Big questions, short answers

Jason, Carlsbad, CA — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:37:27 GMT

Hi Alan,

Your Twitter link appears to be broken, but if I remove the cosmiclog from the end it works.

[ALAN ADDS: Dang, sorry about that ... I changed my mind on the Twitter account I decided to use for the conference, and apparently the blog tool didn't follow the switch. Well, at least we got that shaken out for the weekend.]

Big questions, short answers

Dean Hardage, Clovis, NM — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:57:09 GMT

Ought to be interesting. I'll be curious to see if that kind of answer can be made concise enough to fit in a twitter tweet.

Big questions, short answers

Rick, claremont NH — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:58:37 GMT

I believe in artificial intelligent!

Big questions, short answers

Roach, Wichita KS — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:20:12 GMT

This meeting of minds will more than likely destroy the reality that we know and turn it into oatmeal.

Big questions, short answers

Dr. Jeff Kahrs — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:28:24 GMT

What an incredible weekend that will be! That much brain power in one room. Will be following your reports on the cutting edge of cosmological origins.

Big questions, short answers

Rakesh Sharma, San Mateo, CA — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:33:16 GMT

Our universe is a speck in the big picture. The complete picture is unknowable. Life has a way to hang on. Evolution is driven by change.

Big questions, short answers

Randy Keating, Phoenix, AZ — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:34:32 GMT

I'm going to see Dawkins and Hawking speak :)

www.thenewatheist.com

Big questions, short answers

ThePatriot, Orange, Ca — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:36:27 GMT

How did the universe begin?
Unknown, but the evidence seems to imply that all matter started in a central location and began expanding to it's present form and locations, The Big Bang.

How did life arise?
Completely unknown. Our best guess is that somehow the early earth environment was conducive to the spontaneous generation of life. However, nothing even close to spontaneous generation has ever been observed. So far we have only observed that life comes from other life.

Some groups bypass this question by saying that a god created life. However, by what mechanics did the god create life? These questions are typically not explored by those that attribute creation to a god.

How did evolution make us the way we are today?
When an animal is able to survive and reproduce, they pass on their physical and mental characteristics to their posterity. Different environments encourage helpful traits and inhibit harmful traits.

The evidence for this method causing the development of all animals is fairly overwhelming. However, humans seem to have developed to an extremely high degree of mental sophistication in a short amount of time that is unprecedented.

Big questions, short answers

William Stoertz, Winston-Salem, North Carolina — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:26:13 GMT

Although we have sought, and expected to find, the answers within the classical four dimensions of time and space, if we regard evolution of both the physical universe as the substrate for life and the development of life itself, all the way up to humans, we now must take into regard potentially up to ten dimensions, most of which are hitherto unexplored.

Big questions, short answers

jowazona Scottsdael AZ — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:37:10 GMT

we need to worry about where we are going.. we can worry about where we came from , later.
Let's fix today and tomorrow.

Big questions, short answers

Martin R. Fraser, Sacramento, California — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:37:24 GMT

A particle is actually a vibration, a point in space that oscillates from the future to the past, then past to future, continuously. This fits in with the wave nature of a particle, but with nothing there but energy of the oscillation. The oscillation to the future is a little longer than the one to the past, resulting in a procession forward in time. Heavy particles such as quarks have more complicated oscillations and with a more retarded forward in time procession than light particles such as electrons, the difference we interpret as charge. All of the time oscillations produce warpage of space as in Einstien's Relativity. Retardation of time equals what we call mass. All is created out of nothing but an initial movement forward in time, which like a spring went back in time. At the second oscillation, aparently there were then two oscillations, at a point in time called the present, multiplied by itself with each subsiquence oscillation to produce what we look back at as a big bang. God simply is the entire oscillation system interconnected by traveling oscillations (such as light) and warpages of space, such as charge and gravity, (Or the entire universe) of which we are a part. So we are connected to the past and partially, the future, and of course, to each other. Quanta occur because a point oscillation, say orbiting electron, can break into two components as it drops orbit using wave theory, and one part splits out at light speed and we call it light.

Big questions, short answers

dave, Fairfield, OH — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:51:22 GMT

why no theologians to answer the birth of the universe question?

