GENIUS FORUMS

Alex Jacob wrote:Mikiel, I thought it might help if you saw one of the Power Animals I recently contacted on a 'shamanic voyage' down to the very bowels and forgotten chambers of my own 'reality'. This dude said he was completely willing to help in your reconstruction (yay!), and first off he said he's gonna catch all the rodents and vermin that are psychically infesting your substructure...

For the next 2 weeks you are going to feel a strange itching-scratching on the insides of your rib-cage that will at times feel a little maddening. Know that it is part of the process and it will pass soon.

Caracal.

I'll let you know (honestly) if I experience any such sensations of "strange itching-scratching on the insides of (my) rib-cage."

You are among the strangest dudes I've ever encountered on the net. Your imagery and delusional assumptions (read "clinically crazy ideas") about me are totally bazarr, as obviously evident in your nut- house statement:
"This dude said he was completely willing to help in your reconstruction (yay!), and first off he said he's gonna catch all the rodents and vermin that are psychically infesting your substructure..."

Ask your doctor to increase your meds... or change them. They are not helping your psychosis.

(And I am not available as your psychotherapist in this miliue.)
mikiel

Mikiel,

Yesterday I saw a link from you in which four people were going to tell the stories of their awakenings. Now I have time to read it, but I can't find it. Did I imagine it?

Anna (Iolaus),

That advertising mind-fuck stuff always kind of freaks me out. I think it has a very dark component and is actually a sort of 'evil' (meaning, a kind of 'bad' that hints at 'diabolical'). To rationally study human beings, to learn things about them that they don't even know or will admit, and then to rationally come up with a plan of attack, to break down barriers, to influence, to manipulate, to seduce. It seems kind of wicked. What if you lived next door to someone and you discovered they had a whole weird temple built in their house, a sort of black magic temple, and were constantly engaged in rituals and invocations designed to influence, manipulate and seduce your daughters? In some 'old day' you might have blown them to smithereens with a shot gun, but now all you could do would be to move...

There is no legal mechanism to protect 'us' from 'them'.

Clearly those girls in those spots are actrices, yet the role they are playing is so strange: willing participants in the game of manipulation and seduction. Only they are going to tell you how to go about 'getting the girl'. I find it very sad and sort of sick that we honor the people who study these things, and in this case a girl from Princeton. It just doesn't seem like a noble endeavor.

In some of the books I have glossed on the subject of advertising to women, women are described as a (still) untapped reservoir of potential for marketers, and all the language is about how to by-pass the mind to get to the 'emotions' (a connection here to the emotions that Amanda refers to). If you succeed in getting hold of a subconscious structure, and if you can manipulate it, you have then 'got the girl' and you can do with her what you want. The peculiar thing is that it seems that advertising and market interests are working concertedly to by-pass and to eliminate the 'reasoning male', the male-figure who traditionally was represented as the 'head of the family', the one who was responsible, concerned and always on the look-out for the well-being and 'best interests' of his family. I propose that we have witnessed the way that 'ressentiment' (in the exclusively Nietzschean sense) has operated against this figure, and the primary weapon used against this male-figure (paterfamilias)has been ridicule. First you have to make him and all he stands for appear ridiculous and then it can be made to seem unfashionable, and then geekish, unsophisticated, unhip. In the culture wars of the last decades, great efforts have been made to overturn and transmute values, and right there in the process have been advertising men, the psychic rats, rationally studying the way to subvert, pervert and seduce the multitudes. They can hardly exert any upstanding moral value, since the whole process is amoral, and the only concern is to sell products (or opinions).

Now it seems we live in an aftermath that is so complex, so multi-layered, that is is most likely impossible to sort through it to arrive at clarity.

"Well, perhaps it is because we should do it carefully, with much forethought, some common sense, real discourse and not slogans and an emotion/propaganda driven sense of urgency."

On a folk-level, I think that some honest 'family-value Christians are trying to do this. I listen from time to time to some of the Christian radio and find their general discourse is getting more sophisticated and there is a great deal more they can take into consideration. The way I have described advertising experts---those who like demons work the lower, inner, hidden angles to manipulate people---is really a sort of Christian view. I have a great deal of empathy for the normal, average people, with good hearts, who are just trying to find a decent way to live in a cultural situation that sometimes appears mad.

There are many currents, of course, within feminism and one of them is a focus on 'the feminine' as a value in itself, as something to be embodied and not denied. Instead of trying to deny their own nature there is an effort to investigate it, augment it, take control of it. And these women also see this 'corporate culture' as their enemy and a force working against their own interests. That was the sort of feminist I knew (mostly) when I was at University. The so-called Third Wave feminists, though, are another breed. It is very, very hard to sort through and very, very hard to assign values. People want to (capriciously) choose their own values and have no one decide for them what value to embody, so they get that choice. On some level, I think, a viable alternative is actually to retreat away from media culture and to create defenses against it. It is a futile effort at resistance, but what else can one do?

There is a conservative 'Vedic' idea (from vaishnava writings) that if it happens in a society that the women are seduced and corrupted, that society is lost. This is all very strange, of course, because of a very real historical oppression of women. In what culture and at what time could women be said not to have been oppressed? Obviously, the whole question hinges on what in fact was that oppression, and what is 'freedom'? The cultural levers will lift every single lid that ever capped our nature---that is one of the facts of modernity. The fact is, we are powerless over these forces. The only thing we might do is to form some mental barriers as forces so huge and vast remodel the whole wide world.

maestro wrote:

brokenhead wrote: I see that it's your point. How can you possibly be serious about it? Why would anyone want to believe such a thing?

Why not, what else is there to it? Remember that it is said in Hinduism that everything is conscious. I am explaining why it is so, everything in the universe responds to stimulus, only varies in degree.

I guess we do not have a disagreement if you define coniousness in this manner. A block of wood is therefore conscious because it cleaves in half when struck with an axe. Is that your reasoning?

Iolaus wrote:Alex,

To be truthful some of what I think is disturbing to me, and I don't know how to organize what I think correctly.

Yup.

These days---I think this is true---all discourses, all information, all outlooks, all groups of opinions---have been made so tendentious and complex, so spin-laden, that a person can hardly get clear about anything at all.

Aaron Russo claims to have befriended one of the heads of the Rockefeller clan, who admitted to him that the feminist movement in America was funded by the Rockefellers for their own nefarious purposes. It sounds too crazy at first to be true, but reading a little about it, I would say there was some evidence. Some of our big name feminists and magazines got major league funding. We're into conspiracy theory here, but I have come to think more and more, that anyone who dismisses conspiracy theories is naive and lazy.

At any rate, it seems there are a few movers and shakers, I won't say thinkers, who have vast influence and sway the masses who all swing upon their pendulums.

Especially when monetary interests are at stake, in our corporate media culture (but in all culture in fact, since all culture these days circles around corporate-driven and directed culture) there are powerful interests that will fight tooth and nail to make something be true, to enforce truth.

Well, a monetary interest that comes to mind is that the entire result of feminism has increased the control of the corporate elite over the American people, delivered the minds of the children to them, weakened the family and doubled the wage earning tax payers.

But of course we know this so well since we are so well versed in double-, triple- and quadruple-think, and yet even as we operate in different levels and shift between them constantly, sometimes we don't state the bottom-line truth out loud, and that 'truth' is that so many discourses and narratives, driven by interest, are simply bullshit!. Everyone is lying to us, all the time, and we are swimming in a soup of lies, and we lie to ourselves. It is all very weird. It is very hard for an 'authentic person' to function without dysfunction in this atmosphere of nuttiness.

Preach it, brother!

One has to be very, very careful forming opinions, obviously, because one could easily 'fall back' into a non-useful sexism.

Yes, very careful indeed.

All they say is that 'women need to become more masculine',

They want women to become men as literally as possible, and want to make the human race nonviable, i.e., dependent upon artificial technologies for such things as artificial wombs and the like. To me this is not only rather tellingly hateful toward life (and woman is, archetypally speaking, always the representative of the life principal: Zoe = life, Eve "the mother of the living.") And this is the very sort of unwise hubris that science often engages in, over and over using new technology toys and only later finding out that nature was far, far more complex than they had thought. Their silly ideas would cause everything from cancer to emotional disturbance.

and yet I repeat an idea that comes from the Chinese wisdom-culture: that a man must really be a man, and a woman must really be a woman. This same 'wisdom' (if it is wisdom and not just pre-medieval regressiveness) also says that 'a woman's place is within and a man's place is without', and that it is imperative for the life of the family (the base-unit of a nation) that a woman 'attend to the sacrificial fires'.

