Accelerating Universe

From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2003 1:13 AM

Dark matter, dark energy, and an accelerating Universe

WellS things are really shaking up in the world of quantum physics. A few
years ago, 10 Dimensional String Theory was the hot topic, and will
continue to be so in the near and distant future. But, it is a theory
that will have to wait for at least a little while for proof. With no
more funding for the big superconducting supercolliders, abandoned
partially built, needed for experimental verification, the String
Theorists are off in the realm of esoteric mathematics, taking
mathematics where they've never been before, but also exploring ideas
farther and farther removed from experimental verification.

Fear not my fellow DroogsS there's a new kid on the blockS

Guess what?... Things have changes drastically in our understanding of
the Universe, yet it's a silent revolution. Verifiable experimentation
has revealed that the Universe is not, as long held, slowing down.

The old debate was between whether the Universe was slowing down and
would eventually collapse back in on itself (the closed Universe), or if
the Universe was slowing down and would eventually just use up all it's
energy, grow cold and dead keep expandingS however slowly (the open
Universe).

WellS all that is completely out the window now. GONE!!! Forget you ever
heard about an expanding but slowing down Universe. It's not. It's
accelerating. Now remember, don't get this confused with expansion.
Expansion was proven by Edwin Hubble long ago, but no one was talking
acceleration. The standard assumption was that there was the Big Bang,
then a relatively short time of extremely rapid expansion, then a gradual
slowing of that expansion to where we are today. But in all of that
concept, the Big Bang itself was the "push on the cart" of the UniverseS
the fastest moment, and everything after that was a reverberationS a
gradual slowing of the expansion resulting from an explosive, percussive
moment. Like a bell ringing outS or the ripples on the pond surface from
a thrown stoneS gradually slowing and fading away. We now have to come up
with a completely new metaphor than a big bell ringing out, and instead
embrace the idea of a growing note or chord, like an orchestra swelling
to maximum volume.

THAT changes EVERYTHING.

Thank the heavens for Hubble. Through observation, astrophysicists have
had their little world shaken up quite a bit lately. It seems that in the
last couple of years, observational efforts using the Hubble Space
Telescope have revealed something a bit startling. Even though we can
detect red and blue shift that tells us if something like a star or
galaxy is traveling toward us or away from us, the Hubble revealed
something new. A permeating red shift to everything. And they mean
everything. The distant galaxies we could never see beforeS the ones on
the edge of time, are traveling faster than anything else in the
Universe, and they're not slowing down, but rather accelerating to speeds
not know since the first instants after the Universe exploded into being.
You remember that background radiation they discovered about twenty years
agoS that tooS and everywhere. EverythingS is moving apart and doing it
increasingly fasterS everything - space itself, is accelerating. As it
is, as best as observational experimentation and verification can
calculate, the universe is presently accelerating, not just expanding,
but accelerating at a speed approximately the same as when the Universe
was a mere infantile 300,000 years old.

These observations got theoretical physicists off their asses. How could
the Universe be accelerating? Wait a minuteS this goes against
everything. Accelerating?!!!... are you really talking about
acceleratingS as in going faster and faster and fasterS building up
speed??? That the Universe is not only expanding, but expanding at
increasing speed???!!!

YEP!!!

But how? What would be needed to create this type of Universe, and can we
observe it? The same way we've proven everything elseS theory,
observation and experimental verification. Science at it's best. Here's
how the puzzle was solved.

