Majeston Posted July 4, 2008 Report Share Posted July 4, 2008 I'm trying to understand the "multi quote" this link icon, but cannot figure it out. When I click it nothing happens from what I observe. Any help here would be appreciated.thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted July 4, 2008 Report Share Posted July 4, 2008 I'm trying to understand the "multi quote" this link icon, but cannot figure it out. When I click it nothing happens from what I observe. Any help here would be appreciated.thanks To multi-quote, select the posts you want to quote by clicking on the icon beside the quote button (it looks like a piece of paper). This button will turn red, indicating that it will be included in the quote. Then, hit the quote button for the last post you want to quote. Let me know if you still can't get it working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 G'day from the land of ozzzzzz Majeston maybe wrong in what he wrote, so be it. But! Freestar has used his position to write: Please keep this crap out of the physical science forums. A statement that is insulting, not just to the writer, but also to the readers. Particularly if its written by position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 G'day from the land of ozzzzzz.Majeston maybe wrong in what he wrote, so be it. But! Freestar has used his position to write: ... A statement that is insulting, not just to the writer, but also to the readers. Particularly if its written by position. Edit: G'day from the land of Paella, and San Fermínnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. Though it might seem, we are actually not straying to far from the main purpose of this thread, i.e., to illuminate the origin of our conceptions and beliefs that have led to the high gigaton yield of the big bang and expanding universe cosmological models. Edit: Only Einstein was able to direct cosmic religious means to ends that were both his and attuned to both religious and scientific conviction; and he, as everyone knows, stood apart. Perhaps the most telling indication was Einstein’s inclination to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists and for very obvious reasons. “The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events.” In a 1939 address at Princeton Einstein advocated; “science can only ascertain what is, not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kind remain necessary. Religion on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts” (Einstein, 1954, 1982, pp. 41-49). CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted July 6, 2008 Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 G'day from the land of ozzzz I agree with coldcreation. It's just that I prefer to come onto the sight and not see insulting statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted July 6, 2008 Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 I for one am a BB proponent but it has a problem that I would like others to help explain. Assuming that gravity did not exist before the BB. The explosion of electromagnetic energy must have moved far enough to be outside the newly created event horizon. That would imply the energy would expand forever. If that is the case then the place or dimension or place of no time has lost energy that it can never get back. Doesn't this suggest that if there has been an infinite number of BB's before why hasn't this place of no time lost all of it's energy by now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 6, 2008 Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 I for one am a BB proponent but it has a problem that I would like others to help explain. Assuming that gravity did not exist before the BB. The explosion of electromagnetic energy must have moved far enough to be outside the newly created event horizon. That would imply the energy would expand forever. If that is the case then the place or dimension or place of no time has lost energy that it can never get back. Doesn't this suggest that if there has been an infinite number of BB's before why hasn't this place of no time lost all of it's energy by now? The problem of where the energy came from and where it goes in one of the reasons I like brane theory. No need fro a big bang and it still looks like a big bang from our stand point but it also explains where and how the universe cam to look the way it does. Unfortunately so far no testable ideas that do not also support the big bang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 Moon Brane theory may be correct but it must remain an exercise in imagination. The only accessible information that we can use to formulate theories must start with the BB or whatever was a beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz Little band said: The only accessible information that we can use to formulate theories must start with the BB or whatever was a beginning. Imagine if you were right and that everybody in the world did this for hundreds of years. Than out of the blue someone proved it was a crankpot theory devised by people for what ever reason. Not only did we loose hundreds of years of research and lots of money and waste of time. We lost the TRUST and RESPECT to SCIENCE. I for one cannot see the scientific evidence supporting the Big Bang theory. Yes I have read all the so called evidence and the ad hoc ideas that were created to support the foundations of the Big Bang theory. Hey! I could be wrong, but I'm not taking any evidence that is not supported by a scientist that is well known to know. People get upset, because I do not go with the flow. Reminds me of the movie,,,,,,,,,,Let it Ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASON Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 Hey! I could be wrong, but I'm not taking any evidence that is not supported by a scientist that is well known to know. People get upset, because I do not go with the flow. Some people find their identity in being a contrarian. Evidence is of no consequence to these people. It's all about going against the grain. Have you ever found yourself joining the concensus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 Some people find their identity in being a contrarian. To which the contrarian replies: "I do not" Imagine if you were right and that everybody in the world did this for hundreds of years. Than out of the blue someone proved it was a crankpot theory devised by people for what ever reason. Not only did we loose hundreds of years of research and lots of money and waste of time. We lost the TRUST and RESPECT to SCIENCE. Paradigm shifts in science are not unwelcome - they are sought. If and when some theory redefines, reinterprets, or completely rewrites the big bang, that theory will be accepted on its merits as it should be. As this is off topic for this thread I'll recommend: Science is closed minded for further discussion. ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 Pluto, none of the people who support the BB have ever said the BB is guaranteed but only that most of the observed data implies a beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 Moon Brane theory may be correct but it must remain an exercise in imagination. The only accessible information that we can use to formulate theories must start with the BB or whatever was a beginning. LB, if you had read my post you would have noticed I said that so far there is no evidence that points to brane theory that doesn't also support the big bang. There is also no evidence that rules out brane theory either. If indeed brane theory had been thought of first it would be the big bang that was delegated to the theory that had nothing testable to back it up. I like brane theory because it actually suggests some thing other than the something for nothing idea of the big bang. My likes and dislikes do not constitute a reason to accept brane theory, It just means that I like the idea of something before the beginning of our universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 Moon I agree with you a 100%. Something caused our universe, whether or not it was the collision of two membranes is as good a guess as anything else. Since we can't go there we have no way of verifying it. I do actually like the idea because some event released all the energy that created our universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Colyer Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 I believe there was a Big Bang, but I believe it was precipitated by God. Astronomy Jim Colyer :: News Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASON Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 I believe there was a Big Bang, but I believe it was precipitated by God. Really? How come? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 If God resides in that place of no time then your opinion is as good as anyone else's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.