Re: Texas: Board Set to Vote on Challenge to Evolution

Reading from news:talk.origins,
Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> posted:

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:07:23 -0500, Damaeus
<no-mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Reading from news:talk.origins,
Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> posted:

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:13:18 -0500, Damaeus
<no-mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Reading from news:talk.origins,
Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> posted:

No, I would imagine that most stories were written down at some
point. That only some survive just shows us what some generations
between them and us found interesting.

Meaning it meant something to them, it was important in some way, so
they wanted to preserve it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yah? Science does the same thing. The scientific method is important, so
they stick to it, some seemingly at the expense of serious speculation and
imagination.

For some unknown reason people seem to want to preserve the works of
Shakespeare at the moment. Most people in his own time didn't consider
him that important. Maybe 3,000 years from now he will be forgotten,
but if he isn't it will only be because we preserved his work - not
because the people of his time considered him in any way special.

I don't put any importance on what happened back then at all, so there's
no need to tell me any of that.

But you DID, as indicated above.

No. I said it was important to people THEN. And some historical things
are important to people NOW. But nothing historical is important to me at
all.

Bugger but your dancing is becoming comical.

The kinks have to be worked out somehow.

Try facing up to reality.

Reality includes the things people think about, and their perceptions.
They do mean something. You have to pretend we're apes to think that
the things we think about mean nothing at all.

I don't pretend we are apes, we are apes.

Okay, I'll play along. Can we at least be imaginative apes?

Some of us are.

Okay. I'm an imaginative ape who looks nothing like an ape, acts nothing
like an ape. I don't open my mouth as wide as I can and clap my hands
together. I don't purse my lips and shake my head. I don't go outside
and climb trees and swing from them like monkeys do. I don't pick lice
out of my friends' head. We have ways to avoid getting lice to begin
with. Apes don't. Well, they probably do. They're just too lazy to care
enough about doing it. Or they enjoy it. Which do you think it is? Seems
to me if a gorilla is too lazy to build a concert stage and throw a party,
he'd be too lazy to care about lice prevention.

From the perspective of skepticism, I suppose you're doing what you're
supposed to do. 1. Deny all claims dealing with any sort of creator,

Until someone can find some evidence for one.

Evidence sometimes comes from the inside out, and cannot be verified by
anyone else.

Then it is not evidence.

And that's just as it should be, since you and your brain
are one and nothing that goes on inside your head can be transmitted to
another. Therefore for someone to stand outside your body and tell you
that your perceptions and sense of place is all wrong...well, you couldn't
very well accept that someone else knows your body and mind inside and out
better than you do. Your body is yours. My body is mine. I know my
experiences better than you do. You tell me there's no evidence for a
creator,

Absolutely ZERO.

I tell you that I've found it in a way that satisfies me, but
cannot satisfy you since you have not had any experiences similar to mine
that would make you aware of it.

Evidence is something you can present.

Internal evidence as experience without physical proof can only be
presented with reasoning and logic. And if your worldview lacks some of
the materials, experiences, and understanding I have, you would not be
able to understand things in the same way I do. I understand you
completely. You just haven't developed enough to understand me yet.

I had hoped that some discussions might
create a few AHAs in the newsgroup, but apparently it really does come
from inside each person, and conveying such knowledge through text imparts
the idea, but not the understanding of it. Understanding of the ideas and
how they are integrated with the universe requires repeated observation of
these principles at work to be able to comprehend how they work toward
improving the person over time.

Are you getting treatment for your delusions?

I'm not deluded. You just don't believe in self-improvement. I would
assume that you would improve mentally in /some/ ways that you might not
be aware of, but only you can relate that experience. I won't pretend to
be able to jump into your life and know everything you've seen and done in
your time, even if you have done that very thing to me in every one of
your posts.

and 2. Don't believe anything publicly until mainstream science has
accepted it across the board.

What is "mainstream science"?

Mainstream -- after the theories and hypotheses have been put to rest and
something is known as a hard and irrefutable fact.

Doesn't exist.

Existence of fossils is a fact. Fossils are a part of mainstream science.
Fossils exist. Fossils in mainstream science exists. You are wrong.

You need to learn more about science.

You need to learn what facts are and how they are used in science.

I prefer cutting edge science myself - much more exciting.

Yes, if you're into orgasm denial. I like cutting edge science, too, but
it still moves too slowly.

Hoodoo!

You think slow-moving science is witchcraft? Or did the speed of science
remind you of rock formations?

Atheistic skepticism is just like a religion. It's really anti-religion.

No, honest, it isn't.

Not in the way you think I meant anti-religion. I don't mean against
religion, but sort of an inverse of religion.

I said "No, honest, it isn't."

