Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Pre atomic bang environment

Expand Messages
  • William
    What was the energy that expanded in the big bang? We can know it only by its relativistic products. All the mass in the present universe becomes the template
    Message 1 of 10 , May 6, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      What was the energy that expanded in the big bang? We can know it only by its relativistic products. All the mass in the present universe becomes the template for that energy but we do not know what form that energy assumed. An expansion into nothingness where the phenominal energy expanded to the size of an orange from an infintessimal point also assumes a cooling. Why would expansion into nothingness entail cooling? Why did quarks condense from the initial energy burst?
      The very words mass and energy are most inadequate to describe what happned. The sort of energy and mass we experience now did not exist in the pre atomic bang environment. We can only destrapolate from values present in our universe of energy and mass.
      Nothingness is not space, it would seem to be pre space which was defined by the happenstance of the big bang. It was the void and was violated by the products of the big bang.
      As our vice president has so eloquently said,"This is a big ,fucking deal!"I think it is the whole enchaleda and would ask Mary to further explain her holographic theories. Are you speaking of the laser projected apperitions in free space. To me they are projections without a screen. I do not see them as being any complementary reality. Bill
    • Rich Schmid
      Thanks Bill, very interesting. Just thought I would take this chance to introduce myself to the group as I just joined yesterday. My name is Rich, and when I
      Message 2 of 10 , May 6, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks Bill, very interesting. Just thought I would take this chance to introduce myself to the group as I just joined yesterday. My name is Rich, and when I was 18 and starting college I wanted to get a PhD in philosophy, focusing on existentialism, and become a college teacher/writer/speaker. Then for financial reasons I had to transfer to a smaller university which did not offer a major in Philosophy, and kind of lost track of my plan at that point. Well, now here I am at 45, trying to get into grad school to restart my dream. Nice to be here.

        Rich

        --- On Thu, 5/6/10, William <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:


        From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
        Subject: [existlist] Pre atomic bang environment
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, May 6, 2010, 11:35 AM


         



        What was the energy that expanded in the big bang? We can know it only by its relativistic products. All the mass in the present universe becomes the template for that energy but we do not know what form that energy assumed. An expansion into nothingness where the phenominal energy expanded to the size of an orange from an infintessimal point also assumes a cooling. Why would expansion into nothingness entail cooling? Why did quarks condense from the initial energy burst?
        The very words mass and energy are most inadequate to describe what happned. The sort of energy and mass we experience now did not exist in the pre atomic bang environment. We can only destrapolate from values present in our universe of energy and mass.
        Nothingness is not space, it would seem to be pre space which was defined by the happenstance of the big bang. It was the void and was violated by the products of the big bang.
        As our vice president has so eloquently said,"This is a big ,fucking deal!"I think it is the whole enchaleda and would ask Mary to further explain her holographic theories. Are you speaking of the laser projected apperitions in free space. To me they are projections without a screen. I do not see them as being any complementary reality. Bill








