Richard Dawkins Finally Gets One Right! Whats Next, He Starts to Believe in God? Heaven Forbid!

[BlindBoo]

I think Jim is the Walrus.

Are you agreeing that any discussion of before time causes are 'magical' even if physicists engage in them?

Nice pile on, by the way.

I thought the discussion was creationism and magic (origin of life), not the Big Bang or Evolution theories.

Koo Koo Ka Choo

 

[JimBowie1958]

Congratulations on making a post with an insult in it.

Cyclic universe theories (Steinhardt, Turok) or mulitiverse theories (Greene) don't do that. They basically keep time flowing, just not in this universe. And none of them invoke God.

Cyclic universe theories are fantasy since they presume a deterministic universe that can exactly repeat itself with each cycle, but the universe is not that way. It is causal but not determined.

The multiuniverse theories violate the conservation of matter in the most obvious ways, lol, and again is mostly used for good fantasy settings. But that is all acceptable to you as it is posed in the context of science fiction and not religious fiction.

This goes back to the old Star Trek bias where even infinitely powerful being like Q and others were always presented as plausible fiction, but in any stories that had even a touch of religion to their omnipotent being it was doomed to being fraud or delusion. You suffer from this 'Q Effect' pretty harshly.

You can invoke causality at the instant of the creation of the flow of time.

But not before, as you do.

Either you misread my statement or you are just twisting it. I don't really care which, but I did not speak of 'before' time and if I did it was in error. there is no 'before or after' without time. Do you have the post number where I allegedly stated this?

This isn't rocket science. These ideas have been discussed and accepted for thousands of years.

By people who lacked the scientific data we have now. Garbage in, garbage out.

For centuries the atheists have insisted on the Steady State theory of the universe and they were totally disproven by the theistic model of a finite universe of finite duration with the proof of the Big Bang theory, which was written by a Catholic priest.

You are sadly very misinformed.

It is only with modern arrogant materialists like you that there is suddenly this insistence that the eternal must be magical,

That's the same kind of claim that's erupted all through history every time religion has gotten pushed further into the background by science.

No, your narrative is false. The Christian faith has done more to elevate and promote science, learning and literacy than all the atheistic movements combined.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I thought the discussion was creationism and magic (origin of life), not the Big Bang or Evolution theories.

Do you realize that most people who believe in evolution around the world are theists?

Do you know that the Big Bang theory was written by a Catholic priest?

 

[Skylar]

Congratulations on making a post with an insult in it.

Cyclic universe theories (Steinhardt, Turok) or mulitiverse theories (Greene) don't do that. They basically keep time flowing, just not in this universe. And none of them invoke God.

Cyclic universe theories are fantasy since they presume a deterministic universe that can exactly repeat itself with each cycle, but the universe is not that way. It is causal but not determined.

The Cyclic universe theory doesn't require an exact repeat. Merely a repeating cycle. So the specific details within each cycle can be quite different.

And we witness in the universe all the time. Cycles with variation. Go to the beach and watch the waves if you'd like a simple example.

The multiuniverse theories violate the conservation of matter in the most obvious ways, lol, and again is mostly used for good fantasy settings. But that is all acceptable to you as it is posed in the context of science fiction and not religious fiction.

How so? How is energy created or destroyed in the Multiverse theory?

Either you misread my statement or you are just twisting it. I don't really care which, but I did not speak of 'before' time and if I did it was in error. there is no 'before or after' without time. Do you have the post number where I allegedly stated this?

Without time...according to who? Remember, your offering us a series of nested assumptions. None of which are confirmed through observation.

You're using the 'what we see in the universe' standard. Which is fine. But you can't then base your entire argument on 'events' that have never been observed, ever. If you try, your own standard disproves your own argument.

So....is your standard 'what we see in the universe', or is it not?

And of course, a religious conception of 'god' and a first mover have virtually nothing to do with each other. Which has always been the weakest point in a philosophical approach to 'proving god'. As virtually none of the attributes the religious assume in god are necessary for a first mover.

 

[IsaacNewton]

cnm, atheists today are unable to understand God or really even honestly attempt to grasp the essential characteristics of God because of their fear. This fear is similar to the fear you can see in Zombie movies and TV shows, it is hilarious in a way. On Walking Dead last night, some townsmen who were so confident in challenging what they thought they understood, fellow human beings like Rick, that they had no respect for Rick and his crew, even though Rick was more dangerous to them than any zombies ever would be.

