>
>"Awkward" they would be, however any message
>that we humans receive that is clear and without
>a doubt from intelligent aliens would greatly
>transform how we viewed ourselves and have
>a major impact on out entire civilization.
>
>Just the fact 'they' exist would be plenty
>for us to absorb. No other details would be
>needed immediately.

Yes, yes, much of that's correct, BUT ...

Communications generally mean a two-way exchange, and that's
impossible, owing to the vast distances, as I've said.

What's far more important, is that in spite of the infinite universe
where there are likely an infinite number of intelligent species,
there is a conspicuous lack of transmissions.

The universe is obviously infinite, so however improbable, there
should be very many ( infinite ? ) planets with intelligent species
sending out transmissions. I find the lack of anything most puzzling.

Il 04/09/2021 20:07, casagiannoni@optimum.net ha scritto:

> The universe is obviously infinite, so however improbable, there
> should be very many ( infinite ? ) planets with intelligent species
> sending out transmissions. I find the lack of anything most puzzling.
>

Maybe the answer is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

Luigi Caselli

>Il 04/09/2021 20:07, casagiannoni@optimum.net ha scritto:
>
>> The universe is obviously infinite, so however improbable, there
>> should be very many ( infinite ? ) planets with intelligent species
>> sending out transmissions. I find the lack of anything most puzzling.
>>
>
>Maybe the answer is this:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
>

Thanks for good info.

On 9/5/2021 11:59 AM, casagiannoni@optimum.net scribbled:
>> Il 04/09/2021 20:07, casagiannoni@optimum.net ha scritto:
>>
>>> The universe is obviously infinite, so however improbable, there
>>> should be very many ( infinite ? ) planets with intelligent species
>>> sending out transmissions. I find the lack of anything most puzzling.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe the answer is this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
>>
>
>
> Thanks for good info.

you cannot measure distance without a fixed point in space.
Since no one has one, Most science on the topic of what moves which way,
is false. Or, how far it is.

In alt.astronomy tesla sTinker <seaviews7@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 9/5/2021 11:59 AM, casagiannoni@optimum.net scribbled:
>>> Il 04/09/2021 20:07, casagiannoni@optimum.net ha scritto:
>>>> The universe is obviously infinite, so however improbable, there
>>>> should be very many ( infinite ? ) planets with intelligent species
>>>> sending out transmissions. I find the lack of anything most puzzling.
>>> Maybe the answer is this:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
>> Thanks for good info.
> you cannot measure distance without a fixed point in space.
> Since no one has one, Most science on the topic of what moves which way,
> is false. Or, how far it is.

The distance to the moon could be a million light years!
No-one knows!

--
Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
they can be trained to substantially improve [their own performance].

Dunning later drew an analogy with anosognosia in which a person who
suffers a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of
or denies the existence of the disability, even for dramatic
impairments such as blindness or paralysis.

Dunning & Kruger & others concluded that the root cause is that, in
contrast to high performers, "poor performers do not learn from
feedback suggesting a need to improve".

Ehrlinger, Joyce; Johnson, Kerri; Banner, Matthew; Dunning, David;
Kruger, Justin (2008). "Why the unskilled are unaware: Further
explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent".
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (105): 98-121.

On 9/26/2021 4:15 PM, R Kym Horsell scribbled:
> In alt.astronomy tesla sTinker<seaviews7@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 9/5/2021 11:59 AM, casagiannoni@optimum.net scribbled:
>>>> Il 04/09/2021 20:07, casagiannoni@optimum.net ha scritto:
>>>>> The universe is obviously infinite, so however improbable, there
>>>>> should be very many ( infinite ? ) planets with intelligent species
>>>>> sending out transmissions. I find the lack of anything most puzzling.
>>>> Maybe the answer is this:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
>>> Thanks for good info.
>> you cannot measure distance without a fixed point in space.
>> Since no one has one, Most science on the topic of what moves which way,
>> is false. Or, how far it is.
>
>
> The distance to the moon could be a million light years!
> No-one knows!
>
no, it is not possible. It has to be close, or us
people never would of gone there. And there is junk on the moon
from our earth. You can see it with a telescope.