What Quantum physics did reveal in it's quest to crack the door open on
what goes on in the world of the very very small, and it's attempts to
understand String Theory, let us sort of stumble into something elseS
virtual particlesS or, if you will, virtual energy: particles of matter
that spontaneously appear and disappear in a moment. At first we thought,
"well, that's cool." But we never really thought it would play as big a
role as it actually does. Here's how. In order for the Universe to be
expanding, there has to be some energy permeating the Universe to
override gravityS some force that we don't see. WellS it turns out that
these virtual particles are popping out of nothing and disappearing all
over the place, and the Universe is a big placeS a really big placeS and
all that blackness it chock full of this virtual activity popping in and
out from literally nothing. And in the short of it all, even though these
virtual particles pop into existence for a nearly infinitely small moment
before they disappear again, there is enough of this virtual matter
(energy) permeating the entirety of the Universe at any given moment,
that it creates the energy needed to offset gravity, which wants to slow
the Universe down and collapse it back in on itself. WellS as it turns
out, there's not just a little bit more needed to offset universal
gravityS there's a LOT more, and it appears that there's more than more
than enough of this energy permeating everything. So much so that the
Universe is actuallyS right nowS at this momentS accelerating faster than
it has since those relatively first few moments after the Big Bang.

What does this all mean? ShitS it's so big, it's going to take even the
science community a one hell of a shift in thinking. This is truly a
paradigm shift of massive proportions in science. For seventy five years,
since Hubble made the observations that opened the door into the Big Bang
expanding Universe, science has assumed that yes, it was expanding three
dimensionally, but decelerating in that expansion. The only question was
whether the Universe is a closed or open system. WellS now what? We're
just beginning to understand that there is this energy, much less what it
is and how it works and what it all means. No one can explain dark matter
yet, and now we have to grapple with dark energy to go along with that.
What is this energy that seems to guide things so strongly, yet we can
never observe? What is the nothing that virtual particles and energy
emerge from for an instantS and where do they go after their 15
kabilliamilliaseconds of fame?

And what about just the whole idea of an accelerating Universe. What is
the end game? Where is it going in such an increasing hurry. When did the
shift from decelerating after the Big Bang and this acceleration happen,
and what tipped the balance? When was the moment of equilibrium between
post-Big Bang deceleration and this newly discovered acceleration? How
will the answers to all these questions change our understanding of the
Universe?

This is truly an amazing time to be a scientist. I wish I was so, but I'm
also happy to be a fan and spectator to the sport. I would encourage any
young person to enter the fieldS as it is about to enter it's true golden
age. Such huge questions are on the table nowS just waiting for someone
to sit down to the feast.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com>

Chaz wrote:
>
> We now have to come up
> with a completely new metaphor than a big bell ringing out, and instead
> embrace the idea of a growing note or chord, like an orchestra swelling
> to maximum volume.
>
> THAT changes EVERYTHING.

That changes only the assumptions and theories of people who are
looking at the universe through a soda straw and acting like the
wiggly line on their computer screen EXPLAINS EVERYTHING. Chaz my
dear friend you are sitting at the bottom of the well full of academia
nuts where they pass the flashlight around and EXPLAIN EVERYTHING to
each other. And every few years they find out some new fact that
makes their old explanations all wrong and act all astonished that
they DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING. I mean that was a good essay you wrote,
and made it seem very exciting to be in a dark room full of computer
screens that make you feel like you have the universe in the palm of
your hand. But I saw that Nova show too and was LAFFIN the whole time
at how astonished those folks were when they found out the couldn't
jam the whole universe into a matchbox - and yet still cling to
ENTIRELY IMAGINARY concepts like Big Bangs which are nothing but
unexplainable gimmicks to put into the Official Literature where
normal people would say "I don't know." Science and Religion are
subject to the very same fundamental flaw - reasoning from Effect to
Cause has just as many diverging fanlike ramifications as reasoning
from Cause to Effect does, so your chance of picking the exact right
one that gets you to the genuine original source is mighty damn slim.
Ultimately all that stuff is just made up names which become
transformed from Ways of Classifying Observations into Real
Self-Existing Entities. And the universe just goes right on doing
what it did all along whether we know about it or not.

As it is written; There's an Explanation for Everything.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>

On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 23:36:03 -0700, nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com> wrote:

>As it is written; There's an Explanation for Everything.

No, some things are utterly beyond explanation.

Viz:

http://www.realhamster.com/intro.html

Explain THAT.