But when these townsmen were brought face to face with the zombies, whose very nature so confused and put fear into the hearts of them, they could not simply pull a knife from their belt sheath and stick it in the head as they had been told to do to 'kill' the zombie. Their minds could not rationally accept what they beheld and that inability to understand filled them with hysterical fear and powerlessness. When not around the Zombies they spoke boastfully of their abilities and they would do this or that. But when the zombie was two feet in front of them, all they had was paralysis.

Confusion and ignorance can make any of us into frozen cowards, and that is the chief characteristic today of atheists. I have know many very intelligent atheists and I never try to preach to them. I simply tell them that if they ever want to know anything about what and why I believe what I do, I would be happy to discuss the subject and answer their questions. BUT THEY NEVER ASK. They are afraid to. They fear the possibility that this God that they have defied, castigated and denounced might very well be real and so THEY REFUSE TO EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. Often times they end up spouting some of the same kind of bullshit you have in this thread. But they only do it once since I am there to engage in any rejoinder, lol.

You are frozen in fear by something you do not want to think can be real. Otherwise you would not say the stupid things you say that betray your complete ignorance about God and What He is.

The funniest thing is that even though I have gone into some considerable detail for a day off, trying to explain these things to you, you will most like give some shallow flippant response again and will take none of this to heart and to think about, your arrogance I think will prevent you from opening your mind to what you are so unable to honestly consider.

You fear all of life so you need an invisible flying daddy that has magical powers that will protect you. This is what religion is, a human mind that simply cannot leap the hurdle of knowing you are going to die. So a story telling you that your magical grandpa will protect you and you will live with him forever after death is pure cocaine for your mind.

You self medicate every single day.

 

[BlindBoo]

I thought the discussion was creationism and magic (origin of life), not the Big Bang or Evolution theories.

Do you realize that most people who believe in evolution around the world are theists?

Do you know that the Big Bang theory was written by a Catholic priest?

Do you realize that neither of those theories tackle the origin of life question?

 

[Skylar]

I thought the discussion was creationism and magic (origin of life), not the Big Bang or Evolution theories.

Do you realize that most people who believe in evolution around the world are theists?

Do you know that the Big Bang theory was written by a Catholic priest?

Do you realize that neither of those theories tackle the origin of life question?

Nope, he doesn't. Nor why.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You fear all of life so you need an invisible flying daddy that has magical powers that will protect you. This is what religion is, a human mind that simply cannot leap the hurdle of knowing you are going to die. So a story telling you that your magical grandpa will protect you and you will live with him forever after death is pure cocaine for your mind.

You self medicate every single day.

I do not fear death, but dying poorly gives me some concern.

We all die, and there is a natural aspect of it that is peaceful and fits in Nature.

I have also had experiences that defy explanation by natural means, and have heard very believable cases from others similar to my own that radically changed these peoples lives.

What I experienced was not delusion as I explored it on every angle I could imagine and come up short of explaining how I came to know and realize some things unless it was as I thought I had experienced it.

The details are not important and I am not going to share them.

But I know longer think 'bullshit' when I hear others speak of their own such experiences any more, that is certain.

There is more to this universe, dude, than your materialistic mind has imagined.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do you realize that neither of those theories tackle the origin of life question?

What is your point?

I know of some who think some kind of transpermia is likely, via astroids from past supernovas that had evolved life in some alien planet and carried a jump start to Earth. Some think that life was a divine spark, some think that it is written into the very fabric of the universe that life will evolve wherever it can.

I simply have no conclusions, because where is the evidence for such at this time?

I tend to agree with the transpermia theory, but I only think it more likely, not exclusively plausible in any way.

There is nothing about the Catholic faith or the vast majority of the Abrahamic faiths that says it literally must be XYZ. The moral/spiritual truths are the important thing, that human life has meaning and dignity, that the universe is designed to house environments that are suitable for our life form, and likely many others as well.

Where is the conflict I suspect you think is there?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I thought the discussion was creationism and magic (origin of life), not the Big Bang or Evolution theories.

Do you realize that most people who believe in evolution around the world are theists?

