the universe is spreading off omnidirectional, so if you want to find the centre of the universe, then look for the big bang. But, we could be one of loads of bangs. Like a birth of a human. One kid bangs out (no ref to Martin Baker) and this is a wonderful and incredible thing, but that does not mean that she is the only chick in the world to get banged up. . see what I mean now? The bangs have been banging away always and forever.

The great F-- U in Man`s brain is the fact that he has to PERCEIVE a beginning and an end. If we accept there was a beginning then there may then be an end - but we cannot escape from the fact that we are floating in nothing - and are affected by gravity as is every other celestial body in space. Gravity being the masses attracting one another - - like, like, magnetism, only a bit different.

There is also the electricity of the universe, everyone and everything has got it. A lemon is a battery, and yet people miss the point that the lightning in a thunderstorm is in fact the earthing of the current produced by the guass i.e., the electromagnetic field running North South like in any polarised entity that's why you get lightning in thunderclouds and volcano ash clouds and any other cloud you can think of it has nought to do with the coelescence of water droplets producing static electricity which them goes pop. See? My point? Everything is glaringly simple - we are here just to f--- everything up.

Back to your displacement theory, or rather my comments thereof: If the displacement theory of time and space, neither of which exist, then how can it be related to a tiny little ball with a huge and fantastically huge density and mass (but little volume) i.e., a black hole, which is not a hole really more like the surprise centre in a bubble gum gob stopper. So, to confirm, time cannot possibly exist. It is a man made thingy and it was originally based on the passing of the sun over a certain point on Earth anyway, but modern man has gone coo coo with all this. It is like saying that washing up liquid is really the creational spirit of all things and will eventually get p----d off walk out of the kitchen and announce itself as the second slippery coming.

but its b---ks. Because it is only washing up liquid and it too was man made. As was time. Based on the Sun. Of the Earth. That's it. you cant warp it, bend it, reverse it, go back to it, well, to a point, if you travelled faster than the speed of light then you could be in a prior position to view the earth, but there would be nothing there really. did you hear the joke about the space traveller who travelled at several time the speed of light, came back to Earth and caught his wife in bed with another man, yup, you guessed it, it was himself. (I made that one up).

I must just pop off and save the world from nuclear disaster - catch you later dude.

Hmmm Harmy?

Reason for edit: Spelling

[Harmattan96]

We are looking through the same telescope matey!
I thing I have made it clear with my few years on this board that I don't prey to the milk jug (you call it the liquid soap container, same concept; all religions on this planet can be traced back to the adoration of planets, the sun in particular).
Come to think of it, your idea of man made space-time concept is soundly argumented. As with everything else it was invented by man, so to appease a basic principle that we can hardly muster, yet we can see with our own eyes (you call it solar revolution if you want).
Time is a word that is here to explain a movement within our 3 dimensional world, thus creating a relationship on a fourth dimension, that allows linear movement from one to the next. What troubles a lot of physicists is that this movement is a one way ticket. You move from the past to the present to the future. So far the other direction remains a theory. If we go back to Newton inventing the ideology that there must be an opposite for everything (which is the opposing reaction concept), than that backward motion has to exist. Einstein bending space is an attempt at explaining exactly this, but it only does so in slowing or accelerating the time passing, not reversing it. His theory falls short, as far as I am concerned.
Some argue that bending time is the beginning of an explanation with regards to reversing the 4th dimension movement, I say it is merely bending the linear space.
I am confused (yet again) by your last post. You don't want a time explanation, but how do you explain in YOUR elegant world, any change of state?
Everything is arguable, please quench my thirst on this topic.
I will never argue for the sake of converting one to my view point....I don't have a view point, only an opinion based on what I am aware of. So, gathering different view points can, and will, help me see things in a different way.
Thanks for bringing the name of Martin Baker back from the dead, I only devoted 5 years of my life to his products, and it had all gone "pop" into oblivion. I still have this rubbery yellow-black-some red, plastic-metal loopy thingy in a cardboard box, I spent 2 hours just to find it last night.

[Fast Jet]