Then you don't know what it is. You were unable to explain it... or if
you're a gorilla, you were just too lazy.

It says that you can't believe anything at all until science approves it
as fact. It leaves a bunch of lower-ranking atheists and skeptics waiting
in the wings to see what it's safe to believe next.

And from my perspective, immortality isn't even that much of a stretch. To
me, it's just evolution with a preference, and human's wish for a better
body than they have, and the act of allowing someone to pull your face off
and staple it back on, to me, is a sign of the kind of psychosis I talk
about. Gene Simmons is happily psychotic and quite sane for the world
view he lives from. But I'd never have my face pulled off and stapled
back on more tightly.

You really are nuts.

For not wanting my face pulled off and stretched back over my skull? I'm
not nuts. I'm quite sane. A face-lift is much like the part of an
autopsy that requires pulling the face away from the skull. They do that
during autopsies.

Do they? The two I've attended certainly didn't.

Probably depends on what they're looking for. The one I've seen did pull
the person's face off.

But what the firk got you on to pulling faces off? You really are
sounding nuts.

No, you just need me to be nuts to continue supporting the position you've
been holding. Getting a face lift to remove wrinkles is a schizophrenic
behavior, no matter how normal people think it is. But it also relates to
the human desire for physical perfection, so it is a sign that we have a
desire for perfection and we look for ways to achieve that perfection.
Face lifts, to me, are like brain surgery performed by ancients with sharp
stones.

Yes it does. It exposes three of the world's biggest religions as
being founded on lies.

What does that change in the present moment? You certainly won't convince
believers of this. You can't cure mass delusion with a statement that the
people of the world in the three largest religions are all fooling
themselves with beliefs founded in lies.

It is, however, a start.

It will be about as effective as The War on (Some) Drugs, if that much.

The war on some drugs is being won.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Yeah, if you're on the drug side. The war on drugs has done nothing to
stop demand or distribution, but has only put 25% of the world's prison
population in America, often for non-violent drug offenses. You can get
pot as easily today as when it was first made illegal, and you can even be
selective if you know the right people...getting your favorite kind of
pot.

Do you like Newt Gingrich, by any chance?

And what is the lie, exactly, anyway? Is the lie the promise of eternal
life, or is it the history that came along with the people who believed
they had the right path that all should follow to attain eternal life?

Eternal life is impossible, as well as very undesirable.

Only undesirable in the limited way you have envisioned it. And people
who are against immortality use all kinds of dark scenarios to make it
undesirable. As if we haven't the intelligence to avoid those dark
scenarios and just live.

Yes, we haven't the intelligence.

Apes don't. Humans do. We have the intelligence to solve problems to
make people happier. Not all the right decisions have been made yet, but
we have the ability to make those decisions.

However, the basic lie is that were are in any way "created".

It's not a lie.

Yes it is.

It is not. If science still has theories and unanswered questions, then a
created human cannot be a lie. And I mean created physically through
evolutionary forces as well as intangible, intelligent forces (human
spirit). It can only be something you don't believe in, yourself. But
you can have a spirit without believing you have one. We did it for
millions of years before philosophers and religions began cropping
up....living our lives like apes, totally unaware that our own spirits
were developing our bodies into something more pleasing to look at. Looks
like random chance to science, but improvements thrived, while old designs
went extinct. Evolution proves that.

You might not believe it, but that does not make it a lie.

But a lie it is.

Nope.

The fact is, whether we were created or evolved makes no difference.
We are here now, and we can only live toward the future, not the past. So
since whatever happened, happened billions of years ago, I'd say it's time
to stop living in the past.

Time to stop following a failed and discredited cause - creationism.

That's like asking me to stop believing evolution.

Others disagree. Others see ways that the stories could be true, and
others. I see ways for the stories of ancient mythology could be
true, too.

Oh dear - as mad as Mudbrain are you?

A pre-Big-Bang universe.

There was none.

Something you cannot prove.

Nononononono! You, like so many others who are ignorant of science,
fail to understand that the BB started the universe. There was nothing
before it.

And that is just belief.

No.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! You remind me of my father. He would say something like,
"I don't know what was before the Big Bang, but it wasn't that."

If he doesn't know what it was, then he can't know what it wasn't, either.
Neither can you. If you claim you don't know what was before the Big
Bang, you can't just say that there was no "before" and expect to be taken
seriously. What was before was obviously either nothing, or something was
mashed into a point of heat. That current scientists are trying to come
up with model in which the universe endlessly expands and contracts is
proof that you are not as wise as they are. At least they are finding
ways a universe could be cyclical. You don't even allow that. You just
say the Big Bang singularity just... "sprang into existence" suddenly, and
out of a void containing nothing. /THAT/ is creation. But even worse
than admitting a creator did it, you don't even give it a cause. It's
just an effect without a cause.