        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • William
        Welcome Rich. Our discussion of absence of transendential meaning within existentialism does not,to me ,violate science or its laws. On the periphery of
        Message 3 of 10 , May 6, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Welcome Rich. Our discussion of absence of transendential meaning within existentialism does not,to me ,violate science or its laws. On the periphery of science the greatest velocities,the greatest masses, the longest and shortest time frames dissolve into impossibly huge or small values. They do not leave this cosmos nor do they move into mystical or transcendental modes.
          I know of new terms that deal with the very minnimal times of big bang occurance. We are slicing the worm thinner and thinner but those slices do not end in god or transendance of this cosmos. In that most philosophical of contexts science and existentialism are in agreement. This cosmos is a self contained entity which up to this time remains unviolated by any transcendental stuff.
          The ghost like apperations of lazer light projections are not secound point occurances of real time happenings. They more resemble photographs in a gallery of things that happned in the past. So I hope Mary comments on this as she is further into this sort of thing.I have used a lazer as a cutting instrument and find nothing mystical or transcendental about the use of coherant light.
          I do think we will need new language for our descriptions of new found phenominon. Those words should avoid mystical associations. Bill
        • William
          Welcome Rich. Our discussion of absence of transendential meaning within existentialism does not,to me ,violate science or its laws. On the periphery of
          Message 4 of 10 , May 6, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Welcome Rich. Our discussion of absence of transendential meaning within existentialism does not,to me ,violate science or its laws. On the periphery of science the greatest velocities,the greatest masses, the longest and shortest time frames dissolve into impossibly huge or small values. They do not leave this cosmos nor do they move into mystical or transcendental modes.
            I know of new terms that deal with the very minnimal times of big bang occurance. We are slicing the worm thinner and thinner but those slices do not end in god or transendance of this cosmos. In that most philosophical of contexts science and existentialism are in agreement. This cosmos is a self contained entity which up to this time remains unviolated by any transcendental stuff.
            The ghost like apperations of lazer light projections are not secound point occurances of real time happenings. They more resemble photographs in a gallery of things that happned in the past. So I hope Mary comments on this as she is further into this sort of thing.I have used a lazer as a cutting instrument and find nothing mystical or transcendental about the use of coherant light.
            I do think we will need new language for our descriptions of new found phenominon. Those words should avoid mystical associations. Bill
          • Mary
            I m ill equipped, Bill, to provide adequate explanations for what has taken physicists at least three decades to work out mathematically and for which we must
            Message 5 of 10 , May 6, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm ill equipped, Bill, to provide adequate explanations for what has taken physicists at least three decades to work out mathematically and for which we must take their word. Apparently, during the Black Hole War, a hand full of physicists decided to challenge Hawking's belief that black holes destroyed matter/energy. So what arose were further theories involving thermodynamics and quantum gravity, all of which led to the mathematical refutation of Hawking's idea. What they discovered was that all the 'information' which was assumed to be lost forever in the black hole was actually 'stored' in the event horizon of the black hole. Extrapolation led to the theory that the universe is a holographic image projected by mathematical 'film' at the edge of the universe. This new paradigm is producing equations from Hawking and others.

              As for complementarity, I refer to the wave/particle duality and uncertainty principle.

              For the first time in a long time, and thanks to Bohm's holomovement theory of thought and perception, I now understand how there is no absolute knowledge, only continual abstractions which usually 'work.' There remains so much that doesn't, and this is where existentialism stagnates, in a phenomenological quagmire. That physical theoretics has split existentialism into ethical and nihilist camps excites me; because if every bit of information, including human activities is both* the projector and the projection, each affecting the other, we inhabit a reality with no exit. Rather than concern ourselves strictly with how the universe is affecting us, we might include how we're affecting the universe. It hasn't really been that long ago since we assumed we could dump whatever we wanted into seemingly huge oceans, sky, and earth. Existential projects might be viewed through this filter of reciprocal relatedness of everything. As I mentioned in a previous post, I see the hunger for communication and information of many people, virtual connection, as a manifestation of actual connection.

              Pre-big bang theories are mainly M and string theory which as I recall, you reject.

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
              >
              > What was the energy that expanded in the big bang? We can know it only by its relativistic products. All the mass in the present universe becomes the template for that energy but we do not know what form that energy assumed. An expansion into nothingness where the phenominal energy expanded to the size of an orange from an infintessimal point also assumes a cooling. Why would expansion into nothingness entail cooling? Why did quarks condense from the initial energy burst?
              > The very words mass and energy are most inadequate to describe what happned. The sort of energy and mass we experience now did not exist in the pre atomic bang environment. We can only destrapolate from values present in our universe of energy and mass.
              > Nothingness is not space, it would seem to be pre space which was defined by the happenstance of the big bang. It was the void and was violated by the products of the big bang.
              > As our vice president has so eloquently said,"This is a big ,fucking deal!"I think it is the whole enchaleda and would ask Mary to further explain her holographic theories. Are you speaking of the laser projected apperitions in free space. To me they are projections without a screen. I do not see them as being any complementary reality. Bill
              >
            • tom
              William, Mary and all, Certainly theoretical physics takes us to mystery and wonder, and Einstein said he who has not contemplated mystery and wonder hasn t
              Message 6 of 10 , May 6, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                William, Mary and all,

                Certainly theoretical physics takes us to mystery and wonder, and Einstein said he who has not contemplated mystery and wonder hasn't really lived. I have heard that before the big bang, there was no space time;and since both the hardware and software of the human mind have evolved to deal with space/time things, it is no wonder that at a certain place our minds get blown. I believe myths and symbols were created to put into something comprehendable to our space/time minds, that which is before space time. Some of the things said about the Tao in the I Ching etc sound a bit like something before space time.

                The tao that can be told
                is not the eternal Tao
                The name that can be named
                is not the eternal Name.
                The unnameable is the eternally real.