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com

Everything is permitted. Nothing is true.
- Hassan ibn Sabah

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Leroy <roy@ta.boy>

On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 23:36:03 -0700, nenslo wrote:

> .... Science and Religion are
>subject to the very same fundamental flaw - reasoning from Effect to
>Cause has just as many diverging fanlike ramifications as reasoning
>from Cause to Effect does, so your chance of picking the exact right
>one that gets you to the genuine original source is mighty damn slim.
> ....

Yeah.

If your idea of how to get the truth is Divine Inspiration /
Revelation, then the explanation you end up with for how everything
got started goes something like, "God said Let there be light." In
other words it gets "revealed" to you that the Universe unfolds by
Divine Revelation, which sounds a lot like the assumption implicit in
your method of inquiry.

On the other hand if your preferred method is to do experiments, you
wind up with Big Bang & Evolution. Theory that says "Nature
experiments."

Primogenesis recapitulates epistemology.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 03:47:52 -0500, Leroy <roy@ta.boy> wrote:

>Primogenesis recapitulates epistemology.

Gesundheit.

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com

I belive this Church has been infiltrated by SUBGENIUSES!

- Friday Jones

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>

Chaz wrote:
>
> Dark matter, dark energy, and an accelerating Universe
>

Postulated some time ago: that some types of
particles can occupy different space at the
same time. A most fundamental form of asexual
reproduction. If the theoretical space they
tend to occupy is empty, then they continue to
"reproduce." If not, then they clump together
to form more complex types of matter.

Therefore, the oldest and densest parts of the
universe would become increasingly complex until
the complexity started to become self-destructive,
as in very heavy particles. In these places, you
would then get an "order-chaos" cycle, in which
an "evolution" of stable complexity would occur.

--
Give me thank or kill me.
--nu-monet

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>

POINT:

nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com> wrote in news:3E9510D2.46172A47@yahooX.com:

> Science and Religion are
> subject to the very same fundamental flaw - reasoning from Effect to
> Cause has just as many diverging fanlike ramifications as reasoning
> from Cause to Effect does,

Sir... with all due respect, the fundamental nature of science is self
verification. There will a hundred scientists now trying to prove this
all wrong.

Do you ever see this in religion? A claim is made from authority figures
and the congregation rushing to debunk it? Hardly.

I have always made a very clear and distinct seperation between theory
and verifiable proof. This is not theory any more... it's proven. The
Novas show only got me going. I've been reading this stuff for years.

Science is certain;y not perfect, but it does have self correcting
mechanisms, and it is the best thing we have. What other field will make
a claim, then have the entirety of the profession seeking to prove it by
disproving it?

Your assumption that the Universe goes right on along doing what it does
whether we observe it or not... shows a simple lack of education in the
matter. Are you debunking the whole observational and chaos discoveries?
And what laboritories or studies have people embarked on to back these
debunkings? People do know what scietific proof means right?... DO know
what is going on in laboratories all over the world, right... that there
are actually people who use their brains to solve problems in
understanding, instead of sitting back going, "it's all a Con." i teach
at a university... I have lunch with these people... I go to meetings
with them and seek out the sources and studies of these new discoveries.
It's REAL dude... it's fucking REAL... go smoke another fucking joint.

Is not every atom in us a relic from some ancient exploded star?... is
not our Sun and everything in the Solar System a relic of that exploded
old star?... that star that sent it's star stuff flying through space,
that collected itself back together and formed the Sun, planets and
us?... Did not evolution, guided by Natural Selection and a simple credo
of survival of the fittest, eventually pop out critters with eyes... that
could see the Universe... critters with ears to hear it... noses to smell
it... skin to sense it... legs to explore it... hands to grasp it... a
brain to collect all this observational input and attempt to understand
it? DUDE... we're just fucking made of of star junk. Every atom in us was
once inside of that old star. We are, in a very real sense, a way for the
Universe to know itself.

We are the Universe taking inventory of Itself.

I actually feel very bad and sad for people who don't have science and
music in their lives (they're the same anyway)... and I mean in a big
way, as in that's most of what you think about and put effort into
understanding.