We are looking through the same telescope matey!
I thing I have made it clear with my few years on this board that I don't prey to the milk jug (you call it the liquid soap container, same concept; all religions on this planet can be traced back to the adoration of planets, the sun in particular).
Come to think of it, your idea of man made space-time concept is soundly argumented. As with everything else it was invented by man, so to appease a basic principle that we can hardly muster, yet we can see with our own eyes (you call it solar revolution if you want).
Time is a word that is here to explain a movement within our 3 dimensional world, thus creating a relationship on a fourth dimension, that allows linear movement from one to the next. What troubles a lot of physicists is that this movement is a one way ticket. You move from the past to the present to the future. So far the other direction remains a theory. If we go back to Newton inventing the ideology that there must be an opposite for everything (which is the opposing reaction concept), than that backward motion has to exist. Einstein bending space is an attempt at explaining exactly this, but it only does so in slowing or accelerating the time passing, not reversing it. His theory falls short, as far as I am concerned.
Some argue that bending time is the beginning of an explanation with regards to reversing the 4th dimension movement, I say it is merely bending the linear space.
I am confused (yet again) by your last post. You don't want a time explanation, but how do you explain in YOUR elegant world, any change of state?
Everything is arguable, please quench my thirst on this topic.
I will never argue for the sake of converting one to my view point....I don't have a view point, only an opinion based on what I am aware of. So, gathering different view points can, and will, help me see things in a different way.
Thanks for bringing the name of Martin Baker back from the dead, I only devoted 5 years of my life to his products, and it had all gone "pop" into oblivion. I still have this rubbery yellow-black-some red, plastic-metal loopy thingy in a cardboard box, I spent 2 hours just to find it last night.

I regard the changed of state as a process the process like most things, happens because something else caused this Logical Sequence of Events to happen. As I write, it happens. As it and everything else always has. If you want to observe a poor lil` apple that falls from a tree and does not get picked up and so there starts the decomposition process and eventually it will be bacteriaised into near oblivion and yet benefits the tree by providing food for the tree. It is only when you want to STOP and observe and report a specific part of the process that you have to introduce time. Like: ...after dehydration, then this chemical process occurs - so there we have a before and after then we have introduced time.

In my view, and it is my view only, everything is still. Connected. One. There is in this . . . Oneness no answer to any question as there are no questions - there are no questions for there is only one answer - this stillness, this knowledge that all and everything is truly connected and, surprisingly, all is at it should be in the universe but not seemingly in the University Campuses or the Streets of Man or indeed the battle fields.

Although partly everything is a biological accident - (don`t tell that to the architect, whoever he/she was, if anyone) the whole thing is a magical picture or happening or state. Hence, the state of `now` which is not a new concept but, but, it goes a long way to best describe the state of a Process of growth, if you like, or living oneness of everything.

More `all joined up` in this concept is mankind. We are all in the little bed of loveliness all together and there is absolutely no problem with everything. However everything came about - it also came with the perfect menu, recipe for total and absolute nourishment in every sense of the word.

On a somewhat smaller scale. Take an island with enough goodies in the sea to go and dive for it. Some of the shellfish are ok for certain times of year. Then if you take from the other beach during the other times of the year, you will be fed all year round. Along comes Man en-masse and gobbles the lot in one season - result = one f--- u- island.

Take the above concept of Everything is One. and using the beach example, then the same applies not only to the planet but to the itchingly edgy state of Man to turf up the ground to see if the seed is still growing. Given the fuel, we would go forth and happily tread where no man has trodden before, instead of waiting for it to come to us - complete with instruction booklet. Having missed the book on the way out there we would proceed to pollute the rest of the universe or Universities - take your pick - in our search for the reason why we are breathing healthily.

"Where are you Adam" asked Eve. `Perhaps he has wandered of to understand his own Destiny` she thinks..... Adam is walking and thinking. . . . " I think I will take a leak over at that tree"

In short, I perceive that it is all one stationary scene and this, is, it. Then again, my viewpoint may be changed if a meteor the size of Texas fell close by or would it. For stardust we have physically come from and stardust we remain.

We are already home. The big bang was the end not the beginning, methinks.

This total and absolute oneness with the universe - is not so good for flying whereby an onslaught of discipline, training and overall situational awareness are the primary requisites along with an ability to look ahead and be pro-active. Especially as 150 pax`s connection with God may not be quite on the same level as one`s own and therefore, they are King and you are their protector from harm, discomfort and generally getting lost. (It is important not to miss the hores douvres from First Class too) But, my Oneness with everything may not be as enlightened as it seems . . . . because part of the brain thus affected by other parts of the brain can create a fusion of synapses and neurons giving the impression that the entire universe is all joined up and meaningful - as natural maturation of a human adult consists of the brain growing, evolving, maturing until natural atrophy/detrophy in old age, it is easy to perceive one is on Gods Free Cheeseburger list, when in fact it is merely the brain which is doing the greater depths of absolutes and worldly knowledge thing.

Back to bending of light. If you take a mirror and hold it facing a bigger mirror like on your wife`s wardrobe dressing table thingy - well the rate at which the light bends, is pretty acute, and your reflected image disappears in about 20 odd images out of view. If the universe was thus . . . round by the same rate, then we would be living in a pretty small bubble about the size of our street. Also, which direction is the light bending to? Does the light bend only when in AIR? Air is a medium like water. Water bends light acutely, at least, the image of the light, stick a pencil in a glass of water etc., etc. There is nothing in space to bend light - except gravity, cosmic dust?, radiation?, etc. There seems to be little discussion on the bending of light when the telescope boys are measuring the infra-red emissions of far off entities around the area of the big bang. Merely the changing of colour too determine the velocity of the viewed body.
Is it the Earth. . that bends light? Or something else? Do things bend if they slow down - if light is so fast, what happens to it when it slows up - does it bend? Does it dissipate? Does light bend, if so, how can we view the entities which were around during the Big Bang - through a telescope in Hawaii? How come the image has not bent out of view?