Big questions, short answers

Rich H, Detroit, Michigan — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:59:47 GMT

Just read the Bible, trillon dollar atom smashers are proving a $40 Bible correct. You can believe now or later, (the bible says that too)

Big questions, short answers

JACK HILLER KENNEWICK, WA. — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:44:28 GMT

IF THERE WERE NO GOD, THERE WOULD BE NO ATHEISTS.

BECAUSE THERE IS A GOD, THERE ARE ATHEISTS.

Big questions, short answers

Frank Morgan, Newhall, CA — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:04:35 GMT

my new physics theory reveals that all energy that we can measure consist of electron quantum mass transfers, where the constant electron mass is h grams. The only way physics can make any visual sense at the electron pulse level is for n to equal 1/h in the Planck realtion,E = nhf, so that frequiency does indeed always numerically equal the energy. The h-symmetry of h ergs being quantum (photon)energy, and h grams being quantum (electron) mass lets us crudely predict but blinds us to pulse level mechanical detail. Electricity is a lower frequency form of light.

Big questions, short answers

Jeremy Broussard, Houston TX — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 06:36:12 GMT

Beginning of universe = collapse of dark matters' maximum entropy upon itself into singularity, causing matters' unavoidable expansion from singularity.
Meaning of life = to increase the rate at which maximum entropy of matter is achieved.
End of the universe = reverse
there, questions solved.

Big questions, short answers

Jason, Carlsbad, CA — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:59:17 GMT

Rich H writes...
"Just read the Bible, trillon dollar atom smashers are proving a $40 Bible correct. You can believe now or later, (the bible says that too)"

Which trillion dollar atom smashers are you talking about? Any particle physicist would get a serious hadron over that big a commitment to science but, sadly, no science experiment anywhere near that big (by at least a factor of 10) exists. Of course trillon might be a different number than trillion. (My best passive aggressive comment of the day!)

On a similar note, how exactly are these "trillon dollar atom smashers" "proving a $40 bible correct?" Frequently I read similar statements from other enthusiastic posters, but everyone who types them is strikingly short on specifics. Can anyone change that trend?

On another similar note, where exactly does the bible say "You can believe now or later". My father is a minister, so a fairly significant portion of my life was spent studying scripture, and I don't recall running across a passage with similar meaning, but I could be wrong. My memory is not perfect (unless I'm arguing with someone, in which case it magically becomes infallible).

(my second best passive aggressive activity today)
For reference:
1 (one) dollar buys a cheeseburger at (insert fast food place here)
10 (ten) dollars buys an appetizer at (insert casual dining place here)
100 (one hundred) dollars buys a night at the movies with drinks and snacks for family of four
1,000 (one thousand) dollars buys a pretty good TV
10,000 (ten thousand) dollars buys a half of a new car
100,000 (hundred thousand) dollars buys a third of a house
1,000,000 (one million) dollars buys everyone's supposed dream life
10,000,000 (ten million) dollars buys a smallish, profitable company
100,000,000 (hundred million) dollars buys one fourth (1/4) of a Mars Rover mission.
1,000,000,000 (one billion) dollars buys half (1/2) of a space shuttle mission
10,000,000,000 (ten billion) dollars buys one LHC (large hadron collider, BIGGEST science experiment EVER!)
100,000,000,000 (hundred billion) dollars buys one seventh (1/7) of the initially proposed financial system bailout package (six months ago)
1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) dollars buys a war or two in Iraq
1 with undetermined number of trailing zeros (1 *trillon*, see what I did there?, joke!) buys theoretical biblical confirmation.

Big questions, short answers

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:37:40 GMT

How did the universe begin? Naturalistically, see Universe(s) Origin(s) Preface
http://tinyurl.com/universesoriginspreface

How did life arise? Naturalistically, see How Did It All Begin?, by David W. Deamer
http://tinyurl.com/originoflife-001

How did evolution make us the way we are today?
Naturalistically, see the BBC website Human Beginnings
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/

Big questions, short answers

Natalie Rosen, Framingham, MA — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:08:49 GMT

I am a fascinated lay person with all of this. I wish I could be at the symposium. I am trying to navigate this page and get as much as I can through the web. Also wish HBO or CSPAN picked it up. If anyone knows if it did please state.