Do you know that the Big Bang theory was written by a Catholic priest?

Do you realize that neither of those theories tackle the origin of life question?

Nope, he doesn't. Nor why.

I simply did not see how 'creationism and magic' necessarily implied a discussion of just the origins of life.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Cyclic universe theory doesn't require an exact repeat. Merely a repeating cycle. So the specific details within each cycle can be quite different.

And we witness in the universe all the time. Cycles with variation. Go to the beach and watch the waves if you'd like a simple example.

But we know the waves on the beach are not of infinite duration, which was my original point. We know they started and that one day they will end. An eternally repeating cycle that returns to the exact same state eventually over time in exactly the same way is necessary or the possibility is introduced of a catastrophic variation that would end the universe. Given an infinite amount of time it will happen, so the cycles MUST be exactly the same.

The multiuniverse theories violate the conservation of matter in the most obvious ways, lol, and again is mostly used for good fantasy settings. But that is all acceptable to you as it is posed in the context of science fiction and not religious fiction.

How so? How is energy created or destroyed in the Multiverse theory?

Well, there are a lot of problems with MWT, starting with what exactly a split or divide is and how it happens and how are we parallel in the first place? If our universes are so 'connected' in some weird way that we split into separate universes, are both these entirely new universes? Is one the original and the other new? Did both exist prior to the split and the divided universes became cohered in some fashion then almost immediately decohered?

Why doesn't gravitational effects apply between cohered universes? Is there a change in location? What of Relativity effects, like entangled atomic particles at a time of decoherence? Is it possible that the entangled pairs are arbitrarily separated or is there just no difference at all?

It is so ambiguous in the details of what this decoherence/splitting event is and what a parallel universe that is cohered then decohered actually means that it really doesn't seem like a scientific theory but more of a prop for comic books and low brow sci fi.

Either you misread my statement or you are just twisting it. I don't really care which, but I did not speak of 'before' time and if I did it was in error. there is no 'before or after' without time. Do you have the post number where I allegedly stated this?

Without time...according to who? Remember, your offering us a series of nested assumptions. None of which are confirmed through observation.

Well, yes, it is not an observed behavior, but I think that this is where theology and philosophy can fill in some with rational speculation. Not everything outside the limits of science is irrational, or magical or merely whim. Mathematics is very real, even though it is not a natural phenomenon, it is useful to help us model natural systems. Mathematics is a good case of rational speculation that has proven useful in the real world very often and is now considered indispensable.

But yes, it is not through solely scientific and observable processes a known entity. MY faith though tells me it is known and I believe it.

You're using the 'what we see in the universe' standard. Which is fine. But you can't then base your entire argument on 'events' that have never been observed, ever. If you try, your own standard disproves your own argument.

So....is your standard 'what we see in the universe', or is it not?

No, it is that in fact not all knowledge comes from observation, but most comes from authority we trust and rational speculation that we find rational and verifiable in various ways.

And of course, a religious conception of 'god' and a first mover have virtually nothing to do with each other. Which has always been the weakest point in a philosophical approach to 'proving god'. As virtually none of the attributes the religious assume in god are necessary for a first mover.

They are not necessary qualities at all, but then those remain for OTHER philosophical lines of thought that I think work toward a sentient entity that exists outside the flow of time and began it. I think once one comes to accept the idea that there is an Eternal Creator the rest falls into place fairly easily, like a solved puzzle that all you need to do is to put the pieces in place.

 

[Skylar]

The Cyclic universe theory doesn't require an exact repeat. Merely a repeating cycle. So the specific details within each cycle can be quite different.

And we witness in the universe all the time. Cycles with variation. Go to the beach and watch the waves if you'd like a simple example.

But we know the waves on the beach are not of infinite duration, which was my original point.

Not in the post I replied to. Your argument was that cyclical universal was determined. Which it isn't, as the 'cycle with variation' model demonstrates.

Nor does a cyclical universe require infinity. The most current version of the cyclical model I'm aware of is M-theories 'colliding 'brane'' theory. Where a pair of 2 dimensional branes are periodically drawn toward each other gravitationally and collide. With the cycle being in the tens of trillions of years.