Have you ever read The Universe in a Nutshell?

Considering we could all be part of a greater body - we could be under the fingernail of a Black Jack player in Las Vegas Nevada, or, we could be Giants - hardly likely, the elephants would laugh at that concept.

You ever watch Carl Sagan?

Whats the thing with Martin Baker - did you ever have to bang out?

[glnflwrs]

This is a true Unified Theory. (Big pdf)


http://mysite.verizon.net/res7zx3v/sitebui...iles/newman.pdf

[Harmattan96]

Thanks Glenn,

I am diving into the reading of this thesis.
I am very glad to see you on there.

[AirRabbit]

The great F-- U in Man`s brain is the fact that he has to PERCEIVE a beginning and an end.

If you’re going to be critical of what has been proffered as a human attempt to understand what and where we are (I’ll leave “why” we are for another discussion) by postulating and theorizing what has taken place (and to get to the “what,” the understanding of “how” is imperative), I think you need to describe why you think that such an attempt is, indeed, only a perception, and then you need to clarify of what it is that you believe man perceives a beginning and an end.

… so if you want to find the centre of the universe, then look for the big bang.

As for your opinion on finding the center of the universe by merely looking for the Big Bang … are you suggesting something like back-tracking each object to a point where all other such objects meet? Wouldn’t that require some specific knowledge about the track taken by these objects to get where they are now? Would that presume that the trajectory of each object was a straight line? Why would that presumption be accurate – particularly if it is true that there are circumstances that exist, such as “black holes,” that exert some influence (i.e., attraction) on at least some of these objects? And if “black holes” do exist as is theorized, what about an object that isn’t quite as dense as the matter at the center of the black hole? Would this somewhat less dense object exert some (any?) attraction to surrounding objects? And if the “straight line” presumption is not correct, what radius of arc would be appropriate to apply so this “back-tracking” could take place? Of course, this back-tracking exercise would be subject to the same “other object influence/attraction” as would have taken place had the expansion track been a straight line – and there would have to be some way of considering that influence.

… people miss the point that the lightning in a thunderstorm is in fact the earthing of the current produced by the guass i.e., the electromagnetic field running North South like in any polarised entity

For now, I’ll not jump on the “lightening-is-merely-the-earthing-of-the-current-produced-by-the-electromagnetic-field-surrounding-the-earth” presumptions you profess and simply suggest that you might want to reconsider the friction that takes place between the air and water molecules that makeup the lower atmosphere.

[Harmattan96]

Whats the thing with Martin Baker - did you ever have to bang out?

Good grief NO! I am already height challenged as it is, the idea of measuring a few inches less dawns on me. I actually dealt with the GRU-7 and NACES seats in the Tomcats for a few years, and just like anyone who did I happen to have a primary firing handle in what I call my "box of dust".

[Fast Jet]

Well, I like the way you write Mr. Rabbit. I also like the way you think. I wish you were in my class. If there was a burst balloon or a bang in the air in front of you now, not enough to cause you any physical damage and you [hoyogrphed the . . bang. Then, all the stuff from the bang would bang outwards from the centre of the . . .balloon or fire cracker. So far so good. . . ? On Earth, normal Earth Gravity.

Now take, another fire cracker or something with the right chemicals that will explode in outer space. something real tiny or really huge, it does not matter - it is the same - ok, lets go for huge then. . .

If it is an EXPLOSION then surely it is going to explode? If it explodes, by its very nature it pooms from the middle out.
As the power of the explosion is very big, then all the stuff is going to fly away from the projecting explosion and most of the big, dense, fast stuff is going to travel - fast forward to today. Having been spat across the universe and formed into human Beings we see through our Hubble Telescope that onwe or to stars are sending off signals which are measurable by their infra red spectrum, which due to its changing colour with changing speed then we can determine how far away it is therefore how far away it is in time and even which direction it is travelling in. Quasar pulsar, whatever object which is visible and with a recognisable infra red shift, pretty basic stuff so far, but bear with me, taking the trajectory of as many of these objects you can determine from when it is all travelling. There must be big chunks and some of it must have got through and not been overly influenced by the gravitational field/pull of whatever. . .

So, in short, you can determine the general direction of the centre of the universe from that. . . . .why did we want to determine the centre of the universe again. . . ?

Well, its been a nice holiday, I am a little lost here. .