Your position is illogical.

If there was another universe before the one we live in now,

That would be a different universe and nothing whatsoever to do with
ours.


it would have all been obliterated as it was crammed into the
point of heat and light that started the Big Bang.

Your ignorance of the BB has already been pointed out to you.

No. You just don't think I understand it. I do.

Go study.

lol

You can no more say with certainty that there was no universe before
this one than I can say that there was.

Yes, I can.

You have no proof that there was nothing.

However, I do have a good story with how a universe could be created,
compressed, then exploded to get what we have now.

Even now, some scientists are trying to come up with some mechanism by
which the universe could expand and contract endlessly.

It is an old idea, it doesn't work.

I know. I think it's bull***, too. I'm just pointing out how very
recently science was stupid concerning the universe, but the accelerating
expansion certainly makes another contraction unlikely.

But now a universe's expansion that is accelerating makes another
contraction seem unlikely.

I noticed the lack of response.

Could be the radiation that cosmologists interpret to figure out what the
earliest moments of the universe were like.

That is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). What exactly
is it that you are misunderstanding about that when you call it an
"Information field"?

I said "could be".

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/fzmean.htm

Some people really know how to drag up the dregs of science.

I wouldn't have thought you'd think of science as having any dregs at all.
But now I see that, just like a religionist, you pick and choose what
parts of science you want to believe in and what parts you don't, as it
suits what you want to believe. So you're doing the same thing that
you're accusing me of doing.

Any energy around us may have a harmonizing pattern that does more for
evolution than /just/ ground work. If our bodies work with electrical
impulses, and we are surrounded by energy, too, then it only makes
sense that there would be some effect over time.

Just shows how little you know about CMBR.

I didn't say it came from CMBR.

So "Could be the radiation that cosmologists interpret to figure out
what the earliest moments of the universe were like." was just you
wasting bandwidth?

There's a difference between "is" and "could be". Someone with reading
comprehension skills would have caught that.

Could be information associated with dark energy. Some think that
might be what's accelerating the expansion of the universe...a
constant inflow of dark energy.

Nononononononononononononono!

Do you panic like this often?

There cannot be an inflow of anything.

Some theories disagree. Your beliefs are being threatened.

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical
form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase
the rate of expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most
popular way to explain recent observations that the universe
appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard
model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 74% of the
total mass-energy of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

These are all speculative stories, of course--things that could have been,
but when you have no evidence that you can lay your hands on physically or
see with a telescope, saying "I don't know" is popular for a scientist,
but since nobody knows, making up a story that connects with what we know
we are now just helps people keep everything in perspective. Others are
happy not knowing.

Lies are lies - end of story.

But it's nice if the lies could be itemized instead of calling a whole
idea a lie.

Religion is a lie. Start from that point.

That explains your position quite clearly. You think some people are just
liars.

Yes, that is certainly true of creationists.

Well, you're wrong about me. I am not a liar.

So far every one has proven to be a natural born liar.

You cannot know the mind of any one person, much less all creationists who
have ever lived and who are living now. For you to claim they are all
liars is to claim that you have some omniscient ability to judge all
mankind and all thoughts, and your word is final. Are you trying to say
that you're God?

I like to think people are saying what they believe when it comes
to these matters. I'm less likely than you to think of my fellow
man as a liar.

If you had spent any time lurking here then you will understand why
creationists are seen as liars.

Then it's a choice to see them as liars...a choice that can be changed.

If gravity is caused by the compression of space, then as the universe
expands, the effects of gravity would change. A compressed infinity
should have some agitation, right? As it strains against its "container"
to be full-size?

What the hell are you talking about?

Space cannot be compressed.

How can science support the Big Bang theory if space cannot be compressed?

Bugger but you are really ignorant.

Space, and time, started from the moment of the big bang

You can't say that about time.

Yes, I can.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small,
infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity.
Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We
don't know.

You'd have to know how long the singularity existed before it
actually exploded.

Ha! Common misconception. There was no singularity before the BB.

And you are unable to explain it. For an issue surrounded by so many "we
don't knows" from reputable scientists, you sure claim to have a lot of
detailed knowledge about what actually happened. Of course, I will just
call it all speculation. You don't know. And calling someone else a liar
is like saying you are definite and 100% correct about it, which
is...misleading.

Any time it existed would be time before the bang actually took
place.

There wasn't any.

You don't know.

I know how the big bang effect is expanding into existing space.

No, wrong again.

And you don't explain yourself. I don't think you can. Or like an ape,
you're too lazy. I write reams of information, to which you use little
tiny short sentences that don't say anything. You just refute everything,
say you're right, call others wrong, and you haven't even the ability to
describe what you know besides saying these things:

We are apes.