And who really cares about original source?... the adventure is in the
journey... not the destination. It's sorta like the original Mercury
astronauts... they wanted a parachute in the capsule. The engineers said,
"you'll never get it on and get the door open in time"... and they
replied, "we don't care... it'll give us something to do until we hit."

NASA gave them the parachute.

>
> As it is written; There's an Explanation for Everything.
>

COUNTERPOINT:

Chas, you ignorant slut. Did ya' ever hear the phrase, "Fuck science...
let's dance"???!!! Isn't that realy the point of Nenslo's rebuttal? What
the fuck does it matter?... you'll live your whole life seeking
understanding of the physical world... reading and theorizing and
inventorying and experimenting and reading and theorizing and blah bla
blah bla blahhhh... until you fucking die... and what did you get out of
it? You should be playing in a fun time reggae band in Barbados... jammin
your rock&roll ass in some tropical paradise for naked young chics
shaking their titties at you. Would not THAT make a MUCH BETTER
"parachute"... something to do until you hit?

REBUTTAL TO COUNTERPOINT:

Fuck... you're right.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>

Chaz wrote:
>
> Sir... with all due respect, the fundamental
> nature of science is self verification...

A bunch of the scientists were whooping it up,
Around the cave campfire one night,
When one of them said, "Ogg! Stick head in fire!
And say if it make your head bright!"

Now Ogg was no idiot, for he held a doctorate,
And knew of knowledge gained through persistence,
So, into the fire he put heads of the young men
"For that's why them graduate assistants."

--
Violate me, in the violet time,
In the vilest way that you know!
Desecrate, savage me
Utterly ravage me
On me no mercy bestow.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>

Leroy <roy@ta.boy> wrote in news:pbaa9vso0kfog0gg37ifgg1nh4juknuok2@
4ax.com:

>
> If your idea of how to get the truth is Divine Inspiration /
> Revelation, then the explanation you end up with for how everything
> got started goes something like, "God said Let there be light." In
> other words it gets "revealed" to you that the Universe unfolds by
> Divine Revelation, which sounds a lot like the assumption implicit in
> your method of inquiry.

Right on.

>
> On the other hand if your preferred method is to do experiments, you
> wind up with Big Bang & Evolution. Theory that says "Nature
> experiments."

GODDAMN... Evolution is not a theory... it's proven fact. PEOPLE... stop
mixing up theory and scientifically proven fact. Unless you think that
some god put the fossils there to fool us...

Evolution is as solid a fact as your smelly farts in the morning.

The Big Bang is a theory... barely anymore though.

Ten Dimensional Strings is a theory. (This one's a long way off)

The background radiation is a fact. (which almost 100% proves the Big
Bang to be not a theory, but a fact)

Antimatter is a fact. We have some in a jar.

Subatomic particles WERE a theory... now they are proven fact. We have
pictures of them.

Hell... for that matter... molecules and atoms were hairbrained theories
too... before we could actually see them.

Shit... so was a round Earth... or that the Moon was a place. (though the
Greeks figured these out a thousand years before Columbus sailed the
ocean blue - the world -even most other Greeks- just wrote it off as more
nutjob conspiracy quackery.

Double shit... in Greek classic times, some other nutjob came up with a
theory that the Air was actually something... not nothing. That the
invisibly clear air was made up of "stuff" made all his friends question
his sanity.

And... virtual matter and energy are facts. They are cases... rare
ones... where observation surpassed theory. No one could predict exactly
what the Hubble would reveal... and it is now surpassing all theoretical
thinking in great strides. It's not some mystical chrystal... it's just a
better pair of glasses to see with.

Dr. Legume's Margaritas are a fact.

Hot chics getting tied up and whipped at Tiki Banzai is a fact.

That even more fun will be had at T-Base this summer at X-Day is a
theory... but strongly based on past observational experiments, I'm
willing to bet it's a proven fact in no time at all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:37:26 GMT, Chaz <swampradio@excite.com> wrote:

>Subatomic particles WERE a theory... now they are proven fact. We have
>pictures of them.