Ah, ok, we need to find out the direction of the centre of the universe and to determine the direction to travel towards the edge of the universe. . that was it ok?

Well, if you ask the SETI guys and all the other scientists in the telescope places in Hawaii and other places stuck on top of a mountain, they can determine an object blinking or bleeping from way back around the beginning of the universe, near to the Big Bang (that word again) and there fore if they can do that then the track out guys . . . . much of the physical stuff that formed after the big bang is very likely to have contained enough velocity to travel unimpeded - so yeah, you can calculate a main Track out from the centre. Not ALL of the stuff is going to be influenced by black holes and large gravitational entities - although passing by anything like a black hole would certainly give him a curve ball (see base ball) , but , I ....I think, what I am trying to say, is: just look, no?

[AirRabbit]

If it is an EXPLOSION then surely it is going to explode? If it explodes, by its very nature it pooms from the middle out.
As the power of the explosion is very big, then all the stuff is going to fly away from the projecting explosion and most of the big, dense, fast stuff is going to travel.

This is what I was questioning above. You presume that the particles will, as you say, poom out from the middle. But what makes you think that these particles will travel in straight lines? Does mass attract mass? Isn't that called gravity? And if there are particles the size of some stars and some particles that are less in size, wouldn't that effect the trajectory of the "poomed" particles? Wouldn't the effect be directly proportional to the mass involved? What hunk of matter would effect what other hunk of matter and how would that effect the overall direction of all these "pooms?"

No, I submit that merely "tracking" each bit of mass currently in space back to its origination point is far more complex than you might think. And ... if there were a "big bang," what set it off and where did all the matter in that cosmic spec come from in the first place?

The next thing you have to consider is that if the universe is expanding (and most astronomers believe it is), into what is space expanding? If the universe has a finite size - it must have an edge somewhere - and the question then becomes, what is it that is just beyond the edge of the universe?

My next question to you is ... do you really believe what you said ....?

Having been spat across the universe and formed into human Beings

Do you really believe that you are simply rearranged cosmic dust?

[Fast Jet]

This is what I was questioning above. You presume that the particles will, as you say, poom out from the middle. But what makes you think that these particles will travel in straight lines? Does mass attract mass? Isn't that called gravity? And if there are particles the size of some stars and some particles that are less in size, wouldn't that effect the trajectory of the "poomed" particles? Wouldn't the effect be directly proportional to the mass involved? What hunk of matter would effect what other hunk of matter and how would that effect the overall direction of all these "pooms?"

No, I submit that merely "tracking" each bit of mass currently in space back to its origination point is far more complex than you might think. And ... if there were a "big bang," what set it off and where did all the matter in that cosmic spec come from in the first place?

The next thing you have to consider is that if the universe is expanding (and most astronomers believe it is), into what is space expanding? If the universe has a finite size - it must have an edge somewhere - and the question then becomes, what is it that is just beyond the edge of the universe?

My next question to you is ... do you really believe what you said ....? Do you really believe that you are simply rearranged cosmic dust?

I like your questions Rabbit, keep `em coming. but I have more than one belief, so if I think all we are is a biological accident - then I still contradict the fact that I believe in God - but theories and theology don't` mix, maybe.

I see what you are saying - I was referring to a thousand or so years after the big bang at the most, it will have been a huge bang and the stuff flying out omnidirectionally would definitely have been blown away from the centre of the poom. In time however, there would be a universal pull of gravities, and eventual galaxies and other, relatively, big stuff - in fact, our expanding universe is doing just that due to the above. It is an Open Universe so far, in so much as it is still expanding outwards, as opposed to a Closed Universe which expands out and then slows, stops and starts to travel back to Momma, figuratively speaking.

At the later stages of the expansion of the universe when hot gases, chemicals and atomic stuff and sub atomic stuff start to cool, congeal and solidify, then yeah, then the gravies are going to start to affect everything else that is in the universe.

I disagree with your space thing. The universe is expanding into an infinite space, this space consists of nothing. It is not a medium, therefore there is nothing that would push it outwards, moreover, the expanding universe is expanding into this vast empty space. Have you read Lyall Watson "Super Nature" ?

More follows. If you want.

Beyond the edge of the Universe is of course the Last of The Shining Stars - more space, the space just goes on forever and ever amen. you may come up to a new universe if you keep going, it will appear as a glimmering start which get bigger and more of them etc, then make you way into the new universe and try to find our solar system and current Earth time, if you do and they coincide then the Universe is the start of Main Street in Pleasantville. you have to have watched Pleasantville, (the one where they go into the telly.)

[AirRabbit]

The universe is expanding into an infinite space, this space consists of nothing. It is not a medium, therefore there is nothing that woul;d puysh it outwards, moreover, the expanding universe is expanding into this vast empty space.
Beyond the edge of the Universe is of course the Last of The Shining Stars - more space, the space just goes on forever and ever...