tesla sTinker wrote on 27/9/21 12:01 pm:
>
>
> On 9/26/2021 4:15 PM, R Kym Horsell scribbled:
>> In alt.astronomy tesla sTinker<seaviews7@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>>> On 9/5/2021 11:59 AM, casagiannoni@optimum.net scribbled:
>>>>> Il 04/09/2021 20:07, casagiannoni@optimum.net ha scritto:
>>>>>> The universe is obviously infinite, so however improbable, there
>>>>>> should be very many ( infinite ? ) planets with intelligent species
>>>>>> sending out transmissions. I find the lack of anything most puzzling.
>>>>> Maybe the answer is this:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
>>>> Thanks for good info.
>>> you cannot measure distance without a fixed point in space.
>>> Since no one has one, Most science on the topic of what moves which way,
>>> is false.  Or, how far it is.
>>
>>
>> The distance to the moon could be a million light years!
>> No-one knows!
>>
>  no, it is not possible.  It has to be close, or us
> people never would of gone there.  And there is junk on the moon
> from our earth.  You can see it with a telescope.

Yes, certainly, but I think the point R Kym Horsell was trying to make
is that The Moon *MUST* be a million light years from somewhere!!

Somewhere that is also, roughly, a million light years from us! (Give or
take a few light seconds.)
--
Daniel

interesting

On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 10:51:11 pm UTC+11, itchy beaver wrote:
> interesting

indeed

On 9/27/2021 12:18 AM, Daniel65 scribbled:
> tesla sTinker wrote on 27/9/21 12:01 pm:
>>
>>
>> On 9/26/2021 4:15 PM, R Kym Horsell scribbled:
>>> In alt.astronomy tesla sTinker<seaviews7@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/5/2021 11:59 AM, casagiannoni@optimum.net scribbled:
>>>>>> Il 04/09/2021 20:07, casagiannoni@optimum.net ha scritto:
>>>>>>> The universe is obviously infinite, so however improbable, there
>>>>>>> should be very many ( infinite ? ) planets with intelligent species
>>>>>>> sending out transmissions. I find the lack of anything most
>>>>>>> puzzling.
>>>>>> Maybe the answer is this:
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
>>>>> Thanks for good info.
>>>> you cannot measure distance without a fixed point in space.
>>>> Since no one has one, Most science on the topic of what moves which
>>>> way,
>>>> is false. Or, how far it is.
>>>
>>>
>>> The distance to the moon could be a million light years!
>>> No-one knows!
>>>
>> no, it is not possible. It has to be close, or us
>> people never would of gone there. And there is junk on the moon
>> from our earth. You can see it with a telescope.
>
> Yes, certainly, but I think the point R Kym Horsell was trying to make
> is that The Moon *MUST* be a million light years from somewhere!!
>
> Somewhere that is also, roughly, a million light years from us! (Give or
> take a few light seconds.)

no, its not so hard to believe some things. Since they already landed a
droid spaceship on a asteroid moving at some mach 14 speed, more than 30
million miles away in space. That is correct. They did this already.
They use a new technology that they US military, will not share with
the public. Such as, laser weapons.

much further than the moon yes....
perhaps the ones on these newsgroups do not know this.

On 26/10/2021 4:51 am, tesla sTinker wrote:
>
>
>
> no, its not so hard to believe some things.  Since they already landed a
> droid spaceship on a asteroid moving at some mach 14 speed, more than 30
> million miles away in space.  That is correct.  They did this already.
>  They use a new technology that they US military, will not share with
> the public.  Such as, laser weapons.
>
> much further than the moon yes....
> perhaps the ones on these newsgroups do not know this.

links?