But keep in mind that we have the yin-yang symbol which in this case means a woman must have a little core of masculine thought and a man the same of feminine sensibility, or they both will be stilted and lacking well roundedness.

It is precisely the idea that a woman is more within that stumps me. There is much evidence, even brain research on the brains of children, which prove this to be more or less the case. Yet at the same time men are more penetrative, more of a straight line boring through. what if they use their own inwardness differently, getting more mileage out of it? At the same time, perhaps women do not need to approach all problems in the same way as a man, using somewhat different steps, utilizing a bigger array of data.

But without going into the spiritual depths, just life in a general way, I think this is true, that men are interested in and think about, and are hardwired as such, for the outside world. Really, these things are obvious and used to be taken for granted, but were unfortunately mixed with a lot of meanness and exclusion and male insecurity and disrespect. We threw out the true with the untrue.

Men are bored by the details that are needed to raise children, and women are grateful for but strained to deal with figuring out solutions to real world problems. It's a bit of a puzzle that women are without question more complex than men in every way, and yet it does not result in the invention of the microscope.

Well, no one is tending the sacrificial fires now, and I think it is a raw deal for them, and more so for children. I cannot think of any human right that means more to me than the fundamental right to not be ripped away from my tiny baby or toddler - or to work myself to exhaustion up until delivery - but that is the glorious state of affairs we have now. It is the rare American woman who can actually breastfeed. Virtually no one at this boy-child forum considers such a thing as of importance, yet to me it just screams of a prison society, a poor unfortunate stress ridden and exploited society. If a woman cannot peacefully bond with and breast feed her child, she is a poor woman indeed. I imagine slaves could be in that situation.
And I think that women and their role have never been less respected than now. At the same time, womens gratitude to men has never been lower because they have lost sight of the fact that men make their lives easier, maybe even possible.
Families in which you have two material providers and no fire-tenders are stressed, busy, and distracted. Weak.

But it also in the nature of things, in the West, to overturn conventions, to push at the frontiers, to challenge accepted notions. Since I am a product of that, what in the hell am I doing finding value in antiquated recommendations?

Well, perhaps it is because we should do it carefully, with much forethought, some common sense, real discourse and not slogans and an emotion/propaganda driven sense of urgency.

Freud spoke of this thing he called 'penis envy' but i read an essay by a woman Freudian who reversed it and proposed that it is men who have 'womb-envy'. It is pretty alarming and of course has been since human time began: that women produce living beings and gain a unity, a relatedness with another being that men never know and can't enjoy. Women get this sense of unity, and men are forever on the outside in so many ways. I was thinking today that, as compensation, the children of men's brains are all this crazy invented stuff that makes up our world. And we have extended 'gestation' beyond 9 months to 9 years, or 20 years, or 50 years.

I think most girls never give a thought to being boys. I never have wanted to be saddled with a penis itself, but as a girl I strongly wished to have been a boy. I don't know if that qualifies. But it was odd, because I also had childhood sweethearts and when one of my daughters said that surely I had gone through a phase of doubting whether I wanted to have children, and I told her, no, not for one day since the age of 5 had I for one moment doubted I wanted children.

Briefly, hippy-dippy culture took

But there is also the back to the land, breastfeeding, natural childbirth, whole natural foods aspect that is suspicious of corporate medicine.

This conversation, for me, is so vast and so alarming that I don't even know how to have it.

But I have longed to have it, and I think you are the first person I've met capable of having it.

I am very interested in stuff that is being written about marketing to women, and I feel it is this marketing culture (as an offshoot of PR and social propaganda) that can really show us what in fact we are dealing with. There are forces molding women and what the definition of women is, that are vastly beyond our control. I include the following video just because it is sort of stupidly frightening and extremely debasing to those who made it, but they do not at all see it that way.

Well, some of it was just common sense info about how a woman shopper thinks, what her aesthetic is, and its complexity. Have you noticed, though, that society hasn't decided whether to deny differences between the genders, or as in this case, to openly admit them? Some might say, that women want to have their cake and eat it, too. To demand total equality except when it isn't convenient after all. I say, women don't know what the fuck they want.

I'd like to see a feminism that is about enhancing womanhood, not aping manhood. And I'd like to figure out what, if any, talents a woman's different brain might give her. Male talents are easy to spot. But it is in the nature of masculinity that it is open and visible and definable, and the feminine is inscrutable and difficult to pin down. I think one area of difference might be in the area of sex itself - that women's brains, under conditions of extreme sexual pleasure enter a spiritual state due to communication with the higher centers which does not occur in men. That men are capable of being 'animals' during sex, and women, never.

While ego is the main impediment to spiritual progress, I think that men's and women's ego-buttons are different, and that there is a vast literature written by and for men to combat it that women try to fit into with poorer results.

Will you marry me?

[This is the point where you send him out on a long search for a sacred chalice and other metaphysical objects of Great Price].

;-)

Will you marry me?

Yes, if you don't mind a little polyandry.

By the way, Jesus is 14.

This is the point where you send him out on a long search for a sacred chalice and other metaphysical objects of Great Price.

It's the philosopher's stone that I want.

Yes, if you don't mind a little polyandry.

Sure, we can have a boy and a girl, little Polly and little Andrew!

Alex,

That advertising mind-fuck stuff always kind of freaks me out. I think it has a very dark component and is actually a sort of 'evil' (meaning, a kind of 'bad' that hints at 'diabolical').

Basically, the use of any sort of force against another being is the definition of evil. The two main modes of evil, are violence and the lie. Manipulation and deception are the tools here, which come under the heading of lying.

This here is the divide between the actions of God and good beings, versus evil ones. God will never use force of any kind, not even persuasion. If we want help, we must ask for it. Of course, karma is true, it's how things work, but it's a travesty to suppose that God would ever be offended, take vengeance, or require any sort of payment.

There is no legal mechanism to protect 'us' from 'them'.
The fact is, we are powerless over these forces.
Now it seems we live in an aftermath that is so complex, so multi-layered, that is is most likely impossible to sort through it to arrive at clarity.

Are things coming to a head? Can they continue like this indefinitely? Humanity is in way over its head at this time.

and all the language is about how to by-pass the mind to get to the 'emotions'

But they do this to men as well.

The peculiar thing is that it seems that advertising and market interests are working concertedly to by-pass and to eliminate the 'reasoning male', the male-figure who traditionally was represented as the 'head of the family', the one who was responsible, concerned and always on the look-out for the well-being and 'best interests' of his family. I propose that we have witnessed the way that 'ressentiment' (in the exclusively Nietzschean sense) has operated against this figure, and the primary weapon used against this male-figure (paterfamilias)has been ridicule. First you have to make him and all he stands for appear ridiculous and then it can be made to seem unfashionable, and then geekish, unsophisticated, unhip.

Have you been reading Henry Makow? (website, not book)

In the culture wars of the last decades, great efforts have been made to overturn and transmute values, and right there in the process have been advertising men, the psychic rats, rationally studying the way to subvert, pervert and seduce the multitudes. They can hardly exert any upstanding moral value, since the whole process is amoral, and the only concern is to sell products (or opinions).

Well, it is a free-for-all, with good intentions mixed up with devious. The majority are confused. One area people are quite confused is about health and diet and what to eat. Our country is become quite unhealthy because many people eat almost entirely fake food, and take no responsibility for their own health, which puts them at the mercy of the pharmaceutical industry, which is at the top of the diabolical and greedy heap you speak of.

What's funny is that many of the accusations made by the Soviets about American capitalism were quite true.

The way I have described advertising experts---those who like demons work the lower, inner, hidden angles to manipulate people---is really a sort of Christian view.

I, too, have come to a kind of Christian conclusion like this, which is, that the old idea that this world is the devil's playground is quite true, and that it contributes to the problem. I mean that. Disembodied entities from a more subtle dimension and an agenda are able to influence minds and perhaps world events.