Big questions, short answers

milton — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:50:46 GMT

A better understanding of religion as to its motives,ethics and intent might be of interest to read a book i found titled Trial Of Beliefs available at eloquent books on the web, puts them all on trial before the court of humanity

Big questions, short answers

Eric, Salinas, CA — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:41:07 GMT

An interesting symposium for us science fans. We are so lucky to live in an age of breathtaking scientific discovery which has advanced our knowledge of where we came from and where we're going.

[...]

Alan please make sure to do a followup in another Cosmic Log for those of us "untwits" who don't do the twitter thing.

[ALAN ADDS: Absolutely ... I'll try to distill the most interesting revelations into an item for Monday. And there'll be another follow-up Tuesday.]

Big questions, short answers

Dave, Fairfield, Ohio — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:39:34 GMT

in my opinion, George W. Bush and some of the "religious right" are to blame for the nasty fued between science and religion. There may have been differences between the two groups when Bill Clinton was president, but it was never as bitter as it is today. Rational, reasonable people can believe in the laws of physics and science and also believe without a doubt that someone or something had to be responsible for it. i think when the scientific communtiy heres the word "God" they automatically make the incorrect assumption that the biblical God is being referenced. Very ironic for a group that claims that they fall back on logic and reason before having the correct answer

Big questions, short answers

Charles, Phoenix, AZ — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:38:58 GMT

Arg, I'm an idiot!

I live in Phoenix and knew about this symposium since last month. I should have purchased myself a ticket. Being an ASU graduate, I might have even gotten a discount.

Big questions, short answers

Jim E., Austin, Texas — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:40:04 GMT

ORIGINS Symposium?
Perhaps the Distinguished Scientists attending the
symposium might shed some LIGHT on the recently
discussed Planetary Phenomenon regarding the
influence of Jupiter and Saturn on Earth's
historic warming with a
period approximately equal to 100,000 years.

Big questions, short answers

Carlton, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:02:50 GMT

Ultimate (Final?) Answers

Answers to "how" questions can always be followed by a "why" question which may lead to further questions and discoveries, ad infinitum. God provides a way to end this endless chain for those who define God properly to suit their particular purposes. Those who do not have such a proper definition may continue the game forever accepting that it has no ultimate end. For example, inflation theory is an answer to the "how" question of how the cosmic background is so uniform. Accepting the validity of inflation theory, one may ask "why" questions about it. "Why" questions may bring about "how" questions. For example. the workings of the relatvity of simultaneity may be seen as the "how" answer brought about by the "why" question of why the universe was initiated at a point. Whether or not our universe initiated at a point has "how" and "why" questions that remain unanswered and may never be answered because there is a flaw in the initiation at a point idea. The theory of everything (TOE) hasn't been found, thus far, will not be found at the "Origins" meeting, and may never be found by humans, but the "game" is GREAT fun and has helped humans in many ways, including giving us something interesting to do. Our universe seems to have the characteristic of always providing us with the opportunity for further "game" playing. Therefore, while searching for ultimate answers inspires us, ending the search is ultimately beyond us and our offspring. Herein is another possibility for which the God believers may say "Thank God.". Non-believers may say "Thank you chance.", but might, thereby, be making "chance" their God. Ah, yes, a rose by any other name smells as sweet.

Big questions, short answers

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 19:01:32 GMT

Martin R. Fraser, Sacramento, California

Of course you just made that all up...right? Travelling far enough into the future, are you saying you can actually see the world catching up to you since you feel particles do some momentary travel into the future?

Anyway, I am glad there are no theological people invited to a strictly scientific symposium. I don't think Richard Dawkins could stand it !

Big questions, short answers

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 20:25:11 GMT

"Just read the Bible, trillon dollar atom smashers are proving a $40 Bible correct."

I'm sorry, I missed the chapter and verse that describes the neutrino, the Higgs Boson, etc...

Big questions, short answers

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 20:27:33 GMT

"in my opinion, George W. Bush and some of the "religious right" are to blame for the nasty fued between science and religion."

Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galiei and others would be quite surprised to hear that...