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 1:27:26 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> On 26/10/2021 4:51 am, tesla sTinker wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > no, its not so hard to believe some things. Since they already landed a
> > droid spaceship on a asteroid moving at some mach 14 speed, more than 30
> > million miles away in space. That is correct. They did this already.
> > They use a new technology that they US military, will not share with
> > the public. Such as, laser weapons.
> >
> > much further than the moon yes....
> > perhaps the ones on these newsgroups do not know this.
> links?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/oct/21/nasa-osiris-rex-spacecraft-lands-on-asteroid-bennu-in-mission-to-collect-dust

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/11/falcon-has-landed-japans-hayabusa2-probe-touches-down-on-asteroid

On 8/28/2021 5:36 AM, Whisper wrote:
> On 28/08/2021 7:34 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Whisper wrote on 28/8/21 6:59 pm:
>>> On 28/08/2021 10:43 am, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
>>>>> D <J@m> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:00:36 -0400, casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>>>>>> This important message can't be stated often enough
>>>>>> If you keep repeating the mantra "We went to the Moon" for a long
>>>>>> enough time, it makes it become true. Like magic, it's bewitching:
>>>>
>>>> If anyone is into modestly-sized numbers then consider:
>>>>
>>>> - 2 trillion galaxies
>>>
>>> Prob more.
>>
>> I can remember reading somewhere, 15 maybe 20 years ago, that one of
>> the reputable Creation Theories doing the rounds then was that 'The
>> Big Bang that created out Universe was the result of two other
>> Universes bumping into each other and some of the matter from each of
>> those Universes leaked through into a new 'Dimension' and that was Our
>> Universe/Dimension!!
>>
>> Too 'D & M' for me!!
>
>
> It's truly frightening what passes for 'science' these days - shudder.
>
>

Has anyone read about Steinhardt's cyclic or
bouncing model? Where the Big Bang is replaced
by a Big Crunch? Steinhardt btw is a founder
of inflationary theory and a giant in cosmology.

Bouncing Cosmology

The research below explores the possibility that the universe
has no beginning or end and that the “big bang” was actually
a “big bounce” that smoothly connects an earlier phase of
contraction to the present phase of expansion. The bounce
may be a one-time only event or, in the case of a cyclic
universe, may recur at regular intervals separated by
periods of expansion and contraction.

https://paulsteinhardt.org/bouncing-cosmology/

On 8/28/2021 7:14 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> Whisper wrote on 28/8/21 6:59 pm:
>>> On 28/08/2021 10:43 am, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
>>>>> D <J@m> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:00:36 -0400, casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>>>>>> This important message can't be stated often enough
>>>>>> If you keep repeating the mantra "We went to the Moon" for a long
>>>>>> enough time, it makes it become true. Like magic, it's bewitching:
>>>>
>>>> If anyone is into modestly-sized numbers then consider:
>>>>
>>>> - 2 trillion galaxies
>>>
>>> Prob more.
>>
>> I can remember reading somewhere, 15 maybe 20 years ago, that one of the
>> reputable Creation Theories doing the rounds then was that 'The Big Bang
>> that created out Universe was the result of two other Universes bumping
>> into each other and some of the matter from each of those Universes
>> leaked through into a new 'Dimension' and that was Our Universe/Dimension!!
>>
>> Too 'D & M' for me!!
>
>
> You're talkibg about M-theory or "brain" theory.
> Under some versions different "brains" can crash together and
> essentially create new universes.
> No scientists AFAIK proposed our universe was somehow a special case
> or tried to argue it was anything more than mathematical speculation.
>
> Science is just at the begining stages of trying to understand how
> reality really works. It's a tautology that it's very very complicated
> although it appears trivial if you havent gone into the details.
> You look around you and think everything obviously *Is* what it
> appears to be.
> But it cant be according to either GR or QP.
>

Well, anyone that's studied physics knows that an
initial frame of reference error carries throughout
and generally renders the conclusions nonsense.

There's a monstrous frame of reference error that's
plagued our modern objective science for centuries
and it's the initial assumption of the /direction/
of causation.

For centuries Step One has been to assume a frame of
/upward/ causation. Where we begin with the parts in
order to understand the whole. That's the big mistake
of modern science when it comes to understanding reality.

Upward causation, or a part driven model is just fine
for extraordinarily simple systems, for instance
a building or a circuit. But natural systems are
rarely simple, they are complex.

Natural systems, reality and nature, causation
is downward. In natural systems quite contrary to
intuition the...whole comes first, the parts later.

How is that even possible one would 'naturally' ask.