On some level, I think, a viable alternative is actually to retreat away from media culture and to create defenses against it. It is a futile effort at resistance, but what else can one do?

Well, I don't watch television. If you want to do that as a family, you have to not have a TV.

Instead of trying to deny their own nature there is an effort to investigate it, augment it, take control of it.

Well, this is the sort of thing I am interested in, and I am wondering what women's capabilities are. Consistent differences in aptitudes, behaviors, motivations and the brain behind that - this is what interests me. What is women's potential?

This is all very strange, of course, because of a very real historical oppression of women. In what culture and at what time could women be said not to have been oppressed?

Yes, there was this author named Rich Zubaty who wrote a book called What Men Know That Women Don't. But like the guys here, he was absolutely one-sided. He really thinks it takes one to tango, and that women are the oppressors. I had written to him and agreed with him on a few things, and he invited me to come and speak with him, but then he got mad and stopped talking to me because I talked about the real oppression women have had. He would not budge. It was all female manipulation, yeah, having to live a life under house arrest, never speak to a nonrelated male, wear a stifling black tent when going outside (accompanied by a male) and having stonings on Friday for infidelity, or even for having been raped. None of the worst abuses I could think of phased him from his position.

Because of all this, I am sympathetic to letting anyone pursue what they want to do. Tho I think it is a mistake to have women in the military. But what is going on is that women in droves are, I think, following some societal brainwashing and following a male life plan that doesn't really suit them. What has actually happened in this liberation is that women now get to work at a bunch of jobs, have less time to raise their children, and give sex to lots more men, who now have fewer responsibilities.

But that doesn't necessarily make them happy. Because maybe men thrive on having responsibility and a certain arena of authority in which their masculine abilities are needed.

Are the home fires colder? I bet married couples have less frequent sex now than in the 50s.

Yes, there was this author named Rich Zubaty who wrote a book called What Men Know That Women Don't. But like the guys here, he was absolutely one-sided.

Iolaus, you do realize that during your latest or so hiatus Rich Zubaty was a guest here, along with Sue Hindemarsh, on The Reasoning Show ?

Carl,

Well isn't that something! No, of course I didn't know it. Too bad I wasn't here. Sue would agree with everything he says; did anyone challenge him?

I never paid attention to the reasoning show and don't know what it is.

But I did answer you on the Exodus thread,

Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:56 pm

Didja see it?

Jeeze! I'm gone for a few, as usual, and "COSMOLOGY AND KOSMOS" turns into a chat room on... whatever... certainly not the OP subject.
Call me a fuddy-duddy... or worse, but...
does anyone give a "flying fuck" (to borrow a phrase from a guy even meaner than me) about what our cosmos looks and acts like, big-picture-wise, and/or whether or not it is the One Intelligent Being in/of whom we are all parts and participants?

Iolaus,
I don't know what four stories of enlightenment (in a link I provided) you were asking about.
But here is a link I've shared several times. It has statements from enlightened ones from all major religious traditions (relevant to the "One Intelligent Being" part of the thread subject)

It has 23 quotes... read to bottom of page... on selflessness and liberation as what enlightenment is, i.e., knowing our unity with God, as in gnosis.
BTW, the above is somthing the logic robots here can not know... until they STFU and "Be Still."....
This is mostly for Sue as per the "to give god meaning" thread. I recommend, for such as these, an in-depth study of epistomology. There are actually other ways of *knowing* than logical reasoning... Imagine that! Even more than empirical info gathering.
It's actually the same way I *knew* my son had developed an ulcer, tho I was in a remote wilderness, as explained on another thread (I thinK) somewhere. It has been called "direct knowing at a distance" without a known medium. Also "direct identity resonsnce" as modeled in the the minutia af a hologram as a micro-version of the whole.
nuff for now.
Don't make me get out the whip again. "You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!" Not to worry... hasn't happened since '94.
mikiel

http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... l#selfless

mikiel

Call me a fuddy-duddy... or worse, but...
does anyone give a "flying fuck" (to borrow a phrase from a guy even meaner than me) about what our cosmos looks and acts like, big-picture-wise, and/or whether or not it is the One Intelligent Being in/of whom we are all parts and participants?

Sure!

But here is a link I've shared several times.

Nah, I've already seen that. Oh, well.

Iolaus wrote:

Call me a fuddy-duddy... or worse, but...
does anyone give a "flying fuck" (to borrow a phrase from a guy even meaner than me) about what our cosmos looks and acts like, big-picture-wise, and/or whether or not it is the One Intelligent Being in/of whom we are all parts and participants?

Sure!
Good. Here is my idea of how such... let's just call it "interest" might manifest:'paraphrased':

m: 'Here's my vision of the Bang/Crunch cosmology and a bunch of cutting edge science that might validate it.'

I: 'I think that the Big Bang has been debunked, and here are a bunch of links and articles as to why.'

m: ' Interesting. Here is what I agree with, re: not accepting mainstream science as Gospel,... bla bla bla,... and here is my answer to the "missing matter problem" and the "entropy problem".... bla bla, etc.... and a multiple bangs&crunches, scaled down "supervova" type model... and some plasma in transition between the fusion explosion and what is launched... etc, etc....'

I: 'I appreciate your interest in the links I provided... but maybe I'm not interested enough to formulate a reply to your technical specifics.'

But here is a link I've shared several times.

Nah, I've already seen that. Oh, well.

No reply to this universal consensus on what liberation/enlightenment really means as selflessness. (That's right, *no separate... from God... personal identity*.. but clearly enhanced individual entities!)
Iolaus (a characterization): ' Oh, well. Just a quick brush-off here... I'd actually rather chat about the subjects I've recently been discussing in this thread than the 23 quotes from enlightened mystics of all major traditions*' ... on the "Kosmos" question...
*with whom I am in total accord with all that I have shared in this forum.

btw... this is... like... tongue in cheek, but it looks seriously pissed in print... which I ain't...
jus messin' witcha.
mikiel

Ok, well that's not quite fair because my links to the BB controversy were a FYI thing, because you are trying to work out a bang-crunch model that fits your understanding, and I was trying to help you know that yes, there are more possibilities and some science allies you might not know of. I am particularly interested in LaViolette's ideas of an oscillating universe/matter creation that would fit your model but not involve bangs and crunches. Actually, he does not say, or I missed it, how he thinks it might end...

But right now I am reading another of his books, which looks like a recap of what I've read, but maybe better done. It's called Genesis of the Cosmos.

As to the link I had already read, well, the point is I was looking for something else that I really wanted to read.

If you would like commentary, I can't do it now since I have to go to work. Also, I skimmed a lot of it. Mostly, I am going to agree with it.

mikiel wrote: Scientifically speaking, the above "Bang/Crunch" cosmologyhas been out of favor because of a lack of detectable matter to the reach critical cosmic density required to allow gravity to eventually halt the expansion (catching it all in the "universal gravitational net") and begin to pull it all back again, the contractive half of the cycle.

But recently NASA's orbiting Chandra Observatory has employed both new technology and innovative techniques which are now detecting more and more of the previously unseen matter... that which did not emit or reflect detectable light.
So the "missing matter problem" as it is called is now being "solved."

That is a pretty dam big stretch or exaggeration that it is being "solved" I mean huge! (BTW, what new techniques are you referring too?) As it stands right now, estimates project only 4% of the universe is ordinary matter... Then adding dark matter we get another 22% (roughly, some estimates state 24%) Which to correct mikiel is NOT assumed to be dust, or black objects, but rather doesn't radiate anything in the electro-magnetic spectrum. It's not just "dust" we don't see... Not assumed to to be ordinary matter unseen. So if we add these together, we are still somewhere in the range of 26-28% of the matter needed to reach omega (closed universe). The requirement of any big bang/crunch or oscillating model. This of course excludes the 74-72% of projected dark energy acceleratingly the expansion, as mik's model has no use or compensation of such. The acceleration in his model is caused by a previous big bang jettisoning this 74-72% (filling in the math for ya mik) of matter beyond or cosmic horizon before our secondary bang happened, and this first explosion is now allegedly accelerating us or dragging us towards it.

mikiel wrote: Another "problem" is a general misunderstanding of the universal law of conservation of matter/energy. Some believe that energy is "lost in space" as cosmos expands to the outer reaches and that cosmos will eventually just "run out of steam" and dissipate into maximum cosmic entropy. Not so. Nothing, not a single atom, is ever "lost." Of course matter changes to energy and vice-versa, but the concept of "heat loss" (second law of thermodynamics) only applies to "local systems) not cosmos as a whole, as just explained.