                Peace,
                Tom
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: William
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 11:35 AM
                Subject: [existlist] Pre atomic bang environment



                What was the energy that expanded in the big bang? We can know it only by its relativistic products. All the mass in the present universe becomes the template for that energy but we do not know what form that energy assumed. An expansion into nothingness where the phenominal energy expanded to the size of an orange from an infintessimal point also assumes a cooling. Why would expansion into nothingness entail cooling? Why did quarks condense from the initial energy burst?
                The very words mass and energy are most inadequate to describe what happned. The sort of energy and mass we experience now did not exist in the pre atomic bang environment. We can only destrapolate from values present in our universe of energy and mass.
                Nothingness is not space, it would seem to be pre space which was defined by the happenstance of the big bang. It was the void and was violated by the products of the big bang.
                As our vice president has so eloquently said,"This is a big ,fucking deal!"I think it is the whole enchaleda and would ask Mary to further explain her holographic theories. Are you speaking of the laser projected apperitions in free space. To me they are projections without a screen. I do not see them as being any complementary reality. Bill





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • tom
                Mary, You said For the first time in a long time, and thanks to Bohm s holomovement theory of thought and perception, I now understand how there is no absolute
                Message 7 of 10 , May 6, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mary,

                  You said

                  For the first time in a long time, and thanks to Bohm's holomovement theory of thought and perception, I now understand how there is no absolute knowledge, only continual abstractions which usually 'work

                  George Soros has a theory of fallibility, which states that our thoughts about something will never match the object of thought, but they can get closer and closer. I believe that absolutes have their existence as tools of control and indoctrination. The fact that ther agenda is presented as absolutely true and good, and their opponents as absolutely false and evil is geared toward compliance not communication. I think I recall you saying you were raised as a Catholic also. I can recall in relgion class, how they would allege to be showing the error in various heretical groups as if the error could be seen in the supposedly falacious reasoning. In my opinion, reason can only go so far, then we have to go beyond reason to experience. Hitler was a great admirer of the Catholic Church for their ability to indoctrinate people.

                  I am always happy to hear the new insights that are flowing through your mind.

                  Peace,
                  Tom
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Mary
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 1:06 PM
                  Subject: [existlist] holographic principle & complementarity & big bang



                  I'm ill equipped, Bill, to provide adequate explanations for what has taken physicists at least three decades to work out mathematically and for which we must take their word. Apparently, during the Black Hole War, a hand full of physicists decided to challenge Hawking's belief that black holes destroyed matter/energy. So what arose were further theories involving thermodynamics and quantum gravity, all of which led to the mathematical refutation of Hawking's idea. What they discovered was that all the 'information' which was assumed to be lost forever in the black hole was actually 'stored' in the event horizon of the black hole. Extrapolation led to the theory that the universe is a holographic image projected by mathematical 'film' at the edge of the universe. This new paradigm is producing equations from Hawking and others.

                  As for complementarity, I refer to the wave/particle duality and uncertainty principle.

                  For the first time in a long time, and thanks to Bohm's holomovement theory of thought and perception, I now understand how there is no absolute knowledge, only continual abstractions which usually 'work.' There remains so much that doesn't, and this is where existentialism stagnates, in a phenomenological quagmire. That physical theoretics has split existentialism into ethical and nihilist camps excites me; because if every bit of information, including human activities is both* the projector and the projection, each affecting the other, we inhabit a reality with no exit. Rather than concern ourselves strictly with how the universe is affecting us, we might include how we're affecting the universe. It hasn't really been that long ago since we assumed we could dump whatever we wanted into seemingly huge oceans, sky, and earth. Existential projects might be viewed through this filter of reciprocal relatedness of everything. As I mentioned in a previous post, I see the hunger for communication and information of many people, virtual connection, as a manifestation of actual connection.

                  Pre-big bang theories are mainly M and string theory which as I recall, you reject.