Big questions, short answers

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 20:35:34 GMT

"Answers to "how" questions can always be followed by a "why" question which may lead to further questions and discoveries, ad infinitum. God provides a way to end this endless chain for those who define God properly to suit their particular purposes."

Even accepting that, are you suggesting that one cannot ask how God did this?

And indeed, as a conscious entity, one would not only have to ask how, but *why.* A question we don't have to ask of the laws of physics. That then takes us into the psychology and motivations of an entity that's presumably omnipotent, but inaccessible for study...and no longer science.

Big questions, short answers

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:55:31 GMT

Carlton (4/4, 1302) “The theory of everything (TOE) hasn't been found, thus far … and may never be found by humans, but the ‘game’ is GREAT fun … giving us something interesting to do. Our universe seems to have the characteristic of always providing us with the opportunity for further ‘game’ playing.”
Wisdom almost beyond measure. Haven’t seen you here for a while. Nice to see you back.

Jason, Carlsbad, CA (4/4, 1759)

“On another similar note, where exactly does the bible say ‘You can believe now or later.’”
Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess (Philippians?). It’s certainly not talking about now, but when faced with the reality of God at judgment, later.

“Frequently I read similar statements from other *enthusiastic* posters, …” emphasis added. I think this may be your greatest PA statement for it’s subtlety.

Remembering that the Old Testament was written by and for people in the bronze age the creation account is quite insightful, being thousands of years ahead of it’s time, and current anthropology says that people were scattered into various bands and languages from the same area that the Bible says. The Bible isn’t a science text and doesn’t rise to the same standard as even this blog, but neither would you look for great, stimulating, mystifying science from a grade school science book. As far as particle accelerators in the Bible, though, I’m stumped. For how an accelerator will prove the Bible, also stumped.

Big questions, short answers

Herman Cummings, Fortson GA — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 02:51:41 GMT

Mr Lawrence Krauss has asked the secular world certain questions, which can only be correctly answered by the world's leading expert on the book of Genesis. If you ask anyone else, all you will obtain is foolishness. You don't call an automobile mechanic to fix your home computer.

Herman Cummings
ephraim7@aol.com

Big questions, short answers

Eric, Salinas, CA — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:18:52 GMT

Alan,
A little off subject but I can't see the pictures in the top 10 astronomy photos slideshow in the science and technology section. I tried sending an e-mail to msnbc.com but nothing has happened to improve the problem. I have no problems seeing any other pictures, cartoons or videos so am puzzled why I can't see the top 10 astronomy pictures. Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29894334/displaymode/1107/s/2/

I sure would like to see the top 10 astronomy pictures and hope someone can fix them so I can see them.
Thanks

[ALAN ADDS: Wow, thanks for pointing that out. Looks like the link is bad somewhere, I'll have to track that down, but for now, you can get to the pix by clicking on the link below, then clicking on the button to launch the slideshow:]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29894334/

[P.S.: I don't currently see where that bad link shows up, so it may be that someone has fixed it already. But if you can find where the bad link is (with the "displaymode" thing in the URL), let me know and I will fix that.]

Big questions, short answers

Warren Beard — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:01:47 GMT

Consciousness is the referential continuum of structure in space/time about an either absolutely or relatively localized locus.

Big questions, short answers

AllisonWonderland — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:42:17 GMT

Sorry about this, but I am a solipsist. everyone, and everything are but figments of MY imagination. I think, therefore, everyone and and everything is.

That's a hell of a lot easier than either Science OR Religion, and just a reasonable.

Big questions, short answers

Scott Potter, Lexington, Ky 40515 — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:10:09 GMT

To ask, How old is the universe?" is a meaningless question. You may as well ask, "How long is a piece of string?"

Big questions, short answers

Scott Potter, Lexington, Ky 40515 — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:12:46 GMT

Life? The universe is itself alive. If we could shrink ourselves to a point smaller than a molecule of water and step inside that molecule, would we see anything wet?

Big questions, short answers

Jason, Carlsbad, CA — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:02:57 GMT

Hey Alan,

I just wanted to thank you for turning me on to Twitter. I'd heard of it before, via mostly derisional statements, and didn't give it much consideration. I joined Twitter just to follow your updates and I find that I love it for what it is. I'd tried MySpace before and just didn't get the point, so I'm surprised by how much I love Twitter. I don't know what it is but...