This is just wrong. Where this comes from I can't even imagine. I'll try to take this slow or ya mik, first you cannot recapture all energy in this model. You have previously stated this model is without spacetime, you actually advocate spacetime is a hoax. You've stated there is no "fabric" of space, (I would agree it not an actual fabric) there is no curvature to space, and Einsteins model of warped space due to matter is wrong. You've advocated that gravity is a real force, whose mediator is yet undefined. So having said that, how do you presume to capture the electromagnetic radiation your first bang (the gravity net) has been emitting into space (in the opposite direction, mind you) since the beginning of time (pun intended) ? So you would be losing energy/mass every cycle. THEN, i would like to see some math on how you project not the loss of a single atom. Without having spacetime to curve back in or around on itself there is no way to contain high velocity particles or to keep matter from reaching escape velocity.

Now the only thing I can figure out in the language you used, referring to heat dissipation or maximum entropy is officially called "heat death" and it not caused by radiation beyond the cosmic horizon. Expansion increases the maximum entropy. I prefer not to write two pages on this, but recommend some more research on this. The expansion of space (if you ignore big-rip scenarios) may actually prevent maximum entropy as the limit is continuously being increased. For the short course, entropy is just a measure of available work that can be done. Order, tending towards disorder.

Lastly, the 2nd law of TD is in consideration of a closed system, not "local" as you put it and has different implications, in an open system (as yours, infinite, boundless and without a spacetime substrate. Say we call it "bulk" space), energy IS lost and transferred.

mikiel wrote: So the "Bang/Crunch" (oscillating) cosmolological model will work just fine. The "missing matter" is not really missing... just in the process of being "found."

I'll leave it here for openers, inviting comment/dialogue.

mikiel

I can later address why it's implausible why this first bang (gravity net) would be beyond our cosmic horizon or why black holes don't explode in the manner needed for your model to work...

I hafta go again, but must hit a couple of obvious points here first.
(Back in a few days to do the whole laundry list.)

Real science depends on oservation for verification. "Mystery dark matter/energy" is pure imagination so far, while the real matter, now being increasingly detected by Chandra is growing in mass all the time.
Mathematicians are continually "blowing theoretical smoke" without "real world" verification. They intimidate most laymen and kiss up to their bosses, verification is still a requirement of real science.
The numbers game is premature, but when all the matter not reflecting or emitting light (previously) is found, the "net" will work to bring it all "back home."
The universal law of gravitation has not been debunked. There are a lot of nerdy "scientists" and mathematicians in the above mould trying to debunk it, but still...
" *All* mass attracts *all* "other mass" directly with massiveness and inversely with distance." So, at the extreme limit of outer expansion of this cosmos and all possible cosmi, all matter, including each and every atom continually and eternally "tugs" on each and every "other atom" regardless of how massive or minute the mass.

Heat loss is a "local phenomena." So when the second law of thermodynamics is invoked as precluding an oscillating cosmos, it is only local "thinking" misapplied to "the Whole"... in which the universal law of gravitation, as above, still applies.
Gotta get going... and I'm barely warming up to this.... finally... challenge of specific science coming at last from "Ram."
(Did you even read all the links Iolaus provided to refute your standard textbook science? Apparently not, from your post. this is no time to be lazy about "established science!" It ain't as "established" as the standardized version in the books on which all science students are still "graded."
Shit... that's all for now. 'Scuse the typos... no time to look back.
mikiel

mikiel wrote: Real science depends on oservation for verification. "Mystery dark matter/energy" is pure imagination so far, while the real matter, now being increasingly detected by Chandra is growing in mass all the time.

Hmm, ok, observational proof, from Chandra no less! As you seem to cling to their observations...
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/au ... atter.html

You did not address my direct question of what "new" technology was being used by Chandra to discover the ordinary matter required to reach the omega of your model...

If you like we can dismiss the dark matter controversy and focus on the missing 96% to reach omega?? Not that I'm conceding, for the sake of argument it's nearly irrelevant to miks cause.

mikiel wrote: Mathematicians are continually "blowing theoretical smoke" without "real world" verification. They intimidate most laymen and kiss up to their bosses, verification is still a requirement of real science.

OK, OK, even if we call common ground there. Again not a real concession, just bypassing the meaningless debate. What real world verification do we have of the model you're presenting? As this is your statement, back yours.

mikiel wrote: The numbers game is premature, but when all the matter not reflecting or emitting light (previously) is found, the "net" will work to bring it all "back home."

I would point out, this is not a case of "is" and "will", you have nothing to support this claim. Conjecture to its truest definition. This is dogmatic and wishful reasoning. A play on words really, as it's imposing a certainty non-existent or practical to logic in the realm of science. An absolute farce in the scientific arena, sorry. Can you please provide some scientific proofs that it will be found? (You and I both know you cannot, therefore an absolute null statement, a waste of our time)
I mean really, this is the genius forum who do you think you can fool with this?
Even if there was a phased bang, there are still problems (with your model) to sustain the infinite cycle(s) you propose... (See issues addressed previously, and so far, at the most, very poorly addressed)

mikiel wrote: The universal law of gravitation has not been debunked. There are a lot of nerdy "scientists" and mathematicians in the above mould trying to debunk it, but still...

And neither has spacetime or relativity despite your premature & egotistical claims of victory! Nerdy? You mean 99% of the "nerdy" scientists who confirm Newton's Universal Gravity is only a "general" or "proximity" of usefulness, or countless observations? There are many more cases of Newtonian gravity conflicts vs observation than Relativity... Please... Must we? I know for a fact, you have been challenged on this before, and failed to overcome this obstacle.

mikiel wrote: " *All* mass attracts *all* "other mass" directly with massiveness and inversely with distance." So, at the extreme limit of outer expansion of this cosmos and all possible cosmi, all matter, including each and every atom continually and eternally "tugs" on each and every "other atom" regardless of how massive or minute the mass.

This is possibly a 5th graders explanation, it is not nearly so cut and dried. Two words, escape velocity... I hate to think you don't understand this basic concept, playing ignorant to support a flawed model or statement should be above you. It's rather pointless to debate science with one who will intentional ignore falsifying evidence. I'm sorry to be so honest, but it like spoon feeding a toddler who doesn't want to eat. I have not the patience, having to constantly go over very basic concepts of physics. Especially with a self proclaimed "Maverick of Science". It's like you know the premise is flawed yet keep trying to slip it by. No REAL intention of scientific dialog, the intent seems to be only to see if you can slip it by someone uninformed or ignorant to modern physics.
Again, how does your model propose to reel back in the radiation of the gravity net? Without a spacetime substrate I don't see it. (Playing nice here) How many times must one ask? Do you have any actual math or calculations to support this model or just your hearsay and approximation of how you "think" it should work?

mikiel wrote: Heat loss is a "local phenomena." So when the second law of thermodynamics is invoked as precluding an oscillating cosmos, it is only local "thinking" misapplied to "the Whole"... in which the universal law of gravitation, as above, still applies.

Perhaps I'm being dense, but I have a bit of trouble understanding you're saying here. The second law of thermodynamics you refer to applies to closed systems. Perhaps your terminology is errant, cause I can't figure out what you mean within the application. It's borderline an intentional misdirection, to me. Please clarify this gibberish...

Ram,
Even tho you are obviously a troller out to "get me" as a Myspace crossover, a real flame-thrower, and an obvious "beliver" in mainstream, standard textbook science...
I'm going to play along here simply because no one else is in the game.
(I'll just go bold for contrast in the context of your challenges below.)
BTW, up front... did you read the material in the links provided by Iolaus here? Still sounds like, not, from you party line data base so far.

Ramayana wrote:

mikiel wrote: Real science depends on oservation for verification. "Mystery dark matter/energy" is pure imagination so far, while the real matter, now being increasingly detected by Chandra is growing in mass all the time.