My point is that there is "space" that exists between what we know as galaxies, stars, and planets... right? Space ... where nothing else is ... right? Wouldn't you call that "vast empty space?" Sure, it has some 'stuff' scattered around, but surely most of it is empty space ... right? If that is true, then what is it that the universe is expanding into? You say it is expanding into "more space." What's the difference between that "more space" and the space that currently exists between what we know as galaxies, stars, and planets? And ... if it is the same kind of "space" how would one know where one "space" ends and another "space" begins? If there is no difference between the two "spaces" isn't that the same thing as saying they are the same "space?" If there is a difference between the two kinds of "space," what do you suppose that difference is - how do you describe the difference between nothing and nothing?

And I still go back to one of my original questions ... if there was this "big bang" that started scattering all this "stuff" around what we call "space," where did all that "stuff" come from initially? And ... if there wasn't any "stuff" to begin with - what would be the difference between the area into which all that "stuff" originally exploded and the "space" into which all that "stuff" is now expanding?

[Harmattan96]

And ... if there wasn't any "stuff" to begin with - what would be the difference between the area into which all that "stuff" originally exploded and the "space" into which all that "stuff" is now expanding?

You mean to ask about the difference between empty space and populated space? That brings another question. If you are to follow the "boom theory" how do we go about explaining the vast emptiness of deep space in between galaxies? If it all comes from a single point of origin, and still considering that gravitational attraction of some larger bodies will bend trajectories, it still doesn't account for an awful lot of emptiness in between some fairly dense areas. Apparently our black holes do not come close to harnessing the power of whatever lies at the center of a single galaxy. That center manages to bond solar systems together without crushing them. One last question, and noting that we don't care about north and south hemispheres in space, who got to decide about the rotational direction of galaxies? My little finger tells me it isn't Corriolis, even though the initial force is an outward propulsion, everyone made a right turn on it's way out the center. Time to look into fractal equations maybe.

[Fast Jet]

My point is that there is "space" that exists between what we know as galaxies, stars, and planets... right? Space ... where nothing else is ... right? Wouldn't you call that "vast empty space?" Sure, it has some 'stuff' scattered around, but surely most of it is empty space ... right? If that is true, then what is it that the universe is expanding into? You say it is expanding into "more space." What's the difference between that "more space" and the space that currently exists between what we know as galaxies, stars, and planets? And ... if it is the same kind of "space" how would one know where one "space" ends and another "space" begins? If there is no difference between the two "spaces" isn't that the same thing as saying they are the same "space?" If there is a difference between the two kinds of "space," what do you suppose that difference is - how do you describe the difference between nothing and nothing?

And I still go back to one of my original questions ... if there was this "big bang" that started scattering all this "stuff" around what we call "space," where did all that "stuff" come from initially? And ... if there wasn't any "stuff" to begin with - what would be the difference between the area into which all that "stuff" originally exploded and the "space" into which all that "stuff" is now expanding?

Thank you for your question: In fairness Mr. Rabbit you are adding questions now, which is not a bad thing. The space which I think we perceive as the same thing which is: It is nothing. When you want nothing, you have got empty space.

Lets take the sky - a bad example. Now send up a flash gun thing, the one they use to alert ships and things. . . a pyrotechnic, we gottem in aviation right. Now, when the pyro tec thing blows up in the sky it blasts outwards instead of space you have sky.

Now, lets just take everything out of the universe, except the space. Look, its all dark and black, ok, not difficult. Now, you can put anything in there, a car, a spacrship a boat, the Titanic or a Macdonalds. But instead, lets put in a Big Bang.

BOOM !

Now, all this S T U F F is going to blow outwards into all this E M P T Y S P A C E attempting to F I L L I T U P if you like. hardly possible as space S P A C E goes on forever, it is nothingness, there is nothing there, it is an empty void, its black as there is no light. It only did not exiast before the big bang for the sole reason that we were not here to perceive it, however it is/was there - ask an astronaut.

Okay, back to your question of the rotation direction of the galaxies. If you look you will see that some galaxies rotate to the right and some to the left. If you go to a galaxy and go around the other side then the galaxy will rotate the other way - logically. If a frizzbee is turning clockwise when viewed from above it will appear to turn anti clok when viewed from. . below.

There are billions of Galxies, big ones, small ones, baby ones old ones, there are galaxies billions and billions of light years away - there is a helluva lot of distance in the present universe. It covers a lot of space. so much so that you would assume that it went on forever. You may well be right.

All of my stuff is "to my best knowledge and belief" - I got chopped on that point by the Head of Astrophysics at the London University in about 5 mins.

You wanna get a book called UNIVERSE by DK publishing. There are loads of books around. You may be able to piece together your own theories and or understanding(s).