Anyway, enough of the gushing advertisement (I swear, I'm not getting paid). I'm enjoying your coverage, and reading along with watching.

(Sorry for bringing the meaness earlier re. trillon. Sometimes I just get stuck on an idea and ... etc.)

Big questions, short answers

Jason, Carlsbad, CA — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:23:14 GMT

@ Tim Rommes, Washington, UT
{uberquote]
“Frequently I read similar statements from other *enthusiastic* posters, …” emphasis added. I think this may be your greatest PA statement for it’s subtlety.
{/uberquote}
That's me. I try to pass off the active aggressiveness as passive, then slip in the almost subtle word here and there which is actually passive (but still active). See, I did it again with "almost". Sorry, going through a big self-discovery thing here.

And re. knees and tongues... yep, I can hear the song in my head and still didn't make the connection. I was brought up Southern Baptist (liberal as it possibly could be) so the indoctrination stepped in and prevented me from seeing the obvious. That's my excuse.

Big questions, short answers

Peter Smitt — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:10:53 GMT

If evolution takes millions of years then how do you explain the Cambrian Explosion where millions of new species emerged in a short span of time?

Big questions, short answers

Cat Johnson — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:45:06 GMT

I would love to be at this gathering of great minds. I can't wait to read what came out of this. Good luck Alan!

Big questions, short answers

Martin R. Fraser, Sacramento, California — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:54:36 GMT

Thomas Ashby, Calgary

It is my Theory, I have been working on it for 25 years. I stated it in as few words as possible, but in all of my science and physics reading, the de Broglie wavelength seems to make a lot of sense. This and other theories imply a vibration, but of what? I thought a vibration of time would work. The forward and backward vibrations don't go far into the past or future, on the order of a plank dimension. The beauty, in my mind, is it allows for the entire universe to be created out of nothing but that original forward movement in time.
There may also be time dents in space, all moving forward in time but with no oscellation. The dents with a slightly faster forward movement would represent dark energy, the dents with a slighly slowed forward movement would represent dark matter.
I wonder too, if light marks a path through space as it speeds along, possibly with something like the above dents.

Big questions, short answers

R FARRAR,SARASOTA, FL — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 02:48:25 GMT

WHAT IS DOES NOT HAVE A BEGINNING.

Big questions, short answers

Randall McMurphy — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:46:28 GMT

Douglas Adams already answered those questions about Life, The Universe and Everything...

Big questions, short answers

Doug Selander, New Berlin, WI — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 04:19:45 GMT

For the Symposium:
When mass converts to energy E=mc2, where does the gravity property of the mass go? With the radiated wave? Becomes part of the Cosmic Constant?

Big questions, short answers

Carl Sams, Nashville, TN — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:56:23 GMT

"And the number of two score and two shall be the fufillment of all...." (Funny Sounding Old Book)

It's always nice when it boils down simply isn't it?:)

Big questions, short answers

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:01:03 GMT

Peter Smitt (4/5, 1910) Perhaps it wasn't an explosion at all. When you consider all the plants and animals that have ever lived and how few fossils we find it is evident that a very tiny percentage make it into the fossil record. This leads me to believe that the conditions that lead to ossification are quite rare. Perhaps there was merely a change in global conditions that allowed more remains to make it. Perhaps a great star named Slugwood, as Wormwood is yet to come, hit and made an abrupt chemical change.

Or maybe that "short span of time" was 50 million years.

Not sure about the first, certain about the second. So far, you're about the only person I know of to infer that 50 million years is too short. But if that's the stand you want to take then keep running your mouth, or your fingers. I'm sure you're doing a lot of good.

Big questions, short answers

Dave, Fairfield, OH — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:25:23 GMT

If evolution is correct, wouldn't we have to throw out any arguments for what scientists are saying about the universe today as irrelavent? 500 years from now they will be!! Think about it, 500 years ago, the best scientists on the planet thought the earth was flat and the sun was the center of the universe. So logically speaking, 500 years from now this argument about the universe will be impractical. They will look back at us the same way we look back at them and say how primitve we were.