Hmm, ok, observational proof, from Chandra no less! As you seem to cling to their observations...
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/au ... atter.html
This is address did not work

You did not address my direct question of what "new" technology was being used by Chandra to discover the ordinary matter required to reach the omega of your model...
[bI can't find the original article on Chandra's brag sheet for its first five years, in which the discovery of dark matter was advancing rapidly. Here is one I just Googled tho,and it is specific about new dark matter discovery. "Hot News for Cold Dark Matter" http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/abell2029/[/b]

If you like we can dismiss the dark matter controversy and focus on the missing 96% to reach omega?? Not that I'm conceding, for the sake of argument it's nearly irrelevant to miks cause.
The "missing matter" controversy is central to my vision of the cosmos. It can not be "dismissed" in the infancy of the search for real, common matter that has not yet been detected. The question, "How much has not yet been detected?" is still a work in progress. That's why I said the numbers game is premature. You can not "prove the negative"... that it will never be found, no matter how you spin the stats and percentages.

mikiel wrote: Mathematicians are continually "blowing theoretical smoke" without "real world" verification. They intimidate most laymen and kiss up to their bosses, verification is still a requirement of real science.

OK, OK, even if we call common ground there. Again not a real concession, just bypassing the meaningless debate. What real world verification do we have of the model you're presenting? As this is your statement, back yours.

At this point I must remind you of the difference between theoretical science... the majority of the game in cosmology, and empirical science... where the search for empirical info... like more unseen matter... is still in its earliest babt steps. I do know how supernovae work, and this model could work for the scaled down "juggling act" of multipple "bangs and crunches" I have "seen" and proposed as a *theoretical model.*

mikiel wrote: The numbers game is premature, but when all the matter not reflecting or emitting light (previously) is found, the "net" will work to bring it all "back home."

I would point out, this is not a case of "is" and "will", you have nothing to support this claim. Conjecture to its truest definition.
See above contrast between legitimate theoretical cosmology and the whole field of empirical verification. You can not totally dismiss the former just because the latter has not yet arrived at the ever-elusive "conclusive proof"... a scientific misnomer anyway.

This is dogmatic and wishful reasoning. A play on words really, as it's imposing a certainty non-existent or practical to logic in the realm of science. An absolute farce in the scientific arena, sorry. Can you please provide some scientific proofs that it will be found? (You and I both know you cannot, therefore an absolute null statement, a waste of our time)
See above, yet again. Btw... how do you rate the String/M-theory camp on empirical verification of their 11 dimensional, six varieties of strings cosmology? "Imaginary universes" is a concept central to this whole "cosmology." And, yes, I do call it fantasy physics. So you are holding me to a higher standard of verification? How so and why?

I mean really, this is the genius forum who do you think you can fool with this?
More insult-without-substance... your usual.
Even if there was a phased bang, there are still problems (with your model) to sustain the infinite cycle(s) you propose... (See issues addressed previously, and so far, at the most, very poorly addressed)
See my previous replies to those issues... and reiteration below.

mikiel wrote: The universal law of gravitation has not been debunked. There are a lot of nerdy "scientists" and mathematicians in the above mould trying to debunk it, but still...

And neither has spacetime or relativity despite your premature & egotistical claims of victory! Nerdy? You mean 99% of the "nerdy" scientists who confirm Newton's Universal Gravity is only a "general" or "proximity" of usefulness, or countless observations? There are many more cases of Newtonian gravity conflicts vs observation than Relativity... Please... Must we? I know for a fact, you have been challenged on this before, and failed to overcome this obstacle.

[b You are clearly failing in the "specific rebuttal" real here. You have not argued at all against the universal law of gravitation I quoted below.][/b]

mikiel wrote: " *All* mass attracts *all* "other mass" directly with massiveness and inversely with distance." So, at the extreme limit of outer expansion of this cosmos and all possible cosmi, all matter, including each and every atom continually and eternally "tugs" on each and every "other atom" regardless of how massive or minute the mass.

This is possibly a 5th graders explanation, it is not nearly so cut and dried.
Your usual "CA" (character assination) will not cut it here.
Two words, escape velocity... I hate to think you don't understand this basic concept, playing ignorant to support a flawed model or statement should be above you.

Two words, "escape velocity" does not even address the question of *universal gravitation.* What you are ignoring is that all mass pulls on all other mass and the distance between masses (no matter how many light years) only diminishes the force of the pull. It is never elimitated, no "matter" the diatance between the masses... iven if its one atom of hydrogen at the outer extreme of the G-net.

It's rather pointless to debate science with one who will intentional ignore falsifying evidence. What evidence is that which contradicts what I just said above? I'm sorry to be so honest, but it like spoon feeding a toddler who doesn't want to eat. Same old "CA" here Ram. It is not scientific debate. I have not the patience, having to constantly go over very basic concepts of physics. Good. Glad to hear it. Maybe you will either put up or shut up here. You have'nt made a point yet in actual scientific debate with me. Especially with a self proclaimed "Maverick of Science". It's like you know the premise is flawed yet keep trying to slip it by. I challenge you: What "premise is flawed?"No REAL intention of scientific dialog, the intent seems to be only to see if you can slip it by someone uninformed or ignorant to modern physics. I am clear in what I am presenting. Give me wspecific evidence that debunks my vision or... STFU.Again, how does your model propose to reel back in the radiation of the gravity net?

Do you understand the law of conservation of matter/energy? Nothing is created or destroyed. It only changes form. (computer started over-writing. sorry.) Nothing is "lost." Gravity works on the whole cosmic scale, and this principle has *never* been disproven. Ram's condescension is *not* even a debate, buch less a debunking as in "disproven."

...subsstrate I don't see it. (Playing nice here) How many times must one ask? Do you have any actual math or calculations to support this model or just your hearsay and approximation of how you "think" it should work?

Again, this is theoretical cosmology. "Finding the matter" is underway, regardless of the percentage yet to be found to make critical cosmic density, the holy grail of "Omega." Can you explain the 11th dimension in M-theory in terms of real observartions confirming the math? Of course not! Get over it!
Maybe when these "membranes" (a zillionth of a mm close together) touch or "clap", they produce yet another imaginary universe! Maybe not. I'll bet on "not." And these guys are "cutting edge" cosmologists. Hawking is a brilliant mathematician too, but look at the crow he had to eat recently on his math gymnastics.
(As I said, I debunked his "singularity" cosmology of the origin several months before he "recanted" and joined the above (absurd, in my opinion) M-theory camp... This debunking is in the Myspace science forum archives.)

mikiel wrote: Heat loss is a "local phenomena." So when the second law of thermodynamics is invoked as precluding an oscillating cosmos, it is only local "thinking" misapplied to "the Whole"... in which the universal law of gravitation, as above, still applies.

Perhaps I'm being dense, but I have a bit of trouble understanding you're saying here. The second law of thermodynamics you refer to applies to closed systems. Perhaps your terminology is errant, cause I can't figure out what you mean within the application. It's borderline an intentional misdirection, to me. Please clarify this gibberish...

As above. Cosmically, nothing is "lost," whereas in local systems, heat always travels toward the cooler areas. Deep space is *very* "cool." But nothing is created, destroyed or "lost." It all comes back, cuz everything pulls on everything else, no matter how far away. Get it yet?

mikiel

At this point, I'd like to invite debate on "the fabric of spacetime."
Einstein and Minkowski theorized that there is actually a malleable medium, "spacetime" which is distorted by mass, accounting for how gravity works. The old ball-in-a-sagging-sheet image is a perrennial fave as a model of warped spacetime. And a black hole is said to pull this stuff into a sphere around it, creating the b.h. event horizon.
The explanation without such a "sphere of space" is simply that the intense gravity of a b.h. will not allow light to escape. Occam's razor can cut away the "fabric" in all cases, yielding the simplest solution that explains the phenomenon.

Cosmos as a whole is said to have shape depending on whether space is bent negatively (into a closed model) or positively (the open model.) In between is the "flat" model.

So what is this stuff, "spacetime?" I say its a myth of modern science, made dogmatic by it's constant repetition since E & M "invented" it. Space is emptiness and time is the historical record of the ongoing now... always now everywhere.
Therefore, this "fabric" is the "theoretical science" version of "the Emporer's New Clothes"... and anyone who doesn't admire the theory will "fail the class," and do penance on the stool in the corner, wearing the dunce hat.