                  Mary

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > What was the energy that expanded in the big bang? We can know it only by its relativistic products. All the mass in the present universe becomes the template for that energy but we do not know what form that energy assumed. An expansion into nothingness where the phenominal energy expanded to the size of an orange from an infintessimal point also assumes a cooling. Why would expansion into nothingness entail cooling? Why did quarks condense from the initial energy burst?
                  > The very words mass and energy are most inadequate to describe what happned. The sort of energy and mass we experience now did not exist in the pre atomic bang environment. We can only destrapolate from values present in our universe of energy and mass.
                  > Nothingness is not space, it would seem to be pre space which was defined by the happenstance of the big bang. It was the void and was violated by the products of the big bang.
                  > As our vice president has so eloquently said,"This is a big ,fucking deal!"I think it is the whole enchaleda and would ask Mary to further explain her holographic theories. Are you speaking of the laser projected apperitions in free space. To me they are projections without a screen. I do not see them as being any complementary reality. Bill
                  >





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Mary
                  Just to clarify this rambling offering, I don t know that Hawking is working specifically w/ holographic theory. I mixed up the date of his limit constant. I
                  Message 8 of 10 , May 7, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Just to clarify this rambling offering, I don't know that Hawking is working specifically w/ holographic theory. I mixed up the date of his limit constant. I also realize that physicists have their pet theories as much as we have our preferred exisentialism. Mary

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I'm ill equipped, Bill, to provide adequate explanations for what has taken physicists at least three decades to work out mathematically and for which we must take their word. Apparently, during the Black Hole War, a hand full of physicists decided to challenge Hawking's belief that black holes destroyed matter/energy. So what arose were further theories involving thermodynamics and quantum gravity, all of which led to the mathematical refutation of Hawking's idea. What they discovered was that all the 'information' which was assumed to be lost forever in the black hole was actually 'stored' in the event horizon of the black hole. Extrapolation led to the theory that the universe is a holographic image projected by mathematical 'film' at the edge of the universe. This new paradigm is producing equations from Hawking and others.
                    >
                    > As for complementarity, I refer to the wave/particle duality and uncertainty principle.
                    >
                    > For the first time in a long time, and thanks to Bohm's holomovement theory of thought and perception, I now understand how there is no absolute knowledge, only continual abstractions which usually 'work.' There remains so much that doesn't, and this is where existentialism stagnates, in a phenomenological quagmire. That physical theoretics has split existentialism into ethical and nihilist camps excites me; because if every bit of information, including human activities is both* the projector and the projection, each affecting the other, we inhabit a reality with no exit. Rather than concern ourselves strictly with how the universe is affecting us, we might include how we're affecting the universe. It hasn't really been that long ago since we assumed we could dump whatever we wanted into seemingly huge oceans, sky, and earth. Existential projects might be viewed through this filter of reciprocal relatedness of everything. As I mentioned in a previous post, I see the hunger for communication and information of many people, virtual connection, as a manifestation of actual connection.
                    >
                    > Pre-big bang theories are mainly M and string theory which as I recall, you reject.
                    >
                    > Mary
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > What was the energy that expanded in the big bang? We can know it only by its relativistic products. All the mass in the present universe becomes the template for that energy but we do not know what form that energy assumed. An expansion into nothingness where the phenominal energy expanded to the size of an orange from an infintessimal point also assumes a cooling. Why would expansion into nothingness entail cooling? Why did quarks condense from the initial energy burst?
                    > > The very words mass and energy are most inadequate to describe what happned. The sort of energy and mass we experience now did not exist in the pre atomic bang environment. We can only destrapolate from values present in our universe of energy and mass.
                    > > Nothingness is not space, it would seem to be pre space which was defined by the happenstance of the big bang. It was the void and was violated by the products of the big bang.
                    > > As our vice president has so eloquently said,"This is a big ,fucking deal!"I think it is the whole enchaleda and would ask Mary to further explain her holographic theories. Are you speaking of the laser projected apperitions in free space. To me they are projections without a screen. I do not see them as being any complementary reality. Bill
                    > >
                    >
                  • William
                    Mary and Tom, It seems we all seek the extremities of the cosmos with different theories. Certainly yours is as good as mine and I surmise we will find most of
                    Message 9 of 10 , May 7, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mary and Tom, It seems we all seek the extremities of the cosmos with different theories. Certainly yours is as good as mine and I surmise we will find most of our theoretical ramblings to be unprovable.
                      In my mind a black hole is an irrational entity. The event horison which is usually modeled as a nicely tapering grid going down,down down from a from a basketball rim. I understand the grid represents space /time but if you fly around to the opposite side you will only observe the event horizon. Since light cannot escape hyper gravity no orderly mesh could be observed, just the event horizon waiting to suck in light and matter.
                      I agree our terrestrial formed minds are not built to comprehend this and like string theory remains unprovable and little but a curiosoity. The idea that the event horizon stores and reflects reality can be said but I doubt it can be proven theory. The event horizon could be viewed as the last bastion of rationality with that beyond the rim being unknown and unknowable. That sort of futility is why I named this segment "Pre atomic bang environment" . In black holes and big bangs this universe transforms into a physics we have not been able to follow. Surly we can learn more about them but to move beyond them seems unlikely. I can accept that they may be portals but to where and for whom may be unattainable. Our evolved selves are short lived and fragile . Even geologic time frames dwarf us and cosmic durations and distances lie far beyond our scope to deal with. We do not even command our counting machines as yesterdays multi billion fiasco in the markets demonstrates. There is plenty to learn and more than ample space to expand into. I am happy to consider these concepts as even a dead end can be viewed as a road sign. Thankes for the great conversation . Bill
                    • tom
                      Mary, I have even heard that some theoretical physicists prefer one theory over another, because to them it is more beautiful. I have also heard it argued
                      Message 10 of 10 , May 7, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Mary, I have even heard that some theoretical physicists prefer one theory over another, because to them it is more beautiful. I have also heard it argued that the birth experience the physicist experienced may very well have subliminal impacts that lean the physicist toward one or the other of theories. I guess until fairly conclusive proof is established, people will lean toward what they like.