Big questions, short answers

Planet, Denver, Co — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:25:44 GMT

There was a big to do about PlanetX several years ago. Why are they putting observatories in the Antarctic, why are planetary disasters occurring more frequency, weather, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions? What are the governments hiding, the financial crisis could be just a cover up of biblical proportions should there be a planet on a collision course with earth. Where is the news media?

Big questions, short answers

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:26:38 GMT

Stephen Hawkings theory of the "big bang" does not allow for a creator.... a universe that is finite but boundless, has no beginning or end point, and no need for a creator. The pope wouldn't want to hear that. It's great that some of the finest minds in history have no room for a creator...except NOMAD, it had a creator.

Martin Fraser...but is this theory of yours written down and of course, written down in the language of math and peer reviewed? 25 years is a long time.

Big questions, short answers

Carlton — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:35:15 GMT

R Farrar and Others,

In mathematics, the list of integers,...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2, 3,4,5, ,...... has neither beginning nor end, as indicated by the ....... It goes on forever in both directions. (It has no first or last integer; any one claimed to be the first always has infiniely many further to the left; any one claimed to be the last has infinitely many further to the right).

Big questions, short answers

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:28:49 GMT

God says, "Ooops, sorry pope, but it had to be done, don't ask why 'cause you won't get an answer either"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30072098/

Big questions, short answers

Jane Doe Cameron, Mo — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:45:54 GMT

Is it normal to take a phyciatric evaluation? They said it was just a test! Should I look at the bigger picture and run in the other direction.

Big questions, short answers

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:58:12 GMT

Thomas Ashby (4/6, 0926) wrote, "Stephen Hawkings theory of the "big bang" does not allow for a creator...." It also doesn't allow for time as we know it. So, according to the venerated Dr. Hawking, as long as there is no time, there is no God. I'll agree. But I believe in time.
The atheistic world view makes perfect, scientific sense. As long as time isn't real. I'll look forward to your thoughts tomorrow. Unless there is no tomorrow. But if there is no tomorrow I'll have to agree with you. So if tomorrow never comes then I'll become an atheist tomorrow. And I stand by that statement.

Big questions, short answers

AllisonWonderland — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:09:56 GMT

From the Great Universal Mind
Emanates the Eternal, Infinite Void
Into which ever expands the
Ideolon for apparent solipsistic reality
Perceived as the time/space,
Energy/Matter, Life/Mind continuum,
Which continues to unfold satisfactorily,
And proceeds to progress perfectly.

Big questions, short answers

Carlton, Kamuela, Hawaii — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:54:01 GMT

Thomas Ashby and Others
"The" theory of the "big bang" came before S. Hawking. Also< T. Ashby says, "... a universe that is finite but boundless has no beginning or end point and no need for a creator." T. Ashby might have been closer to the truth if he had said said ".... no ROOM for a FINITE creator." Science has not shown that our universe is finite (our observagle universe is finite due to the finite speed of light), but science is not capable of showing that our universe is not infinite (it, again, has shown that our observable universe is not infinite). Science, as currently defined and self- limited, may suggest that our universe is infinite, but has no way of scientifically showing it to be infinite (not finite) and never will be able to do so while staying strictly within the self-imposed bounds (use of electromagnetic observations not, e.g. ESP or reigous revelations) of science. If the big bang theory coupled with inflation theory is correct, then there may exist, at sufficiently great distances from us, regions that are expanding at faster than the maximum speed of light; hence, light (electromagneticinformation) of such regions can never get to us (we can, therefore, never scinetifically know of them or anything in them. We have scientific evidence for the invisible "dark matter" in our "sphere" of possible scientific observation and, perhaps, even possibly the mysterious "dark energy". When and if science gets its hands around these observable mysteries or their observable effects, it may be able to take a stronger position concerning the possiility that our scientifically observable universe has other, say, galaxies ad infinitum outside our observable universe, but scientific demonstration will still be impossible. It might be logical; it might be philosophically elegant, but it must remain outside the limited realm claimed for themselves by bona fide scientists.
The big bang theory of science has problems that are not resolved and may not be resolvable because,possibly, there is an error in the basic idea that will be discovered by future science. There are infinities (singularities; scientists try to avoid talking about infinity because it is outside the domain of strict science other than to show something is wrong with a theory) in the big bang theory and strring theory has avoided some infinity problems by replacing points (the source of some infinities) with finite lengh strings. Incientally, it just might be because of these unresolved problems that the wise S. Hawking has not denied the possibility for some, currently, mystical source. S. Hawking, like A. Eistein is too wise to say there is nothing absolute (or everything is relative) because they can see the self-contradictiion therein (the statement "There is nothing absolute." is claiming to be an absolute, no exceptions). It seems amusing that those claiming that Einstein's Special Relativity was self-contradictory made a self-contradiction in their arguments which some never admitted in their lifetime. Of course, Einstein, like all humans, was subject to self-contradiction, but in his finished Special Relativity any self-contradictions that might have arisen were all removed.
Bona fide scientists agree that infinite things, God, etc. can neither be proved or disproved by true and proper science. Valid science can't scientifically prove that the counting numbers go on forever, are infinite and leave it to mathematicians to deal with such things. There are bona fide scientists that can hold, scientifically, that they have no "need" (like in T. Ashby's "---no need for God") for the infinity of decimal places in the irrational numbers they use, (like pi, 3.14159-----) and may even say that they do not exist, but that should not be allowed to (and does not) deter mathematicians from discovering the many mathematical beauties, exciting and interesting things that can be seen by using their going on forever properties. Therefore, tolerant scientists do not want to deny those who are religious from similar beauties. exciting and interesting things their religion brings to them. Pointing out errors in their logic should be done in a spirit of helping them to see more clearly rather than in the spirit of trying to completely destroy their things. Tolerant mathematicians do not try to destroy science thrills because they are scientifically true rather than mathematically true and tolerant scentists do not try to destroy mathematical thrills because they are not scientific.

