Atheists don't believe in God or gods but they have no alternative theories that make sense...

[Karl Rand]

And you people are terrified of the possibility that a higher power does not exist and that you are responsible for your own lives.

Guess what, Moron? Having a creator and God doesn't absolve you of responsibility, it INCREASES it! If you ever actually READ the Bible or any other religious doctrine, jackass, you'd know that they all place responsibility for your lives and actions squarely in the hands of the individual. "God" doesn't "run" your life, he is who sets the standards of behavior and morality which you must live up to and answer for. But the responsibility is YOURS. If you didn't have your head so far up your puckered ass, you'd understand that one of the reasons why autocratic atheistic states always fight to destroy churches and religion in their societies was because by denying God, it frees them to do as they please as the highest authority over people and to force their people to worship and be led by THEM over anything else. If there is anywhere a person has the LEAST personal responsibility, it is in the exact kind of socialistic, godless, state-controlled world you live for.

Dear Thermionic Twit, and do tell us, if we accept your theory, exactly what Christ suffered and died for?

 

[toobfreak]

And you people are terrified of the possibility that a higher power does not exist and that you are responsible for your own lives.

Guess what, Moron? Having a creator and God doesn't absolve you of responsibility, it INCREASES it! If you ever actually READ the Bible or any other religious doctrine, jackass, you'd know that they all place responsibility for your lives and actions squarely in the hands of the individual. "God" doesn't "run" your life, he is who sets the standards of behavior and morality which you must live up to and answer for. But the responsibility is YOURS. If you didn't have your head so far up your puckered ass, you'd understand that one of the reasons why autocratic atheistic states always fight to destroy churches and religion in their societies was because by denying God, it frees them to do as they please as the highest authority over people and to force their people to worship and be led by THEM over anything else. If there is anywhere a person has the LEAST personal responsibility, it is in the exact kind of socialistic, godless, state-controlled world you live for.

Dear Thermionic Twit, and do tell us, if we accept your theory, exactly what Christ suffered and died for?

Thermionic Twit, I like that. I'll take a good space charge over a semiconductor junction barrier any day for realistic VB audio. BTW, I have LOTS and LOTS of bipolar transistors in my rig supporting all those great tubes! Solid state power amps do bass below 80 cycles just great, and transistors make great switches for computers and stuff. Otherwise they ain't worth shit.

 

[Karl Rand]

Way off topic but I’ll indulge you this time. What you say would be true 30 years ago but no longer is. By the way, I run both SS and thermionic in separate rigs with the exception the valve rig is supported below 70hz by two Velodyine DD15’s which have their own internal SS amplification.
Others reading this will be wondering what on earth this has to do with God or Gods but let’s not tell them, they’ll really think we're mad if we do. By the way, what’s ‘VB’ audio?

 

[ding]

No it wouldn't to either observer.

Wrong. It would appear to us that both energy and negative energy were created, with no net energy change.

Dude, you really should not comment again until you read a cosmology article written after 1995 or so.

Neither positive nor negative energy can be created.
If energy and negative energy were actually created, as you falsely claim, then there would be a net energy change even if equal amounts of each were created keeping them in BALANCE! Instead of energy consider weights on a balance scale. If you add equal amounts of weight to both sides of the scale, the scale remains in BALANCE but the total weight balanced INCREASED.
Do you finally see how STUPID your argument is?

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[ding]

No it wouldn't to either observer.

Wrong. It would appear to us that both energy and negative energy were created, with no net energy change.

Dude, you really should not comment again until you read a cosmology article written after 1995 or so.

Neither positive nor negative energy can be created.
If energy and negative energy were actually created, as you falsely claim, then there would be a net energy change even if equal amounts of each were created keeping them in BALANCE! Instead of energy consider weights on a balance scale. If you add equal amounts of weight to both sides of the scale, the scale remains in BALANCE but the total weight balanced INCREASED.
Do you finally see how STUPID your argument is?

 

[toobfreak]

Way off topic but I’ll indulge you this time. What you say would be true 30 years ago but no longer is.

