Re: Just a Theory: open universe or closed universe@musseek
- --- In email@example.com,
museek_nonstop <no_reply@y...> wrote:
<< Without light we have no direct method of observation?
Visible light represents an *extremely narrow* part of the
radiation bandwidth. As a matter of fact, most of our
observations of the universe would have to be made in areas of
the spectrum far outside visible light in order to be meaningful.
>>Why did you automatically assume that I meant "visible" light?
"Light" is the general term for the entire electromagnetic
<< I don't understand what you meant by that (?) >>
If no photons are arriving from something in deep space, the
only methods to detect it would be by seeing its actions on
something else that IS producing radiation. If all dark matter is
located outside of the galaxies...it could, very well, be completely
<< That might be one way of looking at it, but accepting that
statement as an absolute fact, effectively closes off any
possibility that you can observe the phenomena without altering
it. . . if I follow to the letter, your statement, it becomes a
self-fulfilling theory. >>
I think the importance is the amount of passivity allowed in the
observation. Some measurements are simply impossible,
without using a measuring stick...And, sometimes, that
measuring stick will cause the thing that it's measuring to move.
As far as CLOSING OFF possibilities goes...How many times
must I explain that I do not EQUATE model with reality? I have no
"faith" that I wont receive information that could change the
model. I'm not going to believe the INVERSE due to an utter lack
of evidence, either, though.
<< Which is what Munch and I have been trying to point out
throughout this thread. >>
I CAN see that you are falling into Munchies habit of reversing
causality. Hopefully we can cure you of it soon, before tables
start turning into flying turnips at a stray thought.
<< Please see my post to Logos >>
Huh? I read the post. I must admit that I failed to see how it
<< Correct, approximately 90% of matter calculated to exist in the
universe cannot be found. Herego, the comments, theories and
potential of "dark matter". >>
Calculated using WHAT model?
<< The theory I currently accept says that the universe will
continue to expand approaching and ultimately achieving "perfect
Which, since you are just reversing the meaning for the word
"order" makes conceptual sense, even while making less verbal
<< I think that may be why we're having a disconnect? >>
How does CREATING reality with your mind have anything to do
with 2 models of an inflationary universe? We ARE suffering from
a disconnect, here...and, unfortunately, I think it is purely
semantic. Perhaps this is another reason for subjectivism: being
more in love with the models and words used to describe reality
than the reality they are describing.
Perhaps there is some sort of psychological reason, then. Do
you feel that my views on various models of reality are,
somehow, concrete? Could it be that you are just projecting your
idealogy onto me?
<< Could you please define what *you* mean by energy =
USABLE energy is equivalent to information. You can convert one
into the other. I've used kinetic energy as an example. I've also
used the organization of a room. The arrangement of information
on a hard-drive would be another example. These are objective
facts that exist with, or without arbitrary human language to
describe them. It may be misleading if I say that energy =
information...If I DID write that (I may have...which would be
syntactically incorrect, since information is actually a subset of
what is considered energy)
<< This may be another area of disconnect. >>
Why not just call it "self-justifying behavior" and be through with it.
<< Do you have a formula for this? I have a hard time with this
because you can't measure ablack hole's diameter by out
concept of distance. >>
This was derived by Einsteins field equations and
thermodynamics. I wasn't the one who performed the derivation.
I think it was either Roger Penrose, or Stephen Hawking. I
actually think the original comparison was "surface area."
This sort of relation works through dimensional analysis applied
from the constant of proportionality.
E=MC^2 is an example...Joules certainly don't translate
DIRECTLY into Grams and Kilograms. The "c^2" of
proportionality cancels the units out, and also conceals the
number of steps it took to derive this result
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, susfubb
> anyone want to help me get a handle on this website?:D
> "black holes don't exist"
> "freemason corruption in UK"
> (i found it while googling stuff to write to finney... :OOO) ~jill
I didn't ahve a chance to read it but passed it along to Lou and a few
friends at his work.
He says its utter garbage and the guy can't spell! LOL
Speaking of Finney. . .Hey did you know that it was a sacrilege during
Puritan times to be BORN on a Sunday?
Wonder what Finney's response to THAT would be (being born on a Sunday)
How much you want to bet Finney subscribes to the Weekly World News?