Think about it.

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com

Q: What do Biil Palmer and Mark Fuhrman have in common? A: Neither one has
used a racial/ethnic slur. Just ask their friends.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com>

Chaz wrote:
>
>
> GODDAMN... Evolution is not a theory... it's proven fact. PEOPLE... stop
> mixing up theory and scientifically proven fact. Unless you think that
> some god put the fossils there to fool us...

Dear friend, there is solid evidence for evolution, especially in the
insect world (specifically the development of the balloon flies) but
even the scienterifficest of scientists still speak of "Evolutionary
Theory" just as they speak of "Atomic Theory" to refer to things NO
LIVING HUMAN CAN EVER SEE, EXPERIENCE OR "PROVE." Presenting an
irrational alternative as you do above does not make Evolutionary
Theory any less a theory. The difference in Science as a system of
classifying observed experience and Scientism as a cultish belief
system is that the former does not use its data to extend into the
realm of speculation beyond experience and present speculation as fact.

>
> Evolution is as solid a fact as your smelly farts in the morning.

Evolution itself is NOT OBSERVABLE. Therefore it remains a theory.

>
> The Big Bang is a theory... barely anymore though.

The Big Bang is speculation based on marks on paper. It is a
conclusion based on the very same quality of thought and calculation
which came to the conclusions instantly dispelled by evidence of a
continuously expanding universe. It seems to make sense based on the
data currently at hand. PERIOD.
>
> Ten Dimensional Strings is a theory. (This one's a long way off)
>
> The background radiation is a fact. (which almost 100% proves the Big
> Bang to be not a theory, but a fact)
>
> Antimatter is a fact. We have some in a jar.
>
> Subatomic particles WERE a theory... now they are proven fact. We have
> pictures of them.

I am dubious about how one goes about making pictures of things
smaller than photons but I don't expect to understand.

>
> Hell... for that matter... molecules and atoms were hairbrained theories
> too... before we could actually see them.

I can't see them. To me they are still a theory. Hell, I've never
seen a whale so to me they are nothing but hearsay and seelook. I
mean I've seen pictures of what people say are whales but I have seen
pictures of what people say are Yeti too. So Until I see a whale I
can only say I've never seen one yet. Ditto atoms. I know, the
common response is usually "you have no reason NOT to believe in their
existence" to which I must reply "Belief is what you do when you do
not have actual knowledge through personal experience." Show me an
atom or a whale and I will KNOW they exist and won't have to believe.
Not a picture of one, a real one right in front of me.
>
> Shit... so was a round Earth... or that the Moon was a place. (though the
> Greeks figured these out a thousand years before Columbus sailed the
> ocean blue - the world -even most other Greeks- just wrote it off as more
> nutjob conspiracy quackery.
>
> Double shit... in Greek classic times, some other nutjob came up with a
> theory that the Air was actually something... not nothing. That the
> invisibly clear air was made up of "stuff" made all his friends question
> his sanity.
>
> And... virtual matter and energy are facts. They are cases... rare
> ones... where observation surpassed theory. No one could predict exactly
> what the Hubble would reveal... and it is now surpassing all theoretical
> thinking in great strides. It's not some mystical chrystal... it's just a
> better pair of glasses to see with.

Dark Matter appears to me to be a FUDGE FACTOR, an indetectable
something invented to cover the disparity between calculation in the
lab and observed experience.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>

Acceleration...

Hey folks... it's just something fun to think about. Ya'all don't have to
see the Con in it.

Anyway... so what?... the Universe is both expanding and accelerating at
the same time...

Does that mean we're getting bigger all the time? Aren't we expanding along
with it all?

FUCK!!!... no WONDER my knees are killing me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>

In article <O4ila.17939$4P1.1603917@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Chaz <swampradio@excite.com> wrote:

>
> FUCK!!!... no WONDER my knees are killing me.

Funny how something like the stubbing of a toe can bring the race of
lofty, soaring, adventuresome thoughts to a crashing halt. And suddenly
you feel like a dumbshit.