                        Peace,
                        Tom .
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Mary
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:16 AM
                        Subject: [existlist] Re: holographic principle & complementarity & big bang



                        Just to clarify this rambling offering, I don't know that Hawking is working specifically w/ holographic theory. I mixed up the date of his limit constant. I also realize that physicists have their pet theories as much as we have our preferred exisentialism. Mary

                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I'm ill equipped, Bill, to provide adequate explanations for what has taken physicists at least three decades to work out mathematically and for which we must take their word. Apparently, during the Black Hole War, a hand full of physicists decided to challenge Hawking's belief that black holes destroyed matter/energy. So what arose were further theories involving thermodynamics and quantum gravity, all of which led to the mathematical refutation of Hawking's idea. What they discovered was that all the 'information' which was assumed to be lost forever in the black hole was actually 'stored' in the event horizon of the black hole. Extrapolation led to the theory that the universe is a holographic image projected by mathematical 'film' at the edge of the universe. This new paradigm is producing equations from Hawking and others.
                        >
                        > As for complementarity, I refer to the wave/particle duality and uncertainty principle.
                        >
                        > For the first time in a long time, and thanks to Bohm's holomovement theory of thought and perception, I now understand how there is no absolute knowledge, only continual abstractions which usually 'work.' There remains so much that doesn't, and this is where existentialism stagnates, in a phenomenological quagmire. That physical theoretics has split existentialism into ethical and nihilist camps excites me; because if every bit of information, including human activities is both* the projector and the projection, each affecting the other, we inhabit a reality with no exit. Rather than concern ourselves strictly with how the universe is affecting us, we might include how we're affecting the universe. It hasn't really been that long ago since we assumed we could dump whatever we wanted into seemingly huge oceans, sky, and earth. Existential projects might be viewed through this filter of reciprocal relatedness of everything. As I mentioned in a previous post, I see the hunger for communication and information of many people, virtual connection, as a manifestation of actual connection.
                        >
                        > Pre-big bang theories are mainly M and string theory which as I recall, you reject.
                        >
                        > Mary
                        >
                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > What was the energy that expanded in the big bang? We can know it only by its relativistic products. All the mass in the present universe becomes the template for that energy but we do not know what form that energy assumed. An expansion into nothingness where the phenominal energy expanded to the size of an orange from an infintessimal point also assumes a cooling. Why would expansion into nothingness entail cooling? Why did quarks condense from the initial energy burst?
                        > > The very words mass and energy are most inadequate to describe what happned. The sort of energy and mass we experience now did not exist in the pre atomic bang environment. We can only destrapolate from values present in our universe of energy and mass.
                        > > Nothingness is not space, it would seem to be pre space which was defined by the happenstance of the big bang. It was the void and was violated by the products of the big bang.
                        > > As our vice president has so eloquently said,"This is a big ,fucking deal!"I think it is the whole enchaleda and would ask Mary to further explain her holographic theories. Are you speaking of the laser projected apperitions in free space. To me they are projections without a screen. I do not see them as being any complementary reality. Bill
                        > >
                        >





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.