That's why there is like dozens of high-end companies out there still making tube gear for the best of the very best? What you say is probably true in the consumer market. I don't run consumer gear. I only use professional gear and stuff I personally designed, modified or built myself and believe me, for $2000, I can build that $15,000 amp you'll never hear. Then multiply that by 5 speakers per channel in three cabinets per channel run by 6 power amps putting out 3,000 watts and a whole lot other.

Others reading this will be wondering what on earth this has to do with God or Gods but let’s not tell them, they’ll really think we're mad if we do.

But it DOES have everything to do with God. Believe me, I see him every time I turn on my system (turning it on involves 17 steps). We dance together.

By the way, what’s ‘VB’ audio?

Voice Band. Not an entirely appropriate term borrowed from the telecom industry in the context I used it in, but considering my system goes down flat to about 10-12 cycles (definitely below 15), an octave below audibility, I thought it useful enough.

Most consumer gear that claims 20 or 30 cycles +/- 3 dB is really down like 10-15 dB when I measure it. Hard to imagine having bass that really IS flat more or less (within 2-3 dB) from 100 cycles all the way down to nearly DC. It hits you in your chest and stops your heart. BTW, my system has 45 amp service to draw from on a 60 amp feed. I know you understand what that means.

 

[toobfreak]

Way off topic but I’ll indulge you this time. What you say would be true 30 years ago but no longer is.

That's why there is like dozens of high-end companies out there still making tube gear for the best of the very best? What you say is probably true in the consumer market. I don't run consumer gear. I only use professional gear and stuff I personally designed, modified or built myself and believe me, for $2000, I can build that $15,000 amp you'll never hear. Then multiply that by 5 speakers per channel in three cabinets per channel run by 6 power amps putting out 3,000 watts and a whole lot other.

Others reading this will be wondering what on earth this has to do with God or Gods but let’s not tell them, they’ll really think we're mad if we do.

But it DOES have everything to do with God. Believe me, I see him every time I turn on my system (turning it on involves 17 steps). We dance together.

By the way, what’s ‘VB’ audio?

Voice Band. Not an entirely appropriate term borrowed from the telecom industry in the context I used it in, but considering my system goes down flat to about 10-12 cycles (definitely below 15), an octave below audibility, I thought it useful enough.

Most consumer gear that claims 20 or 30 cycles +/- 3 dB is really down like 10-15 dB when I measure it. Hard to imagine having bass that really IS flat more or less (within 2-3 dB) from 100 cycles all the way down to nearly DC. It hits you in your chest and stops your heart. BTW, my system has 45 amp service to draw from on a 60 amp feed. I know you understand what that means.

It'll make a believer out of the strictest atheist out there everytime.

 

[Karl Rand]

Way off topic but I’ll indulge you this time. What you say would be true 30 years ago but no longer is.

That's why there is like dozens of high-end companies out there still making tube gear for the best of the very best? What you say is probably true in the consumer market. I don't run consumer gear. I only use professional gear and stuff I personally designed, modified or built myself and believe me, for $2000, I can build that $15,000 amp you'll never hear. Then multiply that by 5 speakers per channel in three cabinets per channel run by 6 power amps putting out 3,000 watts and a whole lot other.

Others reading this will be wondering what on earth this has to do with God or Gods but let’s not tell them, they’ll really think we're mad if we do.

But it DOES have everything to do with God. Believe me, I see him every time I turn on my system (turning it on involves 17 steps). We dance together.

By the way, what’s ‘VB’ audio?

Voice Band. Not an entirely appropriate term borrowed from the telecom industry in the context I used it in, but considering my system goes down flat to about 10-12 cycles (definitely below 15), an octave below audibility, I thought it useful enough.

Most consumer gear that claims 20 or 30 cycles +/- 3 dB is really down like 10-15 dB when I measure it. Hard to imagine having bass that really IS flat more or less (within 2-3 dB) from 100 cycles all the way down to nearly DC. It hits you in your chest and stops your heart. BTW, my system has 45 amp service to draw from on a 60 amp feed. I know you understand what that means.

Those of you with no interest in what was once termed ‘hi-fidelity’ may tune out.