THE SUBGENIUS: BRILLIANT VISIONARY SCIENTIST, or DISGUSTING WHORE-TARD?

WHY NOT BOTH?!?

--
4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected (Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
A subsidiary of:
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc. / P.O. Box 204206, Austin, TX 78720-4206
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com
For SubGenius Biz & Orders: call toll free to 1-888-669-2323
or email: jesus@subgenius.com
PRABOB

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Leroy <roy@ta.boy>

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:37:26 GMT, Chaz wrote:

>GODDAMN... Evolution is not a theory... it's proven fact.

Uh, well as nenslo said, scientists call it "theory". (Granted, what
scientists call theory in this case may be as solid, or more, than
what other people call fact.)

For the sake of my argument, I didn't care whether evolution is theory
of fact, I only cared that it says "Nature experiments," and thus
echoes the method of inquiry.

By "Big Bang & Evolution", I had in mind some general theories of
evolution which propose that nature randomly produces conditions for
universes. Only those universes sufficiently stable and having
conditions supportive of consciousness, are ever known as "The
Universe" by any inhabitants. (Check the library for "The Creation"
or "Creation Revisited", both by Peter Atkins. Interesting note:
Atkins describes why any stable universe has to have 3 and only
dimensions of space, and one dimension [actually a half-dimension] of
time. The short answer about why 3 space dimensions is, 3-space is
the only dimensionality in which you can tie a knot, and particles are
like knots.)

>PEOPLE... stop
>mixing up theory and scientifically proven fact.

Aw, gee. But EVERYONE is doing it!

> ...<SNIP (not bad stuff but snipping for brevity)>...
>
>Subatomic particles WERE a theory... now they are proven fact. We have
>pictures of them.
>
>Hell... for that matter... molecules and atoms were hairbrained theories
>too... before we could actually see them.
>
> ...<SNIP (more physics stuff)>...
>
>Hot chics getting tied up and whipped at Tiki Banzai is a fact.

We have pictures of them 8->

> ...<SNIP (theory concerning fun at T-Base this summer at X-Day)>...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>

> Uh, well as nenslo said, scientists call it "theory".

WHAT fucking scientist do you fucking know that fucking calls evolution a
fucking theory??? WHO??? Show me ONE!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Leroy <ellipsis@dot.dot>

>>Hot chics getting tied up and whipped at Tiki Banzai is a fact.
>
>We have pictures of them 8->
>

Jes kiddin' of course, 'bout the pictures from the no-camera zone.
I sure can't seem to find any (and it's a good thing I can't!).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: iDRMRSR <idrmrsr@subgenius.com>

Umm, yas.

In other words, all matter is escaping from some terrible smelling fart
at the center of the universe. I've observed this phenomenon on
elevators when I had been the farter.

[*]
-----

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>

Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com> wrote
>
>
>>Subatomic particles WERE a theory... now they are proven fact. We have
>>pictures of them.

and they're very beautiful... guided by exactly the same chaos mathematics
that Doc Mojo used to create MojoWorld.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>

nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com> wrote in news:3E95C921.981A6F0C@yahooX.com:

> but
> even the scienterifficest of scientists still speak of "Evolutionary
> Theory"

They do not. Have you ever even talked to a physicist? Where the fuck did
you get that? Fuck... damn... Not ONE scientist would call it a theory
today... except those fucked up creation evolutionists fucks. Geez... put
down the fucking bong and go take a few courses at the university.
Everyone disses the ivory tower... have ya' even been in one?

It is a proven fact. I'm sorry if that grinds against your senses, but
why should the Universe give a rats ass about your senses. Your just here
to take inventory, and if you're not even doing that, then you're just
the scummy foam that will wash away when the tide comes in.

> Scientism as a cultish belief
> system

THAT is something ONLY UNEDUCATED people looking in from the outside do.
REAL scientists actually live the life. It's real to them... not a belief
system. Their belief system has nothing to do with what a real scientist
does as a vocation.