The collisions produce a big bang and pushes the branes apart again. With the 2 dimensional model (also known as the hologram model) being based on a bizarre and currently unexplained issue regarding the maximum entropy of black holes. Hawking and others established (how I have no idea) that the maximum entropy of a black hole is equal to its SURFACE area. Not its volume.

Which powerfully supports the idea of 2 dimensional projection onto 3 dimensional space. Which leads to the idea of our universe being a 2 or possibly 3 brane.

Personally, I think its a factor of all entropy occurring at the event horizon of a black hole and then progressing no further due to relativistic effects on time. The Russians call black holes 'frozen stars', as everything beyond the event horizon is locked in the same moment. With the event horizon being expressed in surface area terms rather than volume.

But what the **** do I know? I'm a physics dabbler at best. And my answer seems too obvious to have been overlooked by the professionals.

Regardless, it doesn't require an infinity of collisions. Merely a repeatable cycle of them. Anywhere from a few dozen to a few trillion would satisfy cyclic theory. And only one such collision would meet the conditions of our universe.

Worse, your running headlong into the same problem you had before. You condemn infinity....but rely on infinity. Where you reject a theory because you believe it defies our observations of physics. While your entire alternative explanation violates all the same rules. Either the violation of these rules invalidates a theory.....or it doesn't. You can't ignore your own standards. Yet you do.

We know they started and that one day they will end. An eternally repeating cycle that returns to the exact same state eventually over time in exactly the same way is necessary or the possibility is introduced of a catastrophic variation that would end the universe. Given an infinite amount of time it will happen, so the cycles MUST be exactly the same.

The cycles don't need to be eternal. And they don't need to be the same. Even using the 'infinite model', a cycle would eventually repeat exactly. But there would be trillions upon trillions of different versions between such exact 'manifestations'. And trillions upon trillions more before before such a duplicate happened again.

Meaning that the there would be a trillion to the trillionth power's different versions at the very, very least. Not just one. That's not 'deterministic'...anymore than rolling a die a few dozen times and getting the same number of pips more than once is 'deterministic'.

All of which is moot....as infinite cycles aren't necessary.

Well, there are a lot of problems with MWT, starting with what exactly a split or divide is and how it happens and how are we parallel in the first place? If our universes are so 'connected' in some weird way that we split into separate universes, are both these entirely new universes? Is one the original and the other new? Did both exist prior to the split and the divided universes became cohered in some fashion then almost immediately decohered?

There are all sorts of multiverse theories. You're referring to one of them. And the question would be...how much energy is in the multiverse? Your assumptions mandate that the energy in the observable universe is the energy in the multiverse. And by 'splitting', the quantum twin of the observable universe is pulling energy from nothing and doubling the total amount of energy.

But if the multiverse has far more energy than the observable universe then your conservation of energy problem is solved. As the energy for alternates isn't 'created'. It already exists. With the multiverse containing FAR, far more energy than exists in the observable universe.

And of course, your theory violates the conservation of energy principle as you propose it. As god 'makes' matter and energy appear. From apparently nothing. As 'formless and empty' strongly implies. So by your own standards, your theory doesn't work. You're ignoring your own standards again.

Why doesn't gravitational effects apply between cohered universes? Is there a change in location? What of Relativity effects, like entangled atomic particles at a time of decoherence? Is it possible that the entangled pairs are arbitrarily separated or is there just no difference at all?

Depends on how they interact with each other. What's the physical proximity of one version of the multiverse with another? Given that gravity travels at the speed of light, the distance between them may be larger than the projected total age of the universe. Making such interactions impossible. Multiverse theory in every variety either hypothesizes great distance between them or doesn't posit their bases of interaction. Meaning that you have your answer with distance....or multiverse doesn't posit a method of interaction to conflict with your questions.

It is so ambiguous in the details of what this decoherence/splitting event is and what a parallel universe that is cohered then decohered actually means that it really doesn't seem like a scientific theory but more of a prop for comic books and low brow sci fi.

You've got it backward. The theories themselves are based on observation. With quantum physics being the most observationally verified theory in science. I believe its accurate to something like 7 decimal places. Feynmann Diagrams are a hell of a thing.

The sci-fi version of them (Sliders, anyone?) is an oversimplified entertainment version of the very complex scientific theories. You're quoting the sci-fi versions and then condemning them for being oversimplifed. And you're right. They are. But they sci-fi version you're quoting isn't the scientific theory. Or anything really close to it.