Yes, I understand all about 45 amp mains. Mine is fed from a large bank of solar charged batteries under the house. The local supply wasn’t so bad as I’m out in the sticks with only one transformer between me and the 2000w line passing my property. I had all the solar and battery gear before moving here so it came with me.
This is getting so far off topic I’ll try not to extend the discussion too far apart from saying the term ‘professional gear’ can have many meanings, not all of them positive.
I’m sure you can build for $2000 an amp ( if I read you correctly) that may sound as good as a $15,000 (retail?) amp ‘I’ll never hear’. I’ll just have to take your word for it and continue slumming it with my Zanden Audio Systems 9600 Mk2’s above 70Hz and the nasty solid state stuff inside my subs below that as I’m useless with a soldering iron and have next to no understanding the technical aspects of circuitry. Besides, I have an absolute aversion to tweaking apart from running my LP’s over a ultrasonic cleaning machine. Yes, I still play LP’s as I have accumulated 11,547 of them at last count, many of them never re-released in any other format. Besides, I enjoy the entire luddite ritual involved in playing them.

And no, none of my gear has me seeing God even though states of ecstasy are unavoidable. I’m not a believer having had all belief burnt out of me by personal experiences when studying the pipe organ as a young thing in a catholic cathedral

Now lets get back to all those alternative atheist theories that make no sense.

 

[edthecynic]

No it wouldn't to either observer.

Wrong. It would appear to us that both energy and negative energy were created, with no net energy change.

Dude, you really should not comment again until you read a cosmology article written after 1995 or so.

Neither positive nor negative energy can be created.
If energy and negative energy were actually created, as you falsely claim, then there would be a net energy change even if equal amounts of each were created keeping them in BALANCE! Instead of energy consider weights on a balance scale. If you add equal amounts of weight to both sides of the scale, the scale remains in BALANCE but the total weight balanced INCREASED.
Do you finally see how STUPID your argument is?

In a closed universe ...

The universe is not a closed system!

 

[Karl Rand]

The universe is not a closed system!

Maybe not but I’d love to know where your measuring equipment is located to find out.

 

[ding]

No it wouldn't to either observer.

Wrong. It would appear to us that both energy and negative energy were created, with no net energy change.

Dude, you really should not comment again until you read a cosmology article written after 1995 or so.

Neither positive nor negative energy can be created.
If energy and negative energy were actually created, as you falsely claim, then there would be a net energy change even if equal amounts of each were created keeping them in BALANCE! Instead of energy consider weights on a balance scale. If you add equal amounts of weight to both sides of the scale, the scale remains in BALANCE but the total weight balanced INCREASED.
Do you finally see how STUPID your argument is?

In a closed universe ...

The universe is not a closed system!

It is an isolated system. So you still lose.

The physical universe is an isolated system; a closed thermos bottle is essentially an isolated system (though its insulation is not perfect). Heat can be transferred between open systems and between closed systems, but not between isolated systems.

Thermodynamic systems

 

[edthecynic]

In a closed universe ...

The universe is not a closed system!

Maybe not but I’d love to know where your measuring equipment is located to find out.

Observations using the Hubble and Chandra space telescopes have shown that rather than the matter of the universe slowing down, the expansion of the universe is accelerating indicating a source of dark energy feeding the acceleration of matter.

 

[edthecynic]

No it wouldn't to either observer.

Wrong. It would appear to us that both energy and negative energy were created, with no net energy change.

Dude, you really should not comment again until you read a cosmology article written after 1995 or so.

Neither positive nor negative energy can be created.
If energy and negative energy were actually created, as you falsely claim, then there would be a net energy change even if equal amounts of each were created keeping them in BALANCE! Instead of energy consider weights on a balance scale. If you add equal amounts of weight to both sides of the scale, the scale remains in BALANCE but the total weight balanced INCREASED.
Do you finally see how STUPID your argument is?

In a closed universe ...

The universe is not a closed system!

It is an isolated system. So you still lose.

Nope, an isolated or closed system would be slowing down, but the observed and measured acceleration of the expansion of the universe indicates it is an OPEN system.

 

[Karl Rand]

In a closed universe ...

The universe is not a closed system!

Maybe not but I’d love to know where your measuring equipment is located to find out.

Observations using the Hubble and Chandra space telescopes have shown that rather than the matter of the universe slowing down, the expansion of the universe is accelerating indicating a source of dark energy feeding the acceleration of matter.