Anyone?
mikiel

You may be right.

mikiel wrote:Ram,
Even tho you are obviously a troller out to "get me" as a Myspace crossover, a real flame-thrower, and an obvious "beliver" in mainstream, standard textbook science...

Do you believe 2+2=4?

Mik, first you say dark matter is pure imagination, and Chandra is finding "real" matter... The link you point to relates to confirmation of "Dark Matter"... Understand? DARK MATTER, not "real" (as you put it) ordinary matter... Another example of ignorance and willingness to misinform...
Example:

mikiel wrote: Real science depends on oservation for verification. "Mystery dark matter/energy" is pure imagination so far, while the real matter, now being increasingly detected by Chandra is growing in mass all the time.

mikiel wrote: can't find the original article on Chandra's brag sheet for its first five years, in which the discovery of dark matter was advancing rapidly. Here is one I just Googled tho,and it is specific about new dark matter discovery. "Hot News for Cold Dark Matter" http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/abell2029

So which are you claiming? Ordinary (real, haha) or dark? Stop flip-flopping...
"New" I suppose is a subjective term but that info was released in 2003, and the observation was from 2000... Just an FYI

So, ok, as I said, we can either include dark matter or exclude, you claimed dark matter was pure imagination, fine, let's focus on the only 4% of ordinary matter.Then, of course hypocritically, you start pointing to links confirming dark matter, either way you are very very very far from reaching omega. Including all the projected dark matter there is only 26% (roughly) of the mass required to reach omega, and this number btw will decline as time passes and space expands, exponentially mind you. The bigger space gets, the more mass is gonna be needed to reach omega.

mikiel wrote:The "missing matter" controversy is central to my vision of the cosmos. It can not be "dismissed" in the infancy of the search for real, common matter that has not yet been detected. The question, "How much has not yet been detected?" is still a work in progress. That's why I said the numbers game is premature. You can not "prove the negative"... that it will never be found, no matter how you spin the stats and percentages.

Why are you pointing us to links concerning dark matter if the controversy is about real common matter?
A "vision" indeed, as that's all it is... That's a very large "IF" (not a will) and so far that it all it is... The language, "is" & "will" are not scientifically supported in your statements. Might as well say "when" cows fly, as neither yours or cows flying can be assumed to be true in the future.
Mind you only one piece of the puzzle to make it work btw...

mikiel wrote: Mathematicians are continually "blowing theoretical smoke" without "real world" verification. They intimidate most laymen and kiss up to their bosses, verification is still a requirement of real science.

mikiel wrote:At this point I must remind you of the difference between theoretical science... the majority of the game in cosmology, and empirical science... where the search for empirical info... like more unseen matter... is still in its earliest babt steps. I do know how supernovae work, and this model could work for the scaled down "juggling act" of multipple "bangs and crunches" I have "seen" and proposed as a *theoretical model.*

So you're saying YOU are "blowing theoretical smoke", by your own definition I might add. The unseen matter? So you are again referring to the imaginative "dark matter" as you put it? Make up your mind, which side of the fence are you on? Is it to be "believed" or do you still contend it's "pure imagination"? Supernovas do not reclaim all the mass they eject... BIG BIG difference.
Scaled down? You mean scaled up? heh... So after all your hot air here, you mean you have no "real world verification"? Surely nothing warranting the language "is" and "will"... Your visions are not scientific evidence...

mikiel wrote: See above, yet again. Btw... how do you rate the String/M-theory camp on empirical verification of their 11 dimensional, six varieties of strings cosmology? "Imaginary universes" is a concept central to this whole "cosmology." And, yes, I do call it fantasy physics. So you are holding me to a higher standard of verification? How so and why?

Nice diversion tactic, don't think you're fooling anyone with this. First, I don't claim to "believe" m-thoery. It's a theory, that is all... We are not however, discussing m-thoery, we are discussing the plausibility and (lack of) evidence supporting YOUR vision. It is at least based on scientific mathematical models. Which is more than can be said for your vision.

Ramayana wrote: I mean really, this is the genius forum who do you think you can fool with this?

mikiel wrote:More insult-without-substance... your usual.

The "substance" to this statement(s) preceded it, ya know, the whole, is" and "will" dogmatic conjecture you presented. Very juvenile dissection of the post mik....

mikiel wrote: The universal law of gravitation has not been debunked. There are a lot of nerdy "scientists" and mathematicians in the above mould trying to debunk it, but still...

Ramayana wrote:And neither has spacetime or relativity despite your premature & egotistical claims of victory! Nerdy? You mean 99% of the "nerdy" scientists who confirm Newton's Universal Gravity is only a "general" or "proximity" of usefulness, or countless observations? There are many more cases of Newtonian gravity conflicts vs observation than Relativity... Please... Must we? I know for a fact, you have been challenged on this before, and failed to overcome this obstacle.

mikiel wrote:You are clearly failing in the "specific rebuttal" real here. You have not argued at all against the universal law of gravitation I quoted below.

My specific rebuttal is Relativity is a better representation and so far, confirmed by "real world verification". I cannot support Relativity and at the same time say mass does not attract mass, Relativity demonstrates the same. Neither however states that all matter will coalesce under all circumstances. This is why that pesky "omega" figure of mass becomes so critical.

mikiel wrote: " *All* mass attracts *all* "other mass" directly with massiveness and inversely with distance." So, at the extreme limit of outer expansion of this cosmos and all possible cosmi, all matter, including each and every atom continually and eternally "tugs" on each and every "other atom" regardless of how massive or minute the mass.

Jesus, it is rather discouraging I have to explain this to you.

Escape Velocity: "For a given gravitational field and a given position, the escape velocity is the minimum speed an object without propulsion needs to attain in order to "escape" from gravity, i.e., so that gravity will never manage to pull it back."

Now, couple things, (in your "vision") what percentage of total universal mass is jettisoned in the first wave? What portion is what we now observe? What portion was jettisoned in the second wave? What portion collapsed at the center, which happens to be where btw? With out these maths or specific representations and models it is impossible to suggest not the loss of a single particle or photon. Again, dogmatic conjecture is all you present.

mikiel wrote: Two words, "escape velocity" does not even address the question of *universal gravitation.* What you are ignoring is that all mass pulls on all other mass and the distance between masses (no matter how many light years) only diminishes the force of the pull. It is never elimitated, no "matter" the diatance between the masses... iven if its one atom of hydrogen at the outer extreme of the G-net.

This a very bad application, Pathetic really. Escape velocity is ALL about gravitation. The very lame application of gravity you are using would mean there is no need for a specific density of all mass to have it re-coalesce. What your are saying is everything comes back to its source no matter what. What a bunch of shit. Very simple example. A photon leaving Earth, will NEVER come back. Not under Earth's relatively small gravity and density. Do you understand why the figure "Omega" is so important? You are surely not demonstrating it. This is because without enough mass everything in the universe cannot re-coalesce, photons, high velocity particles, mass will escape. Why? Because they have escape velocity. Right now, there is no where near enough mass detected to reach omega. To say "there just happens to be enough" beyond the cosmic horizon to reach omega, is NOT a scientifically valid argument. It's wishful thinking, conjecture, pure fantasy without a single shred of evidence... No better then religious myths and folklore. Might as well pick up a bible an start preaching Genesis is a scientific model.
No maths to support it, for instance how far away? how much mass? Approximate density of that mass based on our rate of acceleration?
These are things real scientists work out, the real mavericks of science.

Now, I know you "believe" gravity propagates at light speed, you have a whole blog on it. I'm not taking up that argument, but how can something beyond our cosmic horizon exert it's gravitational "tug" on something it's light has not even reached? Are you recanting gravities speed? If it's radiation can't reach us, neither can it's gravity.

That raises another question, why wouldn't it's radiation or something giving away it presence be observable anyhow? Unless this entire mass is as you call it "imaginary" matter (dark matter)? So say it's regular matter and energy, it had to pass by our little corner of space, since your vision does not incorporate spacetime, there is no co-moving space to aid anything to move away faster than light speed, hence it would be detectable. It can't move away faster than lightspeed therefore cannot be farther away than lightspeed allows.
Ironic you use the terminology "cosmic horizon" btw as it is a manifest of co-moving space, that is, ya know, spacetime...

mikiel wrote:Do you understand the law of conservation of matter/energy? Nothing is created or destroyed. It only changes form. (computer started over-writing. sorry.) Nothing is "lost." Gravity works on the whole cosmic scale, and this principle has *never* been disproven.

