Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble>
- Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 00:38:58 +1000
"The Phantom Piper" <ThePhantomPiper@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2e875cbd-a469-4072-bb5c-0f4526ad383c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 4, 12:30 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
Anything more than three syllables is a waste of my literary talents.
How about One Syllable, then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIv6ro1Yfuo
[sigh]
I'm jist efter explaining why there *wiznae* any
"just prior to the Big Bang".
Oh for Fred Hoyle's sake! You *KNOW* what I mean!
'Prior' hadn't been created yet. (OK - there
probably wasn't any 'yet' yet either)
Ha! You see there? You *see*?!
Look, Stephen Hawking
Just while we are on the subject of Stephen Hawking, Steven Hawking iznae aw
that smart - he's just a very marketable averagely intelligent genius.
This is according to Stephen Hawking by the way. He flatly denies being 'the
smartest bloke in the world' and other slanderous accusations the press have
made about him over the years. Just because he's in a wheelchair and speaks
through a computer it doesn't mean he's brilliant. Leave the poor b*st*rd
alone.
I guess it's a bit like the reaction we could expect if the bloke in the
Ostrich suit who is running the London Marathon for the Retired Ostrich
Sanctury in Hemel Hempstead actually WON the bloody thing with a time of 2
hours 19 minutes ahead of all those emaciated Ethiopians and such.
But anyway - I digest.
is opaquely clear on this:
hypermasses which are rotating at near relativistic
velocities generate both Matter and Energy (and
random composites of both Matter *and* Energy)
_randomly_. (Yes, both Matter and Energy are
_spontaneously created_, in clear violation of almost
*everyone's* Righteous Laws, Received Learning,
and Common Wisdom.) And such spontaneous
creation of Random Configurations of matter and
energy continue "until" (there, are you happy now?
there technically isn't an "until" either, what with
Time being undefined and all) - anyway, this goes
on "UNTIL" a Random Configuration is eventually
created which has three characteristics: first, it
can survive
??
I presume that's a typo and you meant to say 'can't' survive.
being anywhere "near" the protomass
(there; I've done it again: sue me!); secondly, It
is Aware (that is, capable of Having An Opinion);
finally, It has the innate capability of Ordering
Spacetime - ie: "Let There Be Light" (and Pi, and
'C', and the Gravitational Constant, etc.)... "Once"
(ha!) such an entity has been Randomly Created by
the unique causal qualities of *THE* relativistically
rotating hypermass, It instantly Creates The Universe
as It Itself is created, setting the new Constants for
this iteration of Existence, and presumably putting
the physical and spiritual laws of the place into effect.
Xty trillion years later - yada yada yada... - heat death
of the universe..., contraction begins (*OR* everything
[and I do mean: EVERYTHING] meets up again on
the opposite side, if you're a Curver)..., only Force left
is Gravitation... - yada yada yada... - things get hotter
as they are Compressed... - get `em Hot _enough_ and
they begin to break down... - yearsandyearsandyears
go by... - and God's Yer Unco: a New Protomass is
formed, just awaiting the spontaneous generation of
a new God to start the whole thing over again!
Hmmm. Yeah, neat trick and I get what you're saying. Not sure I agree with
the 'putting the spiritual laws into effect' though. The Bible says that Man
made God in his own image - never forget that. That happened a bit later on
mind you.
And anyway all that stuff above only works if the Linde-Kallosh model is
correct y'know.
Could be Einstein's 'cosmological constant' ( that you'll recall he
reluctantly abandoned (publically at least) in the light of Hubbles
discoveries) might now be right after all as it now seems some Force (that
permits cosmological constantcy) *does* exist in the form of dark energy.
However, Linde is seemingly now arguing (and IHTA I'm a bit out of touch
lately) that this only works if the total density of dark energy remains
greater than zero forever. Guaranteeing that it is albut impossible using
current elementary particle theory like string theory and extended
supergravity blah balh and it now seems that the latest predictions are that
it (dark energy) will gradually become negative (?? **** knows - don't ask
me) and cause the universe to collapse as you suggest - except it will do
so within a mere 20 billion years or so and not 'Xty trillion later yada
yada yada'.
(!!)
If so then maybe Buddha wasn't bull****ing about his '93 eons' stuff efter
aw and Yeats (much as I love him too) was a bit overly spaced out with his
'The falcon cannot hear the falconer' rantings.
Ah **** it all. 'What we know for certain' changes every 10 to 15 years or
so on average so at my age I'm probably stuck with things the way they are.
God knows what's gonnae happen to us aw noo.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: The Phantom Piper
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: La N
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- References:
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: Bryn Fraser
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: Adam Whyte-Settlar
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: Scotty
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: Adam Whyte-Settlar
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: Adam Whyte-Settlar
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: La N
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: Adam Whyte-Settlar
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: La N
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: Adam Whyte-Settlar
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: conwaycaine
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: Adam Whyte-Settlar
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: La N
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: The Phantom Piper
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: Adam Whyte-Settlar
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- From: The Phantom Piper
- Re: Count the Galaxies
- Prev by Date: Re: I'm back, miss me?
- Next by Date: Re: PING Scotty - Who has been to S. Africa several times (or anybody else)
- Previous by thread: Re: Count the Galaxies
- Next by thread: Re: Count the Galaxies
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|