ANone of the proves anything about a closed or open system . Both closed and open systems are able to expand unless you have proof a total vacuum/nothingness is able to exernt a counterforce putting an end to that expansion.

 

[edthecynic]

In a closed universe ...

The universe is not a closed system!

Maybe not but I’d love to know where your measuring equipment is located to find out.

Observations using the Hubble and Chandra space telescopes have shown that rather than the matter of the universe slowing down, the expansion of the universe is accelerating indicating a source of dark energy feeding the acceleration of matter.

ANone of the proves anything about a closed or open system . Both closed and open systems are able to expand unless you have proof a total vacuum/nothingness is able to exernt a counterforce putting an end to that expansion.

Ahhhh, the dumb act again. Obviously it is not the expansion that is the proof I was discussing, but you desperately need a deflection.

In a closed or isolated universe the expansion of the universe should be slowing down, but observations have measured an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. That means the universe is NOT an isolated or closed system. Some unknown energy source, which we are calling dark energy until we figure out what it is, is doing the accelerating.

 

[Karl Rand]

Ahhhh, the dumb act again. Obviously it is not the expansion that is the proof I was discussing, but you desperately need a deflection.
In a closed or isolated universe the expansion of the universe should be slowing down, but observations have measured an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. That means the universe is NOT an isolated or closed system. Some unknown energy source, which we are calling dark energy until we figure out what it is, is doing the accelerating.

Given the time frames involved and my limited time on earth I wonder how or why I would ever become desperate or need to deflect any particular cosmological theory.
My view is based on an objection to our species obvious need for absolute certainty. Mortality, the nature of the universe or whatever. Science on the other hand has at it’s foundation the idea all theory is open to modification when and if new evidence is obtained. Claims as to the limits or lack of limits of the universe need to accept the fact all the evidence is not yet in.
What evidence we have does suggest an open system but no more.
However, If as you claim the universe is fully open all the evidence will never be in unless our powers of observation somehow become infinite.

 

[Karl Rand]

Ahhhh, the dumb act again. Obviously it is not the expansion that is the proof I was discussing, but you desperately need a deflection.
In a closed or isolated universe the expansion of the universe should be slowing down, but observations have measured an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. That means the universe is NOT an isolated or closed system. Some unknown energy source, which we are calling dark energy until we figure out what it is, is doing the accelerating.

Given the time frames involved and my limited time on earth I wonder how or why I would ever become desperate in needing to deflect any particular cosmological theory.
My view is based on an objection to our species obvious need for absolute certainty. Science on the other hand has at it’s foundation the idea all theory is open to modification when and if new evidence is obtained. Claims as to the limits or lack of limits of the universe need to accept the fact all the evidence is not yet in. What evidence we have does suggest an open system but no more.
However, If as you claim the universe is fully open all the evidence will never be in unless our powers of observation somehow become infinite.
Or to put is another way my uneasiness about the first Friedmann equation , based on 'what is in the universe', tells us how the expansion rate will change over time assumes we know exactly what is in the universe. Along with the open universe assertion should come a warning any claim we can know all that is in the universe is overly ambitious to say the least. And that’s before we get into the vext question of all that missing anti-matter/dark matter or whatever you want to call it.[/QUOTE]

 

[ding]

Wrong. It would appear to us that both energy and negative energy were created, with no net energy change.

Dude, you really should not comment again until you read a cosmology article written after 1995 or so.

Neither positive nor negative energy can be created.
If energy and negative energy were actually created, as you falsely claim, then there would be a net energy change even if equal amounts of each were created keeping them in BALANCE! Instead of energy consider weights on a balance scale. If you add equal amounts of weight to both sides of the scale, the scale remains in BALANCE but the total weight balanced INCREASED.
Do you finally see how STUPID your argument is?

In a closed universe ...

The universe is not a closed system!

It is an isolated system. So you still lose.

Nope, an isolated or closed system would be slowing down, but the observed and measured acceleration of the expansion of the universe indicates it is an OPEN system.

The current scientific consensus of most cosmologists is that the ultimate fate of the universe depends on its overall shape, how much dark energy it contains, and on the equation of state which determines how the dark energy density responds to the expansion of the universe. So, no. It does not require an open system.

Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia

WMAP- Fate of the Universe

But regardless of that, we know it had a beginning. So it has to be an isolated system.