Without time...according to who? Remember, your offering us a series of nested assumptions. None of which are confirmed through observation.

Well, yes, it is not an observed behavior, but I think that this is where theology and philosophy can fill in some with rational speculation.
[/quote]

All of which is contradicted by your own standards. Logically, your standards would apply to you too. But to hold scientific theories to a strict 'observation' standard. And then to ignore observation with your own is wildly inconsistent.

Not everything outside the limits of science is irrational, or magical or merely whim. Mathematics is very real, even though it is not a natural phenomenon, it is useful to help us model natural systems. Mathematics is a good case of rational speculation that has proven useful in the real world very often and is now considered indispensable.

But without observation and mathematics, is exceedingly difficult to differentiate the irrational from the rational. Which is what makes your process so unreliable. As there's little to nothing to support your particular variant beyond speculation.

But yes, it is not through solely scientific and observable processes a known entity. MY faith though tells me it is known and I believe it.

With faith being entirely subjective. It exists in you. And is observationally identical to imagination. There may be some qualitative difference between faith and imagination. But there's no way to tell which is which from the outside.

Worse, 'faith' produces wildly different results between people, between religions and between eras within the same religion. With 'faith' producing everything from soup kitchens to holy wars to cannablism to ancestor worship. Depending on who is 'faithing' and when.

With 'faith' almost always powerfully influenced by the cultural standards of those who claim to have it. Leaning heavily on the 'imagination' angle. For example, the Puritans, the Founders and Modern Christians.

The Puritans killed adulterers and gays.
The Founders didn't kill adulterers but did kill gays.
Modern Christians kill neither.

Did god change his mind? Or did the relativistic cultural values change the way that the faith was subjectively interpreted? I'd say the evidence overwhelmingly supports the latter. And that's the same general faith, using the same holy book, same general cultural traditions, the same geography...separated only by time. When you move between peoples, religions and tomes.....the differences become ludicrously dramatic.

Worse, most 'faith' is mutually exclusive. It can't be both Jesus and a Greek Pantheon of Gods, for example. Its either one or the other. Which means that if anyone got faith right, all others got it wrong. Which means that almost all of the faithful are self deluded into believing in fallacies, with only a lucky few blessed with correct belief. Which means that faith almost always produces fallacious results.

And that's a best case scenario. Its entirely possible that no one got it right. Or that no one is able to. Or that there's nothing to get.

Which is why faith is such a poor standard of objective understanding. As a process it is almost always wrong.

They are not necessary qualities at all, but then those remain for OTHER philosophical lines of thought that I think work toward a sentient entity that exists outside the flow of time and began it.

Such as? By far the strongest theological argument that exists is the first mover argument. Its their crown jewel. And it neither affirms nor requires *any* of attributes that theology generally applies to God. Strictly speaking, a 'first mover' doesn't even need to exist after moving first. Or be sentient. Or good. Or be capable of awareness or intelligence. Or have any power beyond moving first.

All of which your belief system requires.

Given that the philosophical basis for these additional attributes is far, far more tenuous, poorly reasoned and sustainable than the 'first mover argument', it doesn't bode well for those attributes.

 

[Skylar]

As an aside, I enjoy speculative physics with an entertainment bend. Replacing a single law of physics with another....and then trying to figure out the implications. I lack the knowledge of of applied mathematics to do any numbers based proofs. But I'm an idea person. So I like to think of 'what ifs'.

For example.....dark matter. We recognize its existence based on its gravitational effects. But we can't find any matter or energy to account for those gravitational effects. But...what if what we perceive as 'dark matter' was merely a gravity shadow from 'near' multiverses? With 'near' defined as any combination of distance or 'frequency' that allows them to interact with our universe while others that can't being 'far'.

Says who? Says me speculating. I've got jack shit to back any of it. Though speaking purely speculatively, Higgs theory posits that the gravitron (the theoretical force particle for gravity) would be one of the few particles that would be unbound by a 3 dimension brane....and would theoretically be able to travel from one to another. Where as every other particle (including hadrons, which make up us) would be trapped within whatever 3 brane that contained them.