Wrong.

There is none.

Immortality is impossible.

Those are not intelligent statements.

It's the reason I believe it will one day become infinite...

It can't. Nothing with a finite start can become infinite.

Unless it was infinity in a singularity. And I quote again:

Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small,
infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity.

If you can't expand finiteness into infinity, then you can't expect that
finiteness to be infinitely small or infinitely dense.

it is expanding into an infinite "holder",

It is not expanding "in to" anything.

You're contradicting yourself. You said the universe was finite and
unbounded. If it is unbounded, what is beyond the boundary?

sucking what we see as the effects of the big bang
into the nether reaches of infinity, and accelerating as it does so,
giving credence to my idea that the big bang effect, itself, will one day
become as infinite as the space it's expanding into.

It is not expanding into space, space is expanding.

You are contradicting yourself. Above, you said "Space cannot be
compressed." Yet here you say it is expanding. For space to be more
expanded now than it was in the past, means that in the past, space was
more compressed than it is now. And space is more compressed now than it
will be in the next moment.

Space has been expanding ever since but it was never
compressed.

You sure like having it both ways, don't you. You mix words and play
semantics when it suits you. Space cannot expand. The result of the big
bang expands into a space that does not change its shape or size.

Oh dear, you really are that ignorant.

No. We just have different ways of thinking about the same things. I can
easily imagine a universe expanding along with space, itself. I can
imagine a known, finite universe expanding into an unknown infinite, but
empty universe that is devoid of everything until our known universe
expands to fill it.

I'll just go into this material from a website. It's a question answered
by Dave Rothstein.

Dave is a postdoctoral researcher at Cornell who uses infrared and
X-ray observations and theoretical computer models to study
accreting black holes in our Galaxy. He also does most of our
website development.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274

The question was:

I am very confused about things my science book says about the
expanding universe. Every book I have seen has defined the
universe as "everything". If the universe is expanding what is it
expanding into? It would have to expand into even more universe.
I understand that the red spectra indicates that things are moving
away from us but that is drifting not expanding, right? If you
could help me to understand this, it would be appreciated. Thank
you for your time.

First, a snippet about "expanding"

Let me begin by saying that "expanding" isn't really the best word
to describe what is happening to the universe, although that is
the word that is often used - a word choice which I think leads to
a lot of unnecessary confusion regarding what is already a
difficult topic! A more accurate word for what the universe is
doing might be "stretching".

Okay, for an area of thought that is so uppity about using words with
precision, how did "expanding" make its way into so many texts? Why
didn't scientists, themselves, correct all these things? Astronomers,
themselves, refer to the universe as expanding when dealing with the
public, I suppose because they assume the public is too stupid to
understand what "stretching" means as it relates to the universe. So when
the same scientifically-minded people accuse the same public they've been
communicating with of not using terms properly, it's their own fault for
not using the proper terminology when dealing with the public in the first
place.

Here are the words of Micho Kaku, himself:

,---- [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077398/ ]
| What is the universe expanding into? Our cosmic +IBg-bubble+IBk- is growing in
| hyperspace
|
| Oct. 6, 1998 - If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
| Here+IBk-s an explanation from theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, who teaches
| at the City College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New
| York. Kaku is the author of several books about science and hosts a
| weekly show on WBAI-FM in New York.
|
| What is the universe expanding into? Where did the Big Bang take place?
|
| To answer these questions, think of an ant walking on the surface of an
| expanding bubble. Since the ant can only see in two dimensions, asking
| where the original bubble came from, and where it is expanding, makes no
| sense to it.
|
| But to us, the answer to both these questions is obvious: the third
| dimension.
|
| Now imagine we are the ants, on the surface of our expanding universe or
| bubble.
|
| Then it is clear now that the universe is expanding in hyperspace, and
| that the original Big Bang took place in hyperspace. If we cannot
| visualize hyperspace, it is only because we spend our time in the third
| dimension.
`----

Well, *I* can certainly visualize hyperspace as an area in which the Big
Bang took place. And I can visualize the "expanding bubble" Kaku
mentions, in his own words. And he says the universe is expanding. How
it's expanding becomes a deeper question that involves stretching.

But now to get back to the original article...

[snip]

...if you just want a short answer, I'll say this: if the universe
is infinitely big, then the answer is simply that it isn't
expanding into anything; instead, what is happening is that every
region of the universe, every distance between every pair of
galaxies, is being "stretched", but the overall size of the
universe was infinitely big to begin with and continues to remain
infinitely big as time goes on, so the universe's size doesn't
change, and therefore it doesn't expand into anything.

He goes on to say...