Back to your latest question - at the Point of Singularity i.e., the time before the Big Bang, it is thought that there was energy and other sub-atomic physical stuff but not exactly matter not solid. Then when these chemicals and gases sort of mingled, an explosion occured and all this energy went ballistic and formed into matter (gasses) then back to energy again, some weird stages involved enrgy to matter and back to energy - I guess you could do that simply by lighting a newspaper (don`t try this in First)

Anyway, it all congealed and got materialistic. The temperature which was massive in the beginnig started to cool down to around 5,000+ degrees C. We are coming into our era now and the formation of atoms, galaxies and the like.

I don`t share your view with different Spaces, although it is a popular view. Obviously space between a couple of cosmic dust stella nurseries is full of precisely that and again we are talkin g massive light years across in the 50, 60, billion light year ball park - as a minimum. But I contest that Space in its purest sense (i.e. with nothing in it is Space. It is merely empty space - except in mopst cases on Earth an empty space means at lease filled with air or the outlines painted on the Parking Lot tarmac.

So, the space that exists between galaxies is the SAME space that exists beyond all matter i.e., at the edges of the Universe. The edge of the universe in kind of difficult to track down for a number of reasons. 1/. It is simply miles away, I mean way way ancient - inexplicably far away and worse still 2/. it is expanding and believe me over that last 100 billion years or so it has got a fair crack on - so to catch up with the fastes stuff you are going to need much power and speed.

If the Speed of light is a Constant. Then a speed of twice the speed of light would do, but faster is better, lest you/we/ pilots die of old age.

When you get there by the way, at the edge of the universe and beyond then you will have nothing, just empty space where there exists not even atoms or even radiation or electromagnetic radiowaves. Cold, dark and just waiting for the next expanding universe - not a MacDonalds in sight, tough times! You would want to come back to Earth.

Before the Big Poom or the creation of the blip dot thing called the universe. . ? I have not idea what existed before this unless you say it was God, but in that case, the next question is where did God come from?

However, back to my original theory, it could have been that this sub atomic particle and pre electromagnetic . . . .state was around in limbo forever and ever ahmen and that even when this lot has all burnt out (i.e., the Universe) there will be some stuff left to create a whole new poom.

Bringing it all into relative reality and seriousness though, the masses of stuff that is going on out there in the way of the creation of stars galaxies and other solar systems and planets is HUGE and the didtances involved to get to their areas of space and the distances they cover in their sizes is massive - thank God for Hubble.

As for `lil ol Earthy, the most beautiful place in the universe (to the best of my knowledge) and all we want to do with this jewel is blow it up and kill people, if not they will blow us up and kill us. Weird world!?!

So, Earth as you know rotates, has go a wobble and a slant tilt to the sun affording livable climates and seasons. Then we have the moon which keeps us in orbit around the sun and keeps us stable. Far off into near space we have one of our planets I think its Jupiter which acts like a Security Guard and defends us agains loads of Asteroids and Meteors and the like. We also have a sun which is at just the right age, the right temperature, the right everything to give us just the right amount of heat for life. We also have a myriad of chemicals which produce life on Earth at. .. just the right quantity and consistancy - we also have the perfect amount of gasses and the right combination of breathable gas AIR consisting of just the right amount of Oxygen 21% plus a load of Nitrogen 70+% and all the other stuff,like Argon, etc., etc., etc.

So, either it is one precise God that put us up here and boy did he ever love us for he created all this stuff, so that we could stare up and look at it. He not only gave us life but also something to keep us entertained for the reat of our days - the universe.

Or, the whole thing is a biological accident. A good time to decide which it is, is when you have just won enough on the lottery to pay for flight training. Personally I prefer God - as when in the poo, he always comes up trumps - that includes fuel with extended logetivity, socked in Rwys which develop all the nines below a thousand feet, ice that does not freeze, and shafts of light through split clouds shining on a most suitable landing area - or a whole sky of Catellanus that you can see but never reveal, for no-one would believe you. How about snow showers in the middle of July at 52 degrees North. . ? for example.

Here, Gordon Brown (our Prime Minister of the UK) asked why 17,500 UK pilot had gone for FAA licences. . . ?

well, if I had a billion years I could sit here and tell him why. Love ya. Next question please.

[Fast Jet]

You mean to ask about the difference between empty space and populated space? That brings another question. If you are to follow the "boom theory" how do we go about explaining the vast emptiness of deep space in between galaxies? If it all comes from a single point of origin, and still considering that gravitational attraction of some larger bodies will bend trajectories, it still doesn't account for an awful lot of emptiness in between some fairly dense areas. Apparently our black holes do not come close to harnessing the power of whatever lies at the center of a single galaxy. That center manages to bond solar systems together without crushing them. One last question, and noting that we don't care about north and south hemispheres in space, who got to decide about the rotational direction of galaxies? My little finger tells me it isn't Corriolis, even though the initial force is an outward propulsion, everyone made a right turn on it's way out the center. Time to look into fractal equations maybe.