 

[toobfreak]

Yes, I understand all about 45 amp mains. Mine is fed from a large bank of solar charged batteries under the house. The local supply wasn’t so bad as I’m out in the sticks with only one transformer between me and the 2000w line passing my property. I had all the solar and battery gear before moving here so it came with me.

Not a bad idea that I might have to consider someday. I employ a lot of power conditioning after the fact.

This is getting so far off topic I’ll try not to extend the discussion too far apart from saying the term ‘professional gear’ can have many meanings, not all of them positive.

Perhaps the better term should have been "Pro Sound;" sure it has its best and worst (as does consumer hi-fi), but at its heart, the idea that it must really deliver the goods to the end user (all go and no show) rather than a lot of silly voodoo for drinkers of the purple koolaid is key, as after all, the ultimate goal is to achieve the sound of the original live performance (usually delivered by pro sound gear) and not some engineer's fixed idea of the boxed sound of it.

I’m sure you can build for $2000 an amp ( if I read you correctly) that may sound as good as a $15,000 (retail?) amp ‘I’ll never hear’. I’ll just have to take your word for it and continue slumming it with my Zanden Audio Systems 9600 Mk2’s

Odd you think me a thermionic nut while buying high end pricey tube amps that go the full purple koolaid extent of believing the grain orientation of the xformer cores matters. I bet you have a ton of money invested in greatly overpriced interconnect and speaker cables as well. Me, I make most of my own. I'm sure your gear sounds really fantastic, but I eschew the term "hi-fi" as it usually implies buying "a sound" that is somehow imbued over everything one plays; my goal is to get as close as possible to the sound of the original live performance rather than the sound of Mark Levinson, which means that if the source is bad, so is the playback. The goal of most hi-fi companies is to sell you a lot of beads and rattles and good measurements on paper for low hum and SNR while bleeding its customer of all his or her money. But at least hi-fi is still far far better than an integrated Dolby 5.1 amp with sound effects for home theater which is what passes for most "stereos" these days.

One thing you might want to consider rather than hi-power full range amps driving crossover supported speakers is to bi, tri, or quad-amp your system with dedicated amplifiers for each speaker driver using a speaker that permits more than one input. That is where good pro sound crossover networks come into play.

Yes, I still play LP’s as I have accumulated 11,547 of them at last count, many of them never re-released in any other format. Besides, I enjoy the entire luddite ritual involved in playing them.

You should as the LP remains unsurpassed in absolute audio reproduction though I have found a suitable digital CD player that provides a very satisfying secondary sound source. This is where a good phono preamp is key as the preamp stage overall is the most important part of any system. This is also where I've made one of the greatest departures in my circuit design by eliminating magnets in my phono pickup as well thereby eliminating the need for RIAA equalization in the preamp. One of the greatest veiling effects masking the potential of the LP is in the magnetic hysteresis of the phono pick up.

And no, none of my gear has me seeing God.

Sorry to hear that, as that is what makes it all worthwhile to me. But then, its a lot different listening to gear when its something you both designed and made yourself rather than simply bought off a retail store shelf.

As to the ultimate nature of the universe as is being discussed now, it all exists between the cathode and grid of a Fleming Valve as a space charge, you see. Meantime, considering that I originally set out to be an astronomer before going into electrical engineering (but still teach and run an astronomy forum elsewhere), I will sit back and read the amusing ruminations and theories of the likes of edthecynic with a smile on my face.

 

[toobfreak]

The current scientific consensus of most cosmologists is that the ultimate fate of the universe depends on its overall shape, how much dark energy it contains, and on the equation of state which determines how the dark energy density responds to the expansion of the universe. So, no. It does not require an open system. But regardless of that, we know it had a beginning. So it has to be an isolated system.

Ding, I usually enjoy a lot of your posts so I will leave you with this: While Dark Matter is a given, "dark energy" is nothing but a theory to fill a gap in something we absolutely do not understand. The shape of the universe is a given, but whether or not the universe is accelerating (for now, for real, or only in our observations or not) does NOT decide whether the universe is an "open" or "closed" system. The universe has no choice but to be a closed system. And no, we do not even "know" it had a true beginning. Food for thought.