>> Evolution is as solid a fact as your smelly farts in the morning.
>
> Evolution itself is NOT OBSERVABLE. Therefore it remains a theory.

OH FUCK DUDE... I can't even talk to someone who can actually go along
with that. Do YOU FUCKING MEAN the famous fruit fly experiments were NOT
OBSERVABLE... the fucking FIRST thing you learn about in biology
classes???!!! GODDAMN... go to school... and don't go stoned.

>
> The Big Bang is speculation based on marks on paper.

It is not, you poor fuck. What the fuck is the background radiation
(ummm... which is proven fact now) a reverberation of... Connie's
orgasm?...

> It is a
> conclusion based on the very same quality of thought and calculation
> which came to the conclusions instantly dispelled by evidence of a
> continuously expanding universe. It seems to make sense based on the
> data currently at hand. PERIOD.

Are you living in 1951 ???

>
> I am dubious about how one goes about making pictures of things
> smaller than photons but I don't expect to understand.

How fucking uninformed can you get? Did you happen to ever hear about
supercolliders? You DO know they exist, right? That they actually
collided atoms together in the 60s and 70s and took pictures of the
subatomic stuff that came splattering out of it? This isn't, like,
exactly new news here folks.

>
> I can't see them. To me they are still a theory.

OH MY FUCKING SHIT!!! WOW!!! FUCKING WOW!!!

No sense continuing down this darkened path. The lights ain't ever coming
on here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 02:16:00 GMT, Chaz <swampradio@excite.com> wrote:

>>
>> I can't see them. To me they are still a theory.
>
>
>OH MY FUCKING SHIT!!! WOW!!! FUCKING WOW!!!
>
>
>No sense continuing down this darkened path. The lights ain't ever coming
>on here.

He's right. He's not arguing that evolution is wrong, but that it is
a theory.

In fact he is being too charitable and I think you missed the point of
what I said earlier, and are working off a groundless criterion.
"Being able to see it" doesn't make it a fact, it makes it intuitive.
There's a difference. Making pictures of atoms does not make them
'facts'.

In the realm of the observable there ARE NO FACTS. Period.
Observation does not make factuality.

You are playing the tired old game of accusing anybody who, in your
eyes, doesn't pay sufficient 'respect' to science as being a Believer,
and comparing him to a christian creationist.

He's right, he's making perfectly reasonable points, which have
nothing at all to do with 'creationism'. If you could read what he
wrote coolly and neutrally, you'd reallize that's the case.

***

Being able to 'take a picture of an atom' is just another form of
modelling, no different from the mathematical models which long
preceded them. You think that makes atoms -real-, and that may or may
not be, who knows. But you are saying that it makes them -facts-,
which it most certainly does not; no more than Michaelangelo painting
God on the Sistine chapel makes God a 'fact'.

There are two things, a model and a body of observations. To say that
a model which is derived from a body of observations is a 'fact' is to
say that it is the only model which ever possibly could accurately
describe that body of observations.

When human beings still believed that a thing being both intuitive and
logical made it a 'fact', they decided that a lot of things were
'facts' which we now know not to be real, like Newtonian physics.

Real scientists are, in fact, quite aware of this, they are more aware
of it than laymen as a general rule, and your accusing nenslo of not
having been exposed to real scientists is actually fairly ironic.

Real scientists learned the lesson of the twentieth century. They
learned that no model could ever be taken as final, because it was
always possible that a new model could come along of which the current
model would be found to simply be a subset.

The -concept- of a fact is not valid.

Don't make it an us vs. them thing. See it for what it is.

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com

THE HAT IS NOT YOUR ENEMY.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>

Oh... by the way... soryy for all the fucking fucker fuck stuff... it's in my
roots... I'm scottish... we like that word a LOT.

Yeah... don't take me too seriously... i'm just a fuckin' fucked musician
fuck.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: polar bear <bear@pole.com>

In article <pbaa9vso0kfog0gg37ifgg1nh4juknuok2@4