If, on the other hand, the universe has a finite size, then it may
be legitimate to claim that there is something "outside of the
universe" that the universe is expanding into. However, because
we are, by definition, stuck within the space that makes up our
universe and have no way to observe anything outside of it, this
ceases to be a question that can be answered scientifically.

But Kaku said that the Big Bang took place in hyperspace and the current
bubble resulting from the Big Bang is expanding. And if the Big Bang took
place in hyperspace, it is expanding into hyperspace.

So the answer in that case is that we really don't know what, if
anything, the universe is expanding into.

Hmmm... a difference of opinion between scientists. Sounds like a
religious war without the violence. This guy just says we don't know
because it can't be observed scientifically. But Kaku seems to have no
trouble with this.

[snip]

Of course, when we think of space in everyday life, we don't think
of it as something which is capable of stretching. Space, to us,
just seems like something which is there, and which everything
else in the universe exists within.

I don't know who this "we" is that he refers to and is speaking for, but I
don't think of the universe in that way at all. I think of it as
constantly in motion in one way or another -- alive.

Space, to us, just seems like something which is there, and which
everything else in the universe exists within. But according to
Einstein's theory of general relativity, space isn't really as
simple as our common sense tells us. If we want to understand the
actual way that the universe functions, we need to find some way
to incorporate Einstein's ideas into our mental picture and
imagine space as a more complicated entity which is capable of
doing things like "bending" and "stretching".

Not hard to do when you imagine space having having a 3-dimensional fabric
shaped by gravitational effects. A part of the article I'm quoting here
uses the dough-with-raisins analogy to illustrate this expansion effect.
Galaxies aren't swimming around, but are attached to a medium that is
stretching.

What does the universe expand into? Finally, we can return to the
original question. In our old picture of the universe, the answer
would be simple, although very unsatisfying. The collection of
galaxies that make up the universe is moving through space;
therefore, the universe is expanding into even more space than it
already encompassed. In our new picture, though, the galaxies are
just raisins spread throughout the dough - their presence is
largely irrelevant to the question of the universe's expansion.
What we really care about is the dough, and whether or not it has
a boundary.

If the dough does have a boundary, then it is legitimate to ask
what is beyond the boundary that the dough expands "into". But
for our universe, that is a very complicated question to ask! The
boundary at the edge of the dough represents the "edge" of space.
By definition, we exist within space and have no way to leave it!
So we don't think there is any way to observe or measure what is
beyond, unless it had some effect on us that we currently don't
know about.

And you just seem to be saying that the universe has no boundary. As if,
since we can't see it from here, it's irrelevant somehow.

Go and read up on the big bang and the expanding universe,
come back when you have learnt some science.

I know how the big bang works.

No, honestly, you don't.

Since you can only reply in that way, I've had to start quoting real
scientists and replying to them. All you can do is say NO NO NO.

What is "compressed infinity"?

The universe, if infinite,

It isn't, it is just unbounded.

Unbounded, infinite.

Are two different things.

They are not. Dictionary definitions here:

infinite: lacking limits or bounds; extending beyond measure or
comprehension: without beginning or end; endless

unbounded: without bounds or limits; boundless

If there's no boundary, there's nothing to contain it.

The universe contains it.

But you said the universe is unbounded. If that's true, it's impossible
to contain it. A container needs boundaries or it cannot contain.

The part of the universe that is expanding, stretching, reshaping, or
"whatevering" itself, is doing this to occupy all existing space--space,
in the sense of an area waiting to be occupied, not the cosmos.

but also contained within the Big Bang before it exploded,

There was nothing before the BB. No space, no time, no energy or
matter. Nothing.

Then you believe matter suddenly sprang into existence out of nothing?

No, matter came latter, as the universe cooled.

Well, that goes without saying.

It came out of the energy that came from nothing at the moment of
the BB.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's popular to say. Yet energy
that comes from nothing must have a cause, right? What was the cause?

How could that have happened? No space, either? What was the big
bang "singularity" dropped into, then, if space did not exist?

The BB created space, and time.

The Big Bang did not create time. The Big Bang only gives us a reference
point from which we can measure time. It does not mean that time did not
exist before the Big Bang.

would result in some compression of the the universe, and in
my view, explains why the universe's expansion is accelerating.

Oh quick, get you paper published and get ready for the Nobel Prize.

Makes too much sense, huh? Science is expecting a complicated answer to a
simple concept. It's probably why they keep overlooking some theory of
everything they're looking for. I think when they find it, it's going to
be so simple that the whole staff will get a big laugh and a groan from
it.

If infinity is compressed, then the closer it gets to becoming
infinite again, the faster it would expand.

You what???

You didn't want to read it again? If infinity is compressed, then the
closer it gets to becoming infinite again, the faster it would expand.