I'm kicking around the idea of the matter and energy being able to manifest locally only. With the universe divided into quantized space/time known as 'plank space'. A minute division of time and space that is itself indivisible. A photon 'traveling' through space would then be a probability wave. When that wave enters a particular region of plank space it causes a photon to manifest in that region, ala virtual particles.

As the probability wave exits that region of plank space, the photon is reabsorbed by that region of space time, again like virtual particles...save on a longer scale of time.

The probability wave enters the adjoining region of plank space....and a completely different photon manifests in the same manner as the first, being reabsorbed as the probability wave passes. This is repeated trillions of times a second. With each photon a unique manifestation of a unique region of space-time.

Thus, what we perceive as a photon traveling through space is actually trillions of different photon manifesting on adjoining regions of plank space on the same vector separated by tiny units of time.

Meaning that as we move through space, all the matter that makes us up is manifesting locally and uniquely trillions of times a second. With the finger that exists before you push down on a given key on your keyboard being made of different particles than the finger that exists after you push down on the key.

And the entire universe being merely potential in motion, manifesting locally as it passes.

In there somewhere is why the speed of light exists, having something to do with a unit of plank/space over a unit of time. Perhaps the speed of the probability wave is limited by the minimum time necessary for a particle to manifest in plank space? Dunno. But my brain hasn't coughed it up yet.

For fun, I'm devising an entire system of physics based on the luminferous ether. With the ether in its natural state existing as a material for transmitting energy, existing at a specific density. Why? Because I've got bored bandwidth in my head that will chatter ceaselessly unless I give it a chew toy to play with.

Want something fun to chew on? Relativistic time mandates that at the speed of light, no time passes. Which means that from the perspective of a photon, its emitted and absorbed in the same instant. Even if there are billions of light years separating the object of its emission and the object of its absorption.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Skylar, those are two excellent posts and I will have to get back to you. I have to go to my physical therapy session right now.

But I enjoy this kind of discussion. Thanks!

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, those are two excellent posts and I will have to get back to you. I have to go to my physical therapy session right now.

But I enjoy this kind of discussion. Thanks!

Sure. Whenever you have the time. These are the kind of discussions that can easily handle a little digestion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Skylar, those are two excellent posts and I will have to get back to you. I have to go to my physical therapy session right now.

But I enjoy this kind of discussion. Thanks!

Sure. Whenever you have the time. These are the kind of discussions that can easily handle a little digestion.

I am now pretty darned sore from the PT, so I will respond tomorrow, God Willing.

I want to chew your comments slowly and take some time. A lot of times these kinds of discussions require me to refresh what I've read years ago or tackle something completely new. MTW may have changed since I read about it in the 90s, probably has, but I suspect many of the problems are still the same.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, those are two excellent posts and I will have to get back to you. I have to go to my physical therapy session right now.

But I enjoy this kind of discussion. Thanks!

Sure. Whenever you have the time. These are the kind of discussions that can easily handle a little digestion.

I am now pretty darned sore from the PT, so I will respond tomorrow, God Willing.

I want to chew your comments slowly and take some time. A lot of times these kinds of discussions require me to refresh what I've read years ago or tackle something completely new. MTW may have changed since I read about it in the 90s, probably has, but I suspect many of the problems are still the same.

PT sucks donkey. Though if you're hurting, you're probably doing it right. I've been with a grandfather through a broken hip and a mother through knee replacement. Neither were gentle. So take care of yourself. This conversation will be here when you get back.

If you want to front load it a bit, Brian Green has some excellent overviews for casual reading. 'Hidden Realities' is thorough, accessible and pretty current (2011). His perspectives on time are somewhat deterministic, but its fascinating. The idea that every moment in time exists, always had existed and always will exist.......has interesting implications. Not that you always had to make a certain choice. But that you always did.

Greene's descriptions of space-time are the best I've ever heard. Specifically, how movement through space and movement through time were inversely proportionate. The more you do of one, the less you do of the other. At least relative to a 'stationary' observer.

Greene gets into the different kinds of multiverses. My understanding includes 3 general categories.

The first is like a drop of water sending ripples out on a pond. With hundreds of trillions of years between drops, by the time the next one falls the one before it so distant as to be undetectable. So a big bang would occur and dark energy (specifically the expansion of space) would push the resulting matter and energy outward like the surface of a balloon. On and on the wavelength of light emitted by distant stars had been shifted so utterly that it was undetectable.