The idea of starting from quantum scales to understand
reality is scientific folly and displays a deep
ignorance of how the natural realm works.

Here is the new method for understanding how anything
came into existence, whether a universe, a forest
or an idea.

If you're not versed in the concept of emergence
then nature and reality will continue to be a
complete mystery.

For starters new creations take place without
an apparent cause. Effects (the output) come first
the cause (input) later, when dealing with /natural/
or real world systems.

Our objective reductionism, or part driven models have
produced so many wonderful and shiny toys we've
become deluded into thinking upward causation can
solve anything at all, eventually.

NOPE! A scientific method based on a correct initial
frame of reference is required to understand the
natural world and reality.

Here it is...

Types and Forms of Emergence
Jochen Fromm
Distributed Systems Group,
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science,
Universität Kassel, Germany

If we consider the world of emergent properties,
the deepest mysteries are as close as the nearest
seedling, ice cube, grain of salt or pile of sand, as
Laughlin explains in his book [Laughlin05]. It is
doubtful that the ultimate laws can be found at
inconceivable high energies or extreme scales, if
we do not understand things at our own scale well
enough. In other words we must step back and look
at the patterns and the interactions of everyday
objects to discover the nature of our universe.

Abstract.

The knowledge of the different types of emergence
is essential if we want to understand and master complex systems
in science and engineering, respectively. This paper specifies
a universal taxonomy and comprehensive classification of the
major types and forms of emergence in Multi-Agent Systems, from
simple types of intentional and predictable emergence in machines
to more complex forms of weak, multiple and strong emergence.

1. Introduction

The emergence of order and organization in systems
composed of many autonomous entities or agents is a
very fundamental process. The process of emergence
deals with the fundamental question: “how does an entity
come into existence?” In a process of emergence we
observe something (for instance the appearance of order
or organization) and ask how this is possible, since we
assume causality: every effect should have a cause. The
surprising aspect in a process of emergence is the
observation of an effect without an apparent cause.

> Under GR e.g. time is "just another dimensions" that leads to
> the concept of the Block Universe where everything is frozen and nothing
> really changes.
>
> Think of a graph showing the history of a moving ball. Along the
> horiz axis is time. Going to -ve inf (if you like) to the left
> and +inf to the right. The y axis in a simple case indicates the position
> of the ball. A line on the graph shows where the ball is at any time.
>
> Seems simple. No surprises. But consider. What is changing in the graph?
> Nothing. It is fixed. You can look at any point of the graph to
> find out where the ball is supposed to be at that time, but nothing
> is moving.
>
> In the Bloch Universe the whole universe is like that graph. It is all
> laid out and nothing is moving. Nothing is changing. Any being in that
> universe can not remember anything because that requires a change in
> their brains.
>
> So how can any of this be? GR is supposed to be one of the 2 best theories
> we have, yet it seems to lead to very strange places.
>
> Unfortunately, much the same thing happens in Quantum Physics as well.
> You end up with the concept of a wavefunction that can not be inside
> the universe it is describing.
>
> Both theories seem to point to a universe that is a frozen fish tank
> and the minds of sentient beings don't seem to exist inside the universe,
> but outside where they can change their minds.
>
> You get too far into the math or logic and you start to make room
> for every crazy supernatural idea you've ever heard of being possible.
>
> So either our 2 best theories are crazy or the universe is.
> I vote the latter.
>

On 11/3/2021 11:26 AM, 98.6% wrote:

Forgot the link to the paper I cited
in the previous post.

Types and Forms of Emergence
Jochen Fromm
Distributed Systems Group,
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science,
Universität Kassel, Germany