Big questions, short answers

PG Oblaf, Texas — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:19:26 GMT

"Those who know in part prophesize in part"

Big questions, short answers

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:16:36 GMT

Carlton: "There are bona fide scientists that can hold, scientifically, that they have no "need" (like in T. Ashby's "---no need for God")"

Yes and Stephen Hawking is one of them. I'm not. I was paraphrasing what Hawking understands....oh and I must say, I have little idea of what it is you are trying say. Maybe you should just say it rather than writing a small essay.

Tim Rommes. ..and I surely have no idea what you are trying to say.

Big questions, short answers

Carlton, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:07:25 GMT

T> Ashby,
PG Oblaf's comment, between your and my latest, says what I am trying to convey. Further, we all have a tendancy to not understand that which we don't want to hear or understand. Anyway, I do go on and on, sorry, and PG's BRIEF and CLEAR comment shows how wordy I am,in comparison, by making the point concisely, again, that we all have only partial knowledge with my, now, adding knowing of one's having only partial knowledge (NOT BEING A KNOW IT ALL), like Hawking and Einstein, fosters tolerance which the world always needs. Incidentally, I did not see T. Rommes saying what you said of him and the indications I have seen in his comments, in Alan';s space, (as well as your own) would not have him joining your "Tim Rommes, and I surely have no idea of what you are trying to say." The "surely have no idea" does not apply to either of you, even if you would like it to apply to yourself. Even you display SOME idea rather than "no idea". Finally, another point I try to make is that all humans are subject to self-contradiction sooner or later and would be well advised to emulate Einstein's humility and tolerance even when one knows a lot. Einstein and Bohr,in ther great debates about quantum theory, probably felt like saying, to each other, "I have no idea what you are talking about.", but it seems their basic humility (probably with some basis in their knowing that they did not know it all) kept them in check. Just look at some of the problems the U.S. has gotten into by thinking it knew it all or claiming to not have any idea of what others were saying. If you, Thomas, still have "no idea" what I am talking about, try asking Tim (or read, again, PG's one liner). I'll spare you and others my ever trying once again in Alan's column.

Big questions, short answers

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:14:24 GMT

Carlton,
My last post was completely convoluted. On purpose. Thomas was making two statements. First he had little idea what you were saying. Second, and completely about my post, he had no idea what I was saying.