I never said gravity wasn't universal, never argued the thermodynamics is wrong, don't know see where you get off putting those words in my mouth (post). You must have a closed the system for those laws to apply, that was my point in regards to TD.

mikiel wrote: Hawking is a brilliant mathematician too, but look at the crow he had to eat recently on his math gymnastics.
(As I said, I debunked his "singularity" cosmology of the origin several months before he "recanted" and joined the above (absurd, in my opinion) M-theory camp... This debunking is in the Myspace science forum archives.)

Recanted? Where has Hawking ever recanted the theoretical existence of black hole singularities? He recanted about information loss related to singularities... Get your facts straight.
You debunked singularities? haha.. Here's how mik debunked the singularity.

Lightly paraphrased for ease of reading...
Michael says "I think it doesn't make sense to have infinite mass in a point-like singularity with zero volume"
Rebuttal says, "No one claims infinite mass, infinite mass would yield infinite mass, it's infinite density, btw, can you explain what the smallest particle that can exist is? Whats the most gravity can crunch something down too? Intuition is irrelevant, the universe doesn't care if it makes sense to you"
Michael says "Isn't it a quark? Don't know if we have discovered it yet"
Rebuttal says "A quark is theoretically point-like, that is zero volume"
Michael goes away, apparently preaching he has debunked singularities without ever offering a single scientific rebuttal, and misinforming ppl to Hawking's position as well...

mikiel wrote: As above. Cosmically, nothing is "lost," whereas in local systems, heat always travels toward the cooler areas. Deep space is *very* "cool." But nothing is created, destroyed or "lost." It all comes back, cuz everything pulls on everything else, no matter how far away. Get it yet?

Cosmically, is the wrong terminology, the true definition is a "closed system." Which the universe is yet to be established as closed. Again see rebuttal above regarding your overly simplified law of gravity. It only comes back if specified values are applied. You apparently don't get it...

mikiel wrote:At this point, I'd like to invite debate on "the fabric of spacetime."
Einstein and Minkowski theorized that there is actually a malleable medium, "spacetime" which is distorted by mass, accounting for how gravity works. The old ball-in-a-sagging-sheet image is a perrennial fave as a model of warped spacetime. And a black hole is said to pull this stuff into a sphere around it, creating the b.h. event horizon.
The explanation without such a "sphere of space" is simply that the intense gravity of a b.h. will not allow light to escape. Occam's razor can cut away the "fabric" in all cases, yielding the simplest solution that explains the phenomenon.

Cosmos as a whole is said to have shape depending on whether space is bent negatively (into a closed model) or positively (the open model.) In between is the "flat" model.

So what is this stuff, "spacetime?" I say its a myth of modern science, made dogmatic by it's constant repetition since E & M "invented" it. Space is emptiness and time is the historical record of the ongoing now... always now everywhere.
Therefore, this "fabric" is the "theoretical science" version of "the Emporer's New Clothes"... and anyone who doesn't admire the theory will "fail the class," and do penance on the stool in the corner, wearing the dunce hat.

Anyone?


mikiel

Where do Einstein or Minkowski ever state, or indirectly state you or me can go someplace it is not now? Is there someplace I can go without experiencing now?

If I ask you to meet me someplace. What do I need to meet you... x,y,z and t. When I get there, hmm.. It will be still be now... Did Einstein say it wouldn't be? I experienced now to get there, in fact, it's still now, only now I'm someplace else... I'm at x,y,z and t... Whos says it's not now? If Einstein was alive, he'd say it was now too.

It's always now to anything with rest-mass, the only privileged players that don't get to experience now are those dam photons.They just don't care. Call them historical record keepers if you like. But, hmm, if my now is not the same as their now, whats that? Perhaps time?

What you describe "cutting away" the "fabric" of spacetime is a Newtonian "dark star", not a black hole. Let's be clear with the scientific terminology for ease of future reference.

Edited the statement:

Where do Einstein or Minkowski never state,

Mighta looked like I was trying to pull a mikiel, err fast one... haha

I've gotta go soon, so will not have time for point by point rebuttal of Ram's tedius string of standard textbook regurgitations in this post.(More free time Sat.)
Just a few highlights here:

There is in fact an ongoing debate about the nature of "dark matter."
The kind I "know and love" is ordinary matter of all sizes and species which merely does not emit or reflect light. Chandra's "first five years" report claimed that it has detected ever increasing amounts of this "dark" (i.e., no "light") matter. No one is claiming actual detection of the "mystery" variety of "Dark Matter." It is just a missing ingredient in the workable math of the gravitational anomalies (of various sorts) so far.
(Do not believe Ram's bullshit. I have never embraced the latter theoretical matter... no "flip-flop" between 'the two' at all.

"My cosmology" has never been presented as anything but theroretical, nor my "source" as anything but mystic vision... a source obviously not recognized by science, and properly so.
So S/he (?) conveniently dodges my distinction between theory (whatever the source) and empirical verification. (The ever-popular M-theory boys can dream up all the imaginary dimensions and universes they like "without a shred" of empirical evidence, cuz 'they got math.' (See again my 'blowing math smoke' comments.)

My conteded use of "is" and "will" above is the mystic speaking. Admittedly science must state such things as possibilities and probabilities. But I am a mix of scientist and mystic. I grant myself license to speak in "positive terms" about what I have "seen" cuz it is, in my direct experience, more that just theoretical conjecture/theory, tho the visions are not presented as scientifically valid. Ok, I repeated.

S/he is extremely dense on the "escape velocity" issue. This is a *local take* on what velocity is required for one mass to escape the gravity field of another. S/he is in total denial of "the big picture" here, where nothing, ultimately escapes the cosmic gravity net. Again, *everything pulls on everything else.* It is a constant throughout the full oscillation cycle. *Changes* in G-force travel at lightspeed (see my blog) but this "cosmic glue" of attraction is constant, but for the changes, among all instances of matter.
Critical cosmic density for reversal (Omega) is a question of how much matter overall is required to *counter the outward expansive force* and begin the implosive half of the cycle. ( A small point missing in Ram's criticism.) Even if the "net" is not strong enough to turn it all around, it just keeps pulling, and "streching the glue" anyway.
BTW, matter at the outer reaches of "the net" will coalesce into clumps, black holes, etc before any complete turn around, so there is no ultimate "heat loss." Gravity squeezing "stuff" back together generates heat. No heat is ever "lost" in the ultimate sense. It just travels around a lot.
My vision of multiple bangs and crunches does not claim the accuracy of specific percentages of matter in "first launch, second launce, or other possible launches" or the timing of "returning shells of matter" for another blastoff."
Given the preliminary nature of this model, such math would be totally pretensious, like Ram's critical math presentations.

And the supernova model was in fact invoked precisely *because* supernova remnants (SNR) keep traveling outward like first launch "shell(s)" from the bang(s), while some matter falls back to form a spinning neutron star or pulsar, which then "jets out" more matter from the next gravitational "squeeze."
Get a grip, Ram.

The whole spacetime thing will have to wait til next "time." Relativity is all about what observer can see what light and when, given the speed limit of light. That and making "something" (a "fabric") out of nothing (space and "time.") (The cosmic event horizon is beyond what can come back to be seen from deep space. It doesn't mean that nothing is out there or nothing can ever "come back.)
Again, space is emptiness, nothingness. Time is not a "thing" either. It is the convention of human measurement of event duration, the "history" of a *designated* string of "nows." Together well, nothing plus nothing still equals nothing. See?
"Nothing" does not expand (as in inflation model.) The real deal "stuff" of cosmos "goes Bang" and expands out into empty space... in waves or consecutive launches, according to my vision.

The closed, open, and flat cosmologies all depend on the different "shapes of space... re: positve, negative or neutral "curvature."
Well, spacetime didn't "wait" after all, but I must go now.
.
Once one realizes that space has no shape and is not expanding, then actual matter/energy/plasma becomes the subject of cosmology without apology or homage to the spacetime myth.