https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf

> On 8/28/2021 7:14 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote on 28/8/21 6:59 pm:
>>>> On 28/08/2021 10:43 am, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
>>>>>> D <J@m> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:00:36 -0400, casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>>>>>>> This important message can't be stated often enough
>>>>>>> If you keep repeating the mantra "We went to the Moon" for a long
>>>>>>> enough time, it makes it become true. Like magic, it's bewitching:
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone is into modestly-sized numbers then consider:
>>>>>
>>>>> - 2 trillion galaxies
>>>>
>>>> Prob more.
>>>
>>> I can remember reading somewhere, 15 maybe 20 years ago, that one of the
>>> reputable Creation Theories doing the rounds then was that 'The Big Bang
>>> that created out Universe was the result of two other Universes bumping
>>> into each other and some of the matter from each of those Universes
>>> leaked through into a new 'Dimension' and that was Our
>>> Universe/Dimension!!
>>>
>>> Too 'D & M' for me!!
>>
>>
>> You're talkibg about M-theory or "brain" theory.
>> Under some versions different "brains" can crash together and
>> essentially create new universes.
>> No scientists AFAIK proposed our universe was somehow a special case
>> or tried to argue it was anything more than mathematical speculation.
>>
>> Science is just at the begining stages of trying to understand how
>> reality really works. It's a tautology that it's very very complicated
>> although it appears trivial if you havent gone into the details.
>> You look around you and think everything obviously  *Is* what it
>> appears to be.
>> But it cant be according to either GR or QP.
>>
>
>
>
> Well, anyone that's studied physics knows that an
> initial frame of reference error carries throughout
> and generally renders the conclusions nonsense.
>
> There's a monstrous frame of reference error that's
> plagued our modern objective science for centuries
> and it's the initial assumption of the /direction/
> of causation.
>
> For centuries Step One has been to assume a frame of
> /upward/ causation. Where we begin with the parts in
> order to understand the whole. That's the big mistake
> of modern science when it comes to understanding reality.
>
> Upward causation, or a part driven model is just fine
> for extraordinarily simple systems, for instance
> a building or a circuit. But natural systems are
> rarely simple, they are complex.
>
> Natural systems, reality and nature, causation
> is downward. In natural systems quite contrary to
> intuition the...whole comes first, the parts later.
>
> How is that even possible one would 'naturally' ask.
>
> The idea of starting from quantum scales to understand
> reality is scientific folly and displays a deep
> ignorance of how the natural realm works.
>
> Here is the new method for understanding how anything
> came into existence, whether a universe, a forest
> or an idea.
>
> If you're not versed in the concept of emergence
> then nature and reality will continue to be a
> complete mystery.
>
> For starters new creations take place without
> an apparent cause. Effects (the output) come first
> the cause (input) later, when dealing with /natural/
> or real world systems.
>
> Our objective reductionism, or part driven models have
> produced so many wonderful and shiny toys we've
> become deluded into thinking upward causation can
> solve anything at all, eventually.
>
> NOPE! A scientific method based on a correct initial
> frame of reference is required to understand the
> natural world and reality.
>
>
> Here it is...
>
>
> Types and Forms of Emergence
> Jochen Fromm
> Distributed Systems Group,
> Electrical Engineering & Computer Science,
> Universität Kassel, Germany
>
>
> If we consider the world of emergent properties,
> the deepest mysteries are as close as the nearest
> seedling, ice cube, grain of salt or pile of sand, as
> Laughlin explains in his book [Laughlin05]. It is
> doubtful that the ultimate laws can be found at
> inconceivable high energies or extreme scales, if
> we do not understand things at our own scale well
> enough. In other words we must step back and look
> at the patterns and the interactions of everyday
> objects to discover the nature of our universe.
>
>
> Abstract.
>
> The knowledge of the different types of emergence
> is essential if we want to understand and master complex systems
> in science and engineering, respectively. This paper specifies
> a universal taxonomy and comprehensive classification of the
> major types and forms of emergence in Multi-Agent Systems, from
> simple types of intentional and predictable emergence in machines
> to more complex forms of weak, multiple and strong emergence.
>
>
>
>
> 1. Introduction
>
>
> The emergence of order and organization in systems
> composed of many autonomous entities or agents is a
> very fundamental process. The process of emergence
> deals with the fundamental question: “how does an entity
> come into existence?” In a process of emergence we
> observe something (for instance the appearance of order
> or organization) and ask how this is possible, since we
> assume causality: every effect should have a cause. The
> surprising aspect in a process of emergence is the
> observation of an effect without an apparent cause.
>