Your logic is very flawed. One, nothing was compressed

If you can't see how the expanding/stretching/reshaping part of the
universe was more compact 10 billion years ago than it is today, then I
truly feel sorry for you.

, and how you expect to compress infinity is beyond me.

I can't compress it. Nature is decompressing it. I once even gave it a
proper name. The Infinity Decompression Universe. Even in the analogy
using dough and raisins, unbaked raisin bread is more compressed than
baked raisin bread -- until you mash it down again.

Two, infinity is infinity, nothing with a finite start can ever become
infinite.

Creating laws of physics all by yourself? And the Big Bang was not a
finite start.

Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small,
infinitely hot, infinitely dense

Apparently the universe, and the Big Bang has its roots in infinity, but
the transient state is finiteness as it inflates from infinitesimally
small, to infinitesimally large.

Tree, the "again" is certainly wrong.

Pfft. You'd have to know with 100% certainty that there was absolutely
nothing at all before the Big Bang. Science cannot prove that there was
nothing before the Big Bang. Science just says that since it's
unobservable, it's irrelevant. We can only speculate. But speculation is
better than just deciding that nothing was there and being happy with it.

Anything compressed infinitesimally would have had to have been converted
from matter to energy long before the total compression took place.

What agitation?

Atoms vibrate, do they not?

Under certain conditions, possibly.

Oh, please. Under most conditions, yes they do. Bend a piece of metal a
few times and the bend point will have increased friction and heat because
of increased vibrations.

Well, the heat will increase the vibration, that is for sure.

Wrong. Atoms don't vibrate.

That's where you'd normally stop... but I'll continue. Don't strain
yourself looking for the ROT-13 feature in Agent:

Vg'f whfg fnvq gung gurl qb orpnhfr bs gur zbirzrag bs ryrpgebaf vafvqr
gurz. Lbh ernyyl arrq gb ernq zber nobhg ngbzvp fgehphgherf orsber znxvat
vtabenag fgngrzragf.

Molecules vibrate, too.

When agitated.

We are made of molecules, atoms. As this article says:

It's not cellular and molecular damage that causes aging but
the accumulation of misrepairs.

Simplistic, but more or less true.

What's wrong with simplistic if it's true? There's no shame in simple
answers, because simple answers make these things easier for everyone to
understand.

I've been saying that in this thread repeatedly, and now I found some
research to back up my idea.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23310/

Well, I think it's ultimately damage that causes the misrepairs, but I
think that article is on the right track.

The problem with the search for immortality is that people think it's
something that they can grab on to and claim for themselves. But
immortality is mitigated by the speed of the expansion of the universe.

Immortality has nothing whatsoever to do with the Hubble Constant.

I didn't say it did, but that you see this is good. I don't need the
Hubble Constant to explain immortality. Science is just one slice of the
pie, and it won't be the first to find all truths about reality.

As the universe's expansion continues, and whatever turbulence
caused by this expansion thins out, the molecular damage that
causes the accumulation of misrepairs will slow down and then
stop.

That vibration, in my belief, is causing constant physical
damage in the human body.

Well if it wasn't happening you would be VERY cold.

Yes, it's like a necessary evil to keep life going.

What "container"?

The edge of the effect that was caused by the Big Bang.

There isn't one.

There is no effect? From Wiki:

As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to
the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot
and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past,
and continues to expand to this day.

Okay, how do you explain the difference between the size of the
currently-expanding universe, and the space it is expanding into?

It isn't expanding into anything,

Michio Kaku seems to disagree when he says, "Then it is clear now that the
universe is expanding in hyperspace"

it is space itself that is expanding.

Then you're saying there is nothing outside the universe... that is is
impenetrable, even if by physics-defying flights outside what space has
already expanded to fill. As if the outside of the expanding universe is
a solid with infinite hardness that cannot be penetrated. I mean, that
works for me just as easily as any other model with or without an
"external" as it relates to the expansion, because what is expanding now
will eventually become infinite in size and scope.

I don't really have a term to refer just to the expanding area.

It is called the UNIVERSE.

Yes, I know. But what expands and what doesn't seems to depend on who
you're talking to. If I call it the universe, some would think I mean
both the expanding area, and hyperspace. Some would think I just mean the
expanding portion. Some would think it's just space as it's expanding.

The universe, as it is sized according to what size the Big
Bang could have expanded to today. That size is finite,

The Universe is finite in size, yes.

The universe as contained within the expanding "bubble" caused by the Big
Bang.

No, the universe is expanding. You could think of it as a bubble but
there isn't anything outside that bubble.

