 | >From: jacob navia (jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr)
>Subject: Re: Vestiges of Big Bang Waves Are Reported
>Newsgroups: sci.physics, gac.physics.astronomy, sci.astro,
alt.astronomy, alt.sci.physics
>Date: 2005-01-20 14:27:47 PST
>SDR wrote:
> The mind can do anything. You should read a little Emily
> Dickinson.
> I suppose you say that because I wrote:
>>He needs to postulate that space is shrinking relative
>>to another "x-space" as he calls it.
>>And that "x-space" doesn't shrink or... does it?
I believe I also said space is merely the distance
between bits of matter (and not just planets/galaxies).
>Then you lost control, and started babbling like
>this:
I often do this. It's great for working out the wrinkles
on one's big fat mouth.
>> I see that there are far too many persons in this world
>> of evolved apes who will never understand even the simplest
>> facts/elucidations.
>You are not an evolved ape then?
Sometimes I wonder--I do love to hang around trees.
>Oh my... You mean you are just an ape?
I'm proud to be an ape. I love to toss my feces around.
>Yes, I hope I am an evolved one. :-)
Hopping ain't gonna do it: That's kangaroo stuff there.
>I know, there are people that will not understand
>the simplest facts:
The simplest facts are the hardest to understand.
I've often talked gibberish to people and they nod
and say, "Uh-Huh." But the minute I try to tell them
that 2+2=5 it starts a big brawl.
>Space can't expand nor shrink.
That should be "or."
>*Into what* would space expand/shrink?
Into more/less space?
>That's a simple fact.
Now you just wanna fight.
>> So I will post "The Origin of The Universe"
>> as a sort of literary narrative--perhaps many more persons
>> might grasp the thing if they think they are reading a story.
>It is a story. You do not present any observation
>that would give credit to the story as fact.
Matter is there for me to talk about: That's a fact, Mister.
[snip]
>> PS. In your other post you seem to have been brought up
>> on "Ant Man" comics or the like: Let me assure you that
>> "life" can only exist as made up of our sorts of atoms.
>I am convinced that at all levels of life, people are
>saying the same thing:
That explains the babble you're hearing.
>Only our atoms are conceivable. Most people living in the
>surface of my atoms do not believe I am living. And many
>among them must be in a stage where the lower levels aren't
>at all visible, like humans 200 years ago.
>> Although atoms may themselves be composed of subparticles
>> ad infinitum, it's impossible for us to predict what form
>> these "particles" take much below the level of quarks
>Yes, we do not know at all what happens within a quark, and
>what is made of.
> > (and
>> no "beings" could be composed of anything like quarks).
>Why not?
I think i explained it in my post: read it again.
>How can you ever know if you do not know at all
>what are they made of?
I may not know what's in a suitcase, but I know
it can't be a gorilla.
>You said that there are NO ELEMENTARY PARTICLES, what
>(at least in my opinion) is a good idea. There is always
>a particle smaller than the one we know about. To all
>"particles" we can suppose it is made of even
>smaller ones ad infinitum.
>Smaller scales would have a higher time, bigger scales
>a slower one. Galaxy movements take forever, seen from
>our time frame.
So?
> > Not
>> to mentioin that all life as we know it
>Beings in the "surface" of an atom (whatever that
>is) would surely be completely different than we
>are. They would be "life as we do not know it"
>from the very start. Photons, atoms, etc are
>big structures for them, that move very slowly.
They'd certainly need their own Sun, and toilets.
>>Most of the atom is empty space, and in the center
>>there is a liquid form, the core, where all the
>>mass is.
Liquid centers? Are they gooey chocolate or berry?
>The liquid nature of the core is more evident in
>big atoms, with many protons and neutrons.
>This liquid could have a complex chemistry where
>the particles that make the "liquid" could react
>in very complex ways. Not only the proton/neutron
>interaction but the reactions of their basic
>particles.
>Still, life is software, and software can be
>constructed at all levels of being. Whatever
>they are, the "particles" that make our atoms,
>they could have an evolution within them
>and construct very complex forms in seconds,
>just seconds.
>> must feed on some
>> form of radiation or other--and the particles of radiation
>> are just so small and no smaller. Sorry.
>There must be "radiation", i.e. energy, but surely not
>in form of photons, or particles we know about.
I can only think about one universe at a time.
>>This beings are off limits for us anyway.
>We can never meet them.
>They live in another time and space frame.
Don't you mean "lived?" By now their entire universe
must have run its course and vanished. R.I.P.
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
|
|