I do invite comentary by others here. There is much in the links which Iolaus shared above, for instance, which flies in the face of the standard texbook science, on which Ram doggedly insists here, and from which S/he constantly condescends so inappropriately.
mikiel

mikiel wrote:I've gotta go soon, so will not have time for point by point rebuttal of Ram's tedius string of standard textbook regurgitations in this post.

Textbook regurgitations? Haha! Nope, actually as anyone can see, it's quite free handed. I used only one quote, related to escape velocity. I took scientifically substantiated laws and concepts and applied them to the "mystic vision" you're presenting. This is how the plausibility of a theories is worked out. Perhaps you would prefer we just make up some physics rather than use tested and substantiated laws and principles? I mean since textbook physics are so bad according to you...

mikiel wrote: There is in fact an ongoing debate about the nature of "dark matter."
The kind I "know and love" is ordinary matter of all sizes and species which merely does not emit or reflect light. Chandra's "first five years" report claimed that it has detected ever increasing amounts of this "dark" (i.e., no "light") matter. No one is claiming actual detection of the "mystery" variety of "Dark Matter." It is just a missing ingredient in the workable math of the gravitational anomalies (of various sorts) so far.
(Do not believe Ram's bullshit. I have never embraced the latter theoretical matter... no "flip-flop" between 'the two' at all.

Straight up, BULLSHIT... You stated Chandra was finding all this "real" matter, your link points to dark matter, of a mysteries non-interacting sort :)

mikiel wrote: Real science depends on oservation for verification. "Mystery dark matter/energy" is pure imagination so far, while the real matter, now being increasingly detected by Chandra is growing in mass all the time.

The link YOU pointed to: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/abell2029/
Quote from said link "If Abell 2029 is a representative sample of the universe, these results indicate that 70 to 90 percent of the mass of the universe consists of cold dark matter - mysterious particles left over from the dense early universe that interact with each other and "normal" matter only through gravity"
Oh, here is the link I had again, (see if it works now) http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/au ... atter.html

You have no idea what you are talking about...Both these reports claim evidence, one even claims "proof". This is not dark dust, dark rocks, we aren't talking about big chucks of charcoal. Again, since you're having trouble here, "That interact with each other and "normal" matter only through gravity" Are you incapable of correctly applying scientific terminology, or intentionally trying to muddle the waters so that no one knows what in the hell you are claiming? So, to clarify, are you supporting the observation of dark matter and recanting that it is "pure imagination". Or denying it and for some reason pointing us to links supporting it?

You do understand there a difference between non-luminous dust and rocks, vs dark matter, which does not interact with itself or common matter except through gravity (I can't make this any clearer)

mikiel wrote: "My cosmology" has never been presented as anything but theroretical"

Didn't we just have a go round with the use of "is" and "will" assumptions in your cosmology? Theoretical science doesn't use these worlds, as it assumes a truth unknown to the future.

mikiel wrote:Mathematicians are continually "blowing theoretical smoke" without "real world" verification. They intimidate most laymen and kiss up to their bosses, verification is still a requirement of real science.

Still waiting on that real world verification from ya mik... Why such the sharp tongue towards mathematicians? What have you got on them?

mikiel wrote: nor my "source" as anything but mystic vision... a source obviously not recognized by science, and properly so.
So S/he (?) conveniently dodges my distinction between theory (whatever the source) and empirical verification. (The ever-popular M-theory boys can dream up all the imaginary dimensions and universes they like "without a shred" of empirical evidence, cuz 'they got math.' (See again my 'blowing math smoke' comments.)

Not dodging it at all, we are NOT discussing m-theory, I mean if you're jealous the m-theory boyz are gettin all the hype. Sorry, nothin I can do to make you feel better about being left out. As I said, I don't advocate m-theory. It has no "real world verification". It's a mathematical model only at this point. But, guess what mik, your vision has no "real world verification" either, so who's blowing theoretical smoke now?..And you don't even have as much as the maths...haha... It's not even theoretical smoke, more like smoke out the ass, and pile on the bullshit.

mikiel wrote: My conteded use of "is" and "will" above is the mystic speaking. Admittedly science must state such things as possibilities and probabilities. But I am a mix of scientist and mystic. I grant myself license to speak in "positive terms" about what I have "seen" cuz it is, in my direct experience, more that just theoretical conjecture/theory, tho the visions are not presented as scientifically valid. Ok, I repeated.

Science revokes that err license there mister, hand it over... Sorry to crash your hallucination with real world, but you implied a desire to debate science. Not to mention the scientifically inappropriate use of the language you are using. It also could have a tendency to "lead" an uneducated mind, and likely the real function and intention of the poster.

mikiel wrote: S/he is extremely dense on the "escape velocity" issue. This is a *local take* on what velocity is required for one mass to escape the gravity field of another. S/he is in total denial of "the big picture" here, where nothing, ultimately escapes the cosmic gravity net. Again, *everything pulls on everything else.* It is a constant throughout the full oscillation cycle. *Changes* in G-force travel at lightspeed (see my blog) but this "cosmic glue" of attraction is constant, but for the changes, among all instances of matter.

Escape velocity is not a "local take". Is gravity only local? The Earth has a specific escape velocity, the galaxy does too, and guess what? In an unbound universe, it has an escape velocity also. For the universe to close back in itself with out losing any energy, (ignoring spacetime) it has to have a density high enough to pull all that radiation back. You remember how fast photons are? 186,000 mps... What mik is modeling, and rather dimwitted, is the entire universe as a Newtonian dark star.

mikiel wrote: Critical cosmic density for reversal (Omega) is a question of how much matter overall is required to *counter the outward expansive force* and begin the implosive half of the cycle. ( A small point missing in Ram's criticism.) Even if the "net" is not strong enough to turn it all around, it just keeps pulling, and "streching the glue" anyway.
BTW, matter at the outer reaches of "the net" will coalesce into clumps, black holes, etc before any complete turn around, so there is no ultimate "heat loss." Gravity squeezing "stuff" back together generates heat. No heat is ever "lost" in the ultimate sense. It just travels around a lot.
My vision of multiple bangs and crunches does not claim the accuracy of specific percentages of matter in "first launch, second launce, or other possible launches" or the timing of "returning shells of matter" for another blastoff."
Given the preliminary nature of this model, such math would be totally pretensious, like Ram's critical math presentations.

You are really being obtuse. Your model requires more that just enough density to slow, and collapse the matter, you gotta get the radiation too... Don't you get this?? preliminary? Haven't you said the vision came to you at 5yrs old and you have pursued science your whole life? Scientists do more than daydream mik. You gotta put together working models. Work out falsifying tests, do some maths. You don't get to jump straight into glory, which seems to be your only interest. Mr Maverick of Science.

mikiel wrote: And the supernova model was in fact invoked precisely *because* supernova remnants (SNR) keep traveling outward like first launch "shell(s)" from the bang(s), while some matter falls back to form a spinning neutron star or pulsar, which then "jets out" more matter from the next gravitational "squeeze."
Get a grip, Ram.

Get a grip on what?? Does all the mass ejected by a supernova get reclaimed? Wasn't that my statement?

Ramayana wrote:Supernovas do not reclaim all the mass they eject... BIG BIG difference.

Get a grip on what? You are not even addressing my statement... hahaha.... Pathetic, truely...

You are not revealing anything to anyone, is this supposed to be some big revelation?

Since you wanna use this model, if I was standing on the surface of a neutron star (for arguments sake) wouldn't the remnants ejected be detectable to me? Likely, so why isn't this "net" detectable?

Do you know why the the remaining core doesn't reclaim all the jettisoned mass? Take a shot at it mik, I know it's hard, I mean all mass attracts all other mass,right? According to you, it should just keep on going, forever and ever, boom, boom, boom etc... Even if we put this SN all by itself in bulk space, (unbounded and without a spacetime substrate) so there is no other gravitational perturbations to interfere. Guess what? It still won't come back, unless it released enough mass and at specific lower velocities, that it catches itself... Can you point me an observation that has ever seen a SN do that shit?

You a very good day dreamer, from a scientific perspective that's all it is. No working model, no math, no evidence, no observation, no falsifying tests presented (I can think of a few), nadda, zip, zilcho. It's an idea that conflicts with real world.... Neat-O.

I don't have time to address anymore right now...