Okay, fine. It doesn't matter, anyway. If you can't observe anything
outside the expansion, but the universe is expanding, obviously it's not
impossible to penetrate anything that might actually exist outside the
bubble, even if it's unoccupied blackness, or if it's some infinitely
dense substance of some kind. But to me, the idea of empty blackness
outside the reaches of the Big Bang Effect makes more sense than nothing
at all existing. Even nothing is something when it comes to having enough
space to inflate the universe to a point where life never ends.

It is also unbounded - it does not have an edge.

That unbounded area is what the Big Bang "effect" is expanding into.

No.

Well, it's not necessary. That the universe is expanding is enough, so
this expansion into something or nothing is irrelevant and works either
way.

My hypothesis is that once this currently-expanding "Big Bang Bubble"
expands beyond the state of being unbounded,

It can't, unbounded is the state of the universe.

You can't have an unbounded universe that also has a boundary of expansion
effect. For the universe to be boundless in this model, you'd have to
have something boundless for the expansion to expand into or else the
expansion could only reach a certain point, and then it'd stop. It would
mean that there's an optimal state for matter and energy to exist in, and
the universe would reach that size, then it would not be impossible for it
to expand anymore.

Science says this expansion is accelerating, which is not what you do when
you want to stop.

But how fast is it actually expanding? I can't seem to find any solid
information on this. I beleive in an exponentially expanding universe,
but I can't find any speed differences from when the acceleration began to
what it is now, nor any kind of exponential curve. Not surprising,
though. If people can't see the edge of the actual expansion, then they
can't know for sure how fast it's actually expanding or how quickly it's
speeding up. We are probably only able to see the effects, within our
observable space, of something happening in areas we can't see.

In a universe began infinitesimally small, hot, and dense, then it only
makes sense that this infinity would be carried forward infinitely, and to
infinite size.

immortality effects will begin to manifest automatically in humans
through the same mechanisms that cause cancer, but without the genetic
damage.

Nuts!

Ever noticed how hard it is to kill cancer without also killing the person
it belongs to? It's not nuts.

but the size within that finiteness is
infinity, which I think is the ultimate cause of gravity.

What has gravity got to do with it?

Well, the whole gravity idea is just an idea. I don't really /need/ it,
but if you consider that the universe has a "fabric" (you know the
infamous "fabric of space and time", then in a universe that is expanding
into an unbounded region, it seems logical to me that the fabric, too,
would be as compressed to a degree by which it has not yet been
decompressed into the unbounded area of space outside the effect of the
big bang.

There is no "outside".

That's the only thing you can address, huh?

This fabric would permeate everything, including our bodies, and have an
effect on them. We are our own gravity wells, essentially.

Compression of
space -- the compression of the "fabric" of space.

There is no compression.

If the universe is expanding, it was, overall, more compressed a minute
ago than it is now. Right now, things are less compressed than they were,
more spread out.

No. Space has expanded. Compression doesn't come into it.

He ignores the fact that a previously smaller universe is more compact,
more compressed than the one we have today. I don't know how he can
expect to be taken seriously with his viewpoint.

I often come up with
ideas, then I have to find where scientists have discovered them, or where
they're on the right track.

So, why is it impossible?

OFFS! Do you expect the sun to burn forever?

Why would you need the sun if you were immortal?

Go away and learn some science.

I just support a model of immortality that doesn't

Immortality is impossible.

Very long life, hundreds or even thousands of years may be possible
(though largely undesirable)

Undesirable.

Yes. Very.

You can't make that judgment without also claiming to be a prophet.

Well, there's a whole stack of judgments about it. I wouldn't expect
someone who doesn't even believe in immortality to have any kind of
decent vision of it that anybody would want to experience.

And you remain silent on that point. Silence is noted and evaluated.

but immortality is impossible.

At the present moment, that seems to be true. In the past, it was true.
In the future, who can tell? It's not impossible for physicists to be
shocked and surprised. It's not impossible for physicists to be wrong.

But, by definition, immortality is impossible.

Immortality cannot be impossible by definition, only unfathomable by one
who doesn't know enough to see how it can happen.

There is no religion in my view of creationism. And my evidence of a
creator comes from my ability to know that there is one and see how it
works with evolution and how it interacts with biological processes in the
brain to perfect the body.

Belief in a creator means you are religious.

That is an ignorant, narrow-minded statement. There is no religion in my
view of a creator. There is no need for it.

But belief in a creator means you are religious.

No. You believe I am religious. I am not. Yet I do believe in a
creator.

Then you are religious.

And you are defiant. I tell you I'm not religious. You say I am. What
are we going to do about this state of affairs to get beyond it?

You can believe in a creator without believing in all the religions
that humans have constructed as ways to please some "creator" they
think must be angry. Those religions are based on the idea that some
of us were thrown out of Heaven into Hell.

That is what some religious people believe.