https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf

>
>> Under GR e.g. time is "just another dimensions" that leads to
>> the concept of the Block Universe where everything is frozen and nothing
>> really changes.
>>
>> Think of a graph showing the history of a moving ball. Along the
>> horiz axis is time. Going to -ve inf (if you like) to the left
>> and +inf to the right. The y axis in a simple case indicates the position
>> of the ball. A line on the graph shows where the ball is at any time.
>>
>> Seems simple. No surprises. But consider. What is changing in the graph?
>> Nothing. It is fixed. You can look at any point of the graph to
>> find out where the ball is supposed to be at that time, but nothing
>> is moving.
>>
>> In the Bloch Universe the whole universe is like that graph. It is all
>> laid out and nothing is moving. Nothing is changing. Any being in that
>> universe can not remember anything because that requires a change in
>> their brains.
>>
>> So how can any of this be? GR is supposed to be one of the 2 best
>> theories
>> we have, yet it seems to lead to very strange places.
>>
>> Unfortunately, much the same thing happens in Quantum Physics as well.
>> You end up with the concept of a wavefunction that can not be inside
>> the universe it is describing.
>>
>> Both theories seem to point to a universe that is a frozen fish tank
>> and the minds of sentient beings don't seem to exist inside the universe,
>> but outside where they can change their minds.
>>
>> You get too far into the math or logic and you start to make room
>> for every crazy supernatural idea you've ever heard of being possible.
>>
>> So either our 2 best theories are crazy or the universe is.
>> I vote the latter.
>>
>

98.6% wrote on 4/11/21 2:06 am:
> On 8/28/2021 5:36 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 28/08/2021 7:34 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote on 28/8/21 6:59 pm:
>>>> On 28/08/2021 10:43 am, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
>>>>>> D <J@m> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:00:36 -0400, casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>>>>>>> This important message can't be stated often enough
>>>>>>> If you keep repeating the mantra "We went to the Moon" for a long
>>>>>>> enough time, it makes it become true. Like magic, it's bewitching:
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone is into modestly-sized numbers then consider:
>>>>>
>>>>> - 2 trillion galaxies
>>>>
>>>> Prob more.
>>>
>>> I can remember reading somewhere, 15 maybe 20 years ago, that one of
>>> the reputable Creation Theories doing the rounds then was that 'The
>>> Big Bang that created out Universe was the result of two other
>>> Universes bumping into each other and some of the matter from each of
>>> those Universes leaked through into a new 'Dimension' and that was
>>> Our Universe/Dimension!!
>>>
>>> Too 'D & M' for me!!
>>
>> It's truly frightening what passes for 'science' these days - shudder.
>
> Has anyone read about Steinhardt's cyclic or
> bouncing model? Where the Big Bang is replaced
> by a Big Crunch? Steinhardt btw is a founder
> of inflationary theory and a giant in cosmology.
>
> Bouncing Cosmology
>
> The research below explores the possibility that the universe
> has no beginning or end and that the “big bang” was actually
> a “big bounce” that smoothly connects an earlier phase of
> contraction to the present phase of expansion. The bounce
> may be a one-time only event or, in the case of a cyclic
> universe, may recur at regular intervals separated by
> periods of expansion and contraction.
>
> https://paulsteinhardt.org/bouncing-cosmology/

This theory of 'continual Expansion and Contraction' is one I have heard
as well.

Big bang occurs .... Matter expands and expands for some time until it
losses its momentum, then it collapses back in on itself until it is
just a point, .... then a Big Bang occurs (again) and the cycle
continues ad infiniteum!
--
Daniel

On 4/11/2021 11:09 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> 98.6% wrote on 4/11/21 2:06 am:
>> On 8/28/2021 5:36 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>> On 28/08/2021 7:34 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>
> This theory of 'continual Expansion and Contraction' is one I have heard
> as well.
>
> Big bang occurs .... Matter expands and expands for some time until it
> losses its momentum, then it collapses back in on itself until it is
> just a point, .... then a Big Bang occurs (again) and the cycle
> continues ad infiniteum!

Smells like bullshit to me. You're watching too many cartoons.