A slightly more....viscous variant of the same is with big bangs on a much tighter schedule....perhaps in thousands of billions. With each big bang destroying evidence of the last.

The second would be vast space and multiple big bangs......each so distant from the last that the light from one wouldn't reach the next closest in the lifetime of the universe. Kind of a patchwork of universes.

The third would be the 'many worlds' theory that you seem to be alluding to. Where instead of a wave form collapse, there is an expression of every possibility in alternate universes. This wouldn't violate any 'conservation of energy' principles as the same unit of energy would be used differently in each universe. You wouldn't be duplicating the energy, but expressing it in each of every possible configuration. The quantity of energy is always the same.

The only time you'd run into conservation of energy problems....is if you could pull energy from one of these parallel dimensions and place it into another. As many world's theory doesn't posit this as a possibility, no such conflicts exist within the theory.

If you want a slightly deeper dive (from an affirmed atheist, so you probably won't like the tone....but the info is rock solid), try 'A Universe from Nothing'. Its an interesting perspective....though Kraus spends a little much time refuting arguments that a general reader probably isn't making and sniping at critics than I care for. You might just want to skip the first couple of chapters all together.

Its emphasis on the volatility of empty space and virtual particles was intriguing. And how the clues that we used to determine the big bang and other cosmic events (like cosmic background radiation).....won't be around forever. Meaning that scientists in the distant future probably won't know about them. As there will literally be no evidence of their occurrence available to them.

Lastly, I'd recommend '4% Universe". Its mostly a historical account of the discovery of the big bang and the cosmic background radiation, dark matter and dark energy....centered most thoroughly around the competition between the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-z Supernova Search Team.

But I found that having it explained to me in the increments and order that science discovered it made it much easier to understand.

What I'm trying to figure out now is Hawking's reference to multi-dimensional time. And what the **** time actually is. Hawking talks about Y axis time. Time instead of moving forward and backward on a 'future and past' axis instead moving up and down. On a ......I have no clue axis. I can't even conceptualize it yet.

Greene describes time as an entropy process with time moving in the way that it does because our uinverse is moving from an ordered state (the big bang) to a disordered state (less organization over time). But a dimension of entropy? And one so integrally connected to space that it is a literal property of it?

 

[JimBowie1958]

yeah, PT is difficult more for the lingering ache it causes than anything else. If you will forgive my whining, but I am not going to take meds any more unless the pain gets unbearable. The complaining I am seeing by people with this surgery in post surgery care seem to frequently to be about addiction to pain killers. So no more of them for me. Dr says I am doing it way too early but it is not happening with me. But I am OK in the morning, and things get achier and then painful before I go to bed and I have a hard time getting to sleep.

Anyway, so yeah, I post a lot at night, but I have for a long time. A lot keeps me awake at night, mostly I just cant relaxe and downshift to fall asleep. Beer does seem to help but its not to mix with my other meds, lol.

Anyway, thank you for your concern and advice.

 

[Skylar]

yeah, PT is difficult more for the lingering ache it causes than anything else. If you will forgive my whining, but I am not going to take meds any more unless the pain gets unbearable.

I've seen that shit up close. There's no whining in it. My mom went through 48 hours of labor with me...and said that the knee replacement PT was worse. The fact that you're surviving it is evidence enough.

The complaining I am seeing by people with this surgery in post surgery care seem to frequently to be about addiction to pain killers. So no more of them for me. Dr says I am doing it way too early but it is not happening with me. But I am OK in the morning, and things get achier and then painful before I go to bed and I have a hard time getting to sleep.

Its good that you're taking that so seriously. A lot of folks take painkillers like skittles and don't take seriously the implications of dependence. Prescription grade opiates are more addictive than heroin. And any significant cycle of them will involve withdrawal symptoms due to genuine dependence. The only question is how severe they will be....and if you've got the tools necessary to deal with them.

The medical system does a pretty piss poor job of insuring that folks have those tools. So its good you're doing this early and with purpose. Its gotta suck though. You've got the surgery/injury pain. And the PT pain. And the withdrawal pain. Its a trifecta of fiery shit.

I'm starting to see why you curse so often on this board!