Well, from a cosmological
standpoint, contracting an infinite universe into a point that would later
result in the Big Bang sounds a lot like being thrown into Hell,

But the universe isn't infinite, it did not contract to produce the
BB.

You can only theorize about that.

The BB created the universe.

As some have found it to be so far, yes.

Learn to read.

Learn to think.

I do.

Reading isn't everything.

But when you fail to read, as you have done, it makes you look VERY
stupid.

I do read.

You are not giving evidence of that in your replies.

Because you haven't read as much as I have, nor thought about as much,
apparently. One who understands can be misunderstood by one who doesn't
understand. But one who doesn't understand cannot befuddle one who does.
Your ideas are tiny to me. I can see them from all angles. I just
understand more, so my messages have some appeal of understanding, though
are written from a broader perspective that includes more angles.

I just have a different take on it because I have a different
perspective...a perspective that makes me see how immortality is possible
in the future, and should be coming to life right about now. Your
perpsective is obviously different. You think immortality is impossible
altogether. I'd say that you are missing a few facts of mortality that
can be turned around and used for immortality.

By definition, immortality is impossible. Long life, even into
thousands of years MAY be possible, but immortality isn't.

Why not?

The question, then, is this. Are we now at a time when this begins to
take place? Or is it going to take another few billion years?

It can never take place. The life of the universe is finite,

And a hohohohoho to you, too.

so immortality is impossible. Not even the atoms that make up your
body will last forever.

As long as we aren't annihilated first by some planet-killer comet, we may
one day reach the age where when the time of death approaches, we find
that our consciousness does not want to die, and somehow finds a way, with
its own interactions with subtle energies, to preserve the body and make
it last longer.

I have all I need. You just don't accept it. I haven't asked you to, of
course, because you can't accept my experience as your evidence. But I
know I'm not an ape.

That marks you as a liar.

No. It marks me as someone who thinks of himself as more than an ape.

Which marks you as either stupid or a liar. Which is it?

Neither. I'm self-realized.

Ah! Stupid then.

No. I think I'm pretty intelligent. Here's an example. I like my sodas
with lots of "bite" in them from the carbonated water. And I like it over
ice. I hate for anyone else to pour my drinks because I hate the way
anyone else pours them. At family reunions or other get-togethers,
there's inevitably someone on drink duty. She takes it upon herself to
pour everyone a drink. She sets the cup down, full of ice, then dumps
Coke right over the top of the ice, right in the middle, and the stream of
soda sloshes back and forth as it falls, and I see all my fizz and the
source of half the taste of Coke going away.

But I could see the problem early on with losing fizz in your drinks. To
get a properly fizzed soda, first fill your glass with ice, then fill it
with water to cover the ice. Pour the water out, then tilt your glass and
pour very cold Coke down the side of the glass. You'll end up with about
an inch or inch and a half of bubbles at the top, and the Coke still has
all the fizz it should have so it tastes right.

Now I figured these things out alone, by myself, without anyone else's
suggestions or input a long time ago. I just "tried it" on a whim. I
wondered if the dryness of the ice directly out of the freezer was causing
room-temperature Coke to fizz so much. When cold Coke over fresh ice
still fizzed too much, I tried getting the ice wet, first. It worked!

Room-temperature or insufficiently-chilled Coke over ice just out of the
freezer fizzes a lot and becomes flat before you ever really have a chance
to drink any.

That's how I do it. I try things. I experiment to see what works. And I
follow the same procedures in my thinking. I try things, experiment, and
look for ways to make things turn out the way I want them to.

It just makes me sound like a stupid liar to one with an ape-brain who
cannot comprehend anything more than what hard evidence says is true.
Or who chooses not to. Sometimes I think you're being intentionally
difficult to deal with to avoid having to actually refute immortality
in any way besides "Immortality is impossible."

It is. By definition. Unless you have invented your own definition of
immortal.

It's
easy to say that, but you avoid trying to disprove it in any meaningful
way.

Look up the definition of immortal.

Ceaseless existence. To me, that is not impossible, but a fact of life.
Reincarnation, however, is still a mystery to me. I can see a way for it
to be true, and I can see a way for it to not be true. And I can see a
way for it to be true for one, or for a few, but not for everyone else. I
have lots of ideas about how ceaseless existence happens, but I don't have
enough experience yet to be able to say it in a way that would satisfy
someone like you. Of course, with you, that's not surprising. You seem
to bundle all your favorite scientific THEORIES together as hard FACT,
then promote them as absolute truth, while proclaiming that everyone else
is a liar.

I'm not sure why I'm even discussing...erp...writing all these messages
for you to read and reply to with short, unintelligent utterances that
have no meaning except denial.

Damaeus

.