Thomas,
Hawking and some other distinguished scientist developed that no need for God scenario. To do it they used a manifold of space time. A manifold being a simplified model. Simplified models have limitations. We live on a mostly roundish planet. If I want to fence off my back yard I use Euclidean geometry. As long as I only fence off my back yard that's fine, in that small space my back yard closely resembles a plane. If we assume the earth to be a sphere and I extend beyond my back yard so that I'm fencing off a round area with a radius of one foot less that the half circumference of the earth then the amount of fencing I really need is about a yard. In Euclidean geometry it would be a little more than a yard. In fact it would be more than the half circumference radius I was using, not less. That manifold, like all manifolds, breaks down beyond a very (relatively) small local area. While it applies the math is a lot easier, and it's very practical. As you extend past it's applicability it just gets more and more ridiculous. Consider the often used representation of a gravity well. Looks like a net stretching down where a mass is. Works very well as long as you stay within it’s limitations. However, for it to work there must be a gravity working perpendicularly to the plane it represents, and everything must be in that plane. First, in real time-space, gravity tends to operate toward those massive bodies, not perpendicular to them, so it’s really a fake, invented, science fiction gravity. Second, if the gravity well is a planet add a moon orbiting that planet and unless it’s coplanar the whole thing pretty much unravels. Add in relative motion because the moon is in orbit and the math to stay in that frame gets harder than the real math it was a substitute for. Leave the very tight restrictions that kept it working and it’s completely BS. Extend Hawking’s universe out to where it doesn’t require a creator and time isn’t what time is anymore. It’s more like that mystery gravity. Completely invented and not based on reality. When your personal paradigm isn’t based on reality you have no need of a creator. Within the right limits all these things are great. I’ll continue to use the same geometry I learned in 10th grade to figure out how much fencing I need. I just won’t try to fence off most of the planet. No more than one hemisphere, I think. The convoluted statements you couldn’t follow are funny if you’re able to keep up. I made a joke because I thought it humorous that after all you ranting about scientific method and all the smartass comments you have about religion having no basis in reality that this is the ground you would choose to make a stand on.

Big questions, short answers

Carlton, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:44:20 GMT

Tim Rommes,
So happy to see that we are still on the same page that T. Ashby seems to refuse to find. If you read my last post (just above yours), you will see what I mean. We all have "limitations", but some of us can not or will not see our own. :-)
I do hope many read your comment because it makes clear other important points ignored, unknown, or missed by so many; thereby, causing errors of many. It does seem that many who display the I- know-it-all (or there-is-nothing-worth-knowing-if-I-don't-know-or-acknowledge-it) syndrome are extremely set on destroying any mystery in our universe and life. Both Hawking, Einstein, and many other great minds show how they appreciate the mystery and would, therefore, strongly resist its destruction. The mystery of how mathematics can expose, say, the workings of quantum and gravitational phenomena, as often mentioned in their writings are among the favorites of Einstein and Hawking. The last paragraph of Hawking's "A Brieffer History of Time" may be seenas a specific example. Here it s for those who have not read Hawking's book.
"If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the untimate triumph of human reason---for then we would know the mind of God."

Big questions, short answers

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:52:08 GMT

Carlton,
Thank you. I think that's the highest praise you've given me. I hope I made clear the fact that I don't disagree with what Hawking's theories say. I can't say that I fully agree, either, but that's most likely because I'm not in his class. He draws from a much deeper well than I do and when I'm not able to agree you may read that I'm not *able* to agree. Another quote, that I'm not able to make so I'll summarize, by Hawking, I think, has to do with our possible inability to comprehend a complete ToE, but only to take it in parts. When I read it my mind immediately rested on Aesop's six blind men and an elephant. Each examines a part and comes up with a theory about what an elephant is like. All are somewhat right for the part they examine, but all are completely wrong on the broader scale. It's how I invision science today. Dedicated men and women doing great work to describe their particular field and nobody gets the whole picture. Could you get it all and stay sane?

Hopefully Hawkign's and other's elegant hypotheses and theories will be put to the test by future generations of able minded scientists to the benefit of all.

And I agree, you get a bit wordy. A few words suffice when addressing people who already understand what you're talking about. I am often impressed that you desire to make things more accessable to the varied people who read here. For that, many words are necessary.

Big questions, short answers

Tia, Ranch, CA — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:40:11 GMT

adam and eve =]

read the bible!