On 11/4/2021 8:09 AM, Daniel65 wrote:
> 98.6% wrote on 4/11/21 2:06 am:
>> On 8/28/2021 5:36 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>> On 28/08/2021 7:34 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote on 28/8/21 6:59 pm:
>>>>> On 28/08/2021 10:43 am, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>>>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> D <J@m> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:00:36 -0400, casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This important message can't be stated often enough
>>>>>>>> If you keep repeating the mantra "We went to the Moon" for a long
>>>>>>>> enough time, it makes it become true. Like magic, it's bewitching:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If anyone is into modestly-sized numbers then consider:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - 2 trillion galaxies
>>>>>
>>>>> Prob more.
>>>>
>>>> I can remember reading somewhere, 15 maybe 20 years ago, that one of
>>>> the reputable Creation Theories doing the rounds then was that 'The
>>>> Big Bang that created out Universe was the result of two other
>>>> Universes bumping into each other and some of the matter from each
>>>> of those Universes leaked through into a new 'Dimension' and that
>>>> was Our Universe/Dimension!!
>>>>
>>>> Too 'D & M' for me!!
>>>
>>> It's truly frightening what passes for 'science' these days - shudder.
>>
>> Has anyone read about Steinhardt's cyclic or
>> bouncing model? Where the Big Bang is replaced
>> by a Big Crunch? Steinhardt btw is a founder
>> of inflationary theory and a giant in cosmology.
>>
>> Bouncing Cosmology
>>
>> The research below explores the possibility that the universe
>> has no beginning or end and that the “big bang” was actually
>> a “big bounce” that smoothly connects an earlier phase of
>> contraction to the present phase of expansion. The bounce
>> may be a one-time only event or, in the case of a cyclic
>> universe, may recur at regular intervals separated by
>> periods of expansion and contraction.
>>
>> https://paulsteinhardt.org/bouncing-cosmology/
>
> This theory of 'continual Expansion and Contraction' is one I have heard
> as well.
>
> Big bang occurs .... Matter expands and expands for some time until it
> losses its momentum, then it collapses back in on itself until it is
> just a point, .... then a Big Bang occurs (again) and the cycle
> continues ad infiniteum!

In his cyclic model the universe collapses but never quite
reaches a singularity, but it does collapse enough so that
the fundamental laws may be unique to the new universe.

Here's a wonderful essay by Steinhardt laying out the
current state of cosmology, and pointing out just
how ...little we know.

Which means the truly great discoveries lie ahead, which
is exciting to think about.

A quintessential introduction to dark energy
By Paul J. Steinhardt
Department of Physics, Princeton University
https://physics.princeton.edu//~steinh/steinhardt.pdf

casag... wrote in message news:jn9iigdsq3ktaj16m8l4jdmut4eisbdn2j@4ax.com...

>... are Far Too Great, as to absolutely preclude any possibility of
>travel or communications. Alien visits, past, present or future, are a
>practical impossibility. This important message can't be stated often
>enough.
>

Quantum mechanics easily overcomes distance.
Einstein only had pieces of the big picture.
Light speed is only the maximum speed limit of the 3rd dimension. Once you
shift to the 4th or 5th dimensions it's like shifting from 1st gear to any
gear you want.

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 5:09:29 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:

> This theory of 'continual Expansion and Contraction' is one I have heard
> as well.

This was once known as "the oscillating universe theory" when I was in college in the 60's...

https://www.universetoday.com/38195/oscillating-universe-theory/

palsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 5:09:29 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
>> This theory of 'continual Expansion and Contraction' is one I have heard
>> as well.
> This was once known as "the oscillating universe theory" when I was in college in the 60's...
> https://www.universetoday.com/38195/oscillating-universe-theory/

In the 90s they found "something" now known as dark energy
was pushing the universe apart at increasing speeds.
The mass-equivalence of dark engery is about 2:1 the sum of normal
matter+entergy and another thing called dark matter they thought up
in the 1930s but is now thought to outmass normal matter 4:1.

You have to be an advanced culture to discover every decade you
only knew about 1-10% of the universe before that.

On 11/6/2021 2:23 AM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> palsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 5:09:29 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> This theory of 'continual Expansion and Contraction' is one I have heard
>>> as well.
>> This was once known as "the oscillating universe theory" when I was in college in the 60's...
>> https://www.universetoday.com/38195/oscillating-universe-theory/
>
> In the 90s they found "something" now known as dark energy
> was pushing the universe apart at increasing speeds.
> The mass-equivalence of dark engery is about 2:1 the sum of normal
> matter+entergy and another thing called dark matter they thought up
> in the 1930s but is now thought to outmass normal matter 4:1.
>
> You have to be an advanced culture to discover every decade you
> only knew about 1-10% of the universe before that.
>

Yep, what we don't know dwarfs the known when
it comes to cosmology. Dark matter/energy is
another name for 'have no idea'.

A quintessential introduction to dark energy
By Paul J. Ste inhard t
Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

1. Introduction

The discovery of dark energy is one of the most surprising and
profound discoveries in the history of science. Some of its
implications are the following.

Most of the energy in the Universe is not `matter’.
In its first 300 years, physics has focused on the properties
of matter and radiation, including dark matter. Now we know
that they represent less than 30% of the composition of
the Universe.

The rest consists of something we know virtually nothing about.

Most of the energy in the Universe is not gravitationaly attractive.
We are probably the last generation to have been taught that
`gravity always attracts’,a notion which has been presented as a
basic fact of nature for hundreds of years.

We are now aware that gravity can repel, as well. Of course,
the possibility ofself-repulsive forms of energy was there
in Einstein’s general theory of relativity since its inception,
but this point has not generally been appreciated until now.

We must rewrite the textbooks to explain that the gravitationaly
self-attracting matter with which we are familiar is the minority
in the Universe today (and for the indefinite future).

We live at a special time in the history of the Universe.
The Copernican revolution taught us that there is nothing special
about our location in the Universe. If space is uniform, then
should not the same be true for time? Hubble’s discovery that
the Universe is expanding taught us that the Universe is evolving,
but the notion was that the evolution has been steady over the
last 15 billion years with no remarkable changes. We now know
that time is anti-Copernican.

We live at a special moment in cosmic history: the transition
between a decelerating, matter-dominated Universe and an
accelerating, dark-energy-dominated Universe

https://physics.princeton.edu//~steinh/steinhardt.pdf

On 8/28/2021 7:23 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>>> If anyone is into modestly-sized numbers then consider:
>>>> - 2 trillion galaxies
>>> Prob more.
>> Universe is infinite so likely infinite number of galaxies.
>
> What is the gravity field or tides inside an infinite universe?
>

A quintessential introduction to dark energy
By Paul J. Ste inhard t
Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

Most of the energy in the Universe is not gravitationally attractive.
We are probably the last generation to have been taught that
`gravity always attracts’,a notion which has been presented as a
basic fact of nature for hundreds of years.

We are now aware that gravity can repel, as well. Of course,
the possibility of self-repulsive forms of energy was there
in Einstein’s general theory of relativity since its inception,
but this point has not generally been appreciated until now.

We must rewrite the textbooks to explain that the gravitationally
self-attracting matter with which we are familiar is the minority
in the Universe today (and for the indefinite future).

https://physics.princeton.edu//~steinh/steinhardt.pdf

> Start simple.
>
> Start with sitting on the surface of an infinite sphere.
> g = GM/R^2 where M and R go to inf.
> M = 4/3 pi R^3 \rho.
> I.e. g = 4/3 pi G \rho R.
> I.e. g goes to infinity if the matter density is nonzero.
>
> Doesnt seem to be nice!
>
> Now consider sitting between 2 infinite spheres.
> If they are identical and you are a point then fine. Field is 0.
>
> If they are not identical or you are not a point then
> insert shredding noises from the tidal forces.
>

palsing wrote on 6/11/21 2:26 pm:
> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 5:09:29 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
>
>> This theory of 'continual Expansion and Contraction' is one I have
>> heard as well.
>
> This was once known as "the oscillating universe theory" when I was
> in college in the 60's...
>
> https://www.universetoday.com/38195/oscillating-universe-theory/
>
That name doesn't ring a bell. I had been thinking "Steady State
Universe" Theorem, but that's wrong, too!
--
Daniel