Fractional Equations? Or maybe Geo, gee, oh God what is the name. . . Geometry, thats it Geometric -

gottit! Spherical Geometry!!!!!!

perhaps? Love talking to ya!

[AirRabbit]

You keep talking about this "boom theory" or "big bang theory" ... what I want to know is ... if there was such an explosion / boom / bang that began to scatter all sorts of "stuff" around, where did all that "stuff" come from in the first place ... and in the second place, what made it go "bang" or "boom?"

And, FastJet, if I'm understanding you correctly, you no longer believe that "the universe" is expanding - but rather you believe the material contained in the universe is what is expanding - or, rather, becoming farther apart from its "neighbor" material ... is that correct? If that IS correct, then you subscribe to the philosophy that "the universe" has no boundary ... no edge ... right?

I'm not sure why you insist on trying to explain to me the idea of what happens to matter at the center of an explosion. I believe I understand that. What I'm questioning is whether or not you believe that you can "trace back" the trajectories of these particles of material (planets, galaxies, etc.) to determine the origin of that particle - I think someone here said that would be the location of the true "center" of the universe. I'm suggesting that this would be impossible due to the fact that matter attracts matter ... and that attraction would have "bent" the trajectories of the various particles of material - based on the mass of the particle and the distance to other particles (and, of course, their relative mass). Without knowing what "bend" resulted, you'd never be able to "trace back" its path to its origin.

And, whenever we get past this idea of finding the "center," or the origin of the universe, I have a few questions regarding your expression of how some of this matter (material) evolved into life.

[Fast Jet]

You keep talking about this "boom theory" or "big bang theory" ... what I want to know is ... if there was such an explosion / boom / bang that began to scatter all sorts of "stuff" around, where did all that "stuff" come from in the first place ... and in the second place, what made it go "bang" or "boom?"

And, FastJet, if I'm understanding you correctly, you no longer believe that "the universe" is expanding - but rather you believe the material contained in the universe is what is expanding - or, rather, becoming farther apart from its "neighbor" material ... is that correct? If that IS correct, then you subscribe to the philosophy that "the universe" has no boundary ... no edge ... right?

I'm not sure why you insist on trying to explain to me the idea of what happens to matter at the center of an explosion. I believe I understand that. What I'm questioning is whether or not you believe that you can "trace back" the trajectories of these particles of material (planets, galaxies, etc.) to determine the origin of that particle - I think someone here said that would be the location of the true "center" of the universe. I'm suggesting that this would be impossible due to the fact that matter attracts matter ... and that attraction would have "bent" the trajectories of the various particles of material - based on the mass of the particle and the distance to other particles (and, of course, their relative mass). Without knowing what "bend" resulted, you'd never be able to "trace back" its path to its origin.

And, whenever we get past this idea of finding the "center," or the origin of the universe, I have a few questions regarding your expression of how some of this matter (material) evolved into life.

Lover yer questions, Mr. Rabbit. (Did you get the music I sent to you?)

Yeh, cool, obviously a lot of stuff is going to be affected by other more massive stuff and attracted to wards it. Yea, indeed they can spot the areas of the Big Bang from their telescopes which is also kind of uncanny as if light bends then the actual position (albeit millions of years ago) then the supposed position would be out by the curvature of light. My point here is that a lot of the stuff of the universe went on its merry way and within the universe as you clearly state stuff was attracted to other stuff, collisions happened and all sort of banging and shoving and re-creation of other matter given the right chemicals and minerals and heat and energy and chemical reactions - in a massively powerful way - this is a POWER driven universe and it is very busy and active up there, as you know. the Bang is / was so massive that most of the physical stuff of matter whether in the form of galaxies or stella development or just planets sped off on there own trajectory - subject to any out siode attraction - or in some cases not affect by it, and there is a general expansion, overall, of a lot of or a majority of the matter.

going back to the Big Bang, for want of a better theory. We get, the bang. Prior to the bang something sparked of the explosion when it was coupled with what was already here. Prior to the Big Bang stuff had been compressed and mixed up and messed about through gravity of its components and inherent chemical reaction of the chemicals or elements and gases formed from clouds of gases and elements and protons and neutrons and things - these had become attracted to each other from energies. There are +ive energies and negative energies and differenig pressures and temperatures.
swimming about in a mass of space called nothing=null=empty space - there is no up, down, right left, back forth or movement as there is nothing relative to move to - so if you float in this nothingness and flick the switc h on your space-pack then you would not move - if though you had an INS in your pocket then the INS would take your TP temp position and display a groubnd speed and there fore over time you would have covered x miles in outer space.

So, all this stuff is from outerspace, floating aimlessly, randomly energies against energies prior to the formation of atoms, and protons and nuetrons - this would put us approximately prior to the Big Bang somewhere about the point of Singularity - with regard to other distint dimensions, there are supposedly about nine, there for the difference between one dimension and another and any affect or attraction between dimensions could have played apart. to enter other dimensions would need a form of space travel or energy manipulation as of yet uncharted by mankind.

Mankind will continue to fill libraries in his frustrated efforts to ascertain his position in life.

Unless he can cast a manageable link across dimensions, develop travel at 250,000 time the speed of light, enter and exit wormholes or transit from this dimension to another, then it is unlikely given the resources available to man in the way of energy that he will be able to answer a lot of these questions for the foreseeable future unles we can develop the speed to travel or alternately re-create what was using the chmicals and various energies to manipulate the atoms, protons, nuetrons elements, gases and the ability to change stuff from energy to mass and vice versa.

but, Solar system wiae, we have got eons to survive over here in the Solar system. Eventually, however, its all going to fixxle out, our solar system has a life span, the sun does and hopefully we should have nipped off the planet and basically found another one and moved in with parking lots built and a MacDonalds right next to the Galactic Movie theatre.

To be spread around the Galaxy would be a considerable achievent, after all, gnats, don`t have to cloud in the same area, they could just fly off and explore the rest of the earth and even climb higher and explore the sky - albeit flattened against the windscreen of a C152. If we learn the chmiv=cal and mineral combinations of the bit after the point of singularity and just prior to the big Bang then we could re-create, re-construct our own `lil Big Bang, with a high possibility of blowing ourselves to oblivion having created a new universe within this one, which would simply mean more stars and galaxies expanding, into this ever outward and onward universe. Of course all this is theory, I just prefer the simplest argument which fows down the path of lesser resistance or greater street cred. Its just my opinion.

One thing which did make me seat up and wonder, was = if we COULD travel at 250,000 times the speed of light then in one hour we have covered, you do the arith. ..

My problem here is = If we travelled for one year at 250,000 time the speed of light then we have covered 250,000 light years, which is enough to cover a lot of space and see what going on just beyond our galaxie say, by about 100,000 light year. Now, say we came back taking one year travelling at 250,000 time the speed of light, then despite my theory of REAL time, I am afraid that the Earth could well be 500,000 years older - try finding your own apartment after 500,000 years.
"well I`m sorry Mr. Fast Jet, you know how things are - this has been an interGalactic space station now for the last century - " "but I own the land on which you are sitting. . ." "well there is nothing in our records to show any. . . "
"Look!!, it was only 500,000 years ago, there must be something on your desk or in your filing cabinet that says I`m the owner. . . ?!?!" "shissh, ya can`t get the staff. nowadays. . . "

And, all in all - we, Einstien, you, me, Harmattan, could all be being taken for a ride.

God, might just have it when he says forever and ever Amen. Because, it is a valid theory that all and everything is derived from that which was past, from that which past before and the there has always been SOMETHING and that whatever we look at or analyse, it started off beyond all beyond, for ever and ever back not to a point bu from the past of the past of the past. If, this is precisely true then all and everuything is a biological accident or process and is the Continuum we cannot see or accept, for if it were so that all has forever existed and we knew it, then joy would be to us all.



Amen.

[AirRabbit]

Prior to the bang something sparked of the explosion when it was coupled with what was already here. Prior to the Big Bang stuff had been compressed and mixed up and messed about through gravity of its components and inherent chemical reaction of the chemicals or elements and gases formed from clouds of gases and elements and protons and neutrons and things - these had become attracted to each other from energies. There are +ive energies and negative energies and differenig pressures and temperatures.

Let me try one more time. You say "something sparked (off) the explosion when it was coupled with what was already here." My 2 questions are - 1) what was it that sparked the explosion? And 2) where did the stuff that was "already here" come from?

[Fast Jet]

Let me try one more time. You say "something sparked (off) the explosion when it was coupled with what was already here." My 2 questions are - 1) what was it that sparked the explosion? And 2) where did the stuff that was "already here" come from?

Hi, ok, I`ve got the answer here believe it or not - this `aint gonna be "Learn to Play Guitar Like Jimmy Hendrix in just 5 minutes. The book it is in, is not here, I have left a trail of "universe books behind me trying to find the bit you want - which, I guess must be quite interesting, after all we are talking about the point of singularity - give me another shot and I`ll get it for you, stand by. I`ll give you all the names of the stuff and stuff, but briefly its stuff like cosmic dust and nebulae of gases and dust and these interact and during this chemico-electromagnetic . . . fusion (or is it fission?) yeh, I`ll go for fission - maybe, and all sorts of stuff with Nutrinos and the like - I`ll go look. . . . back soon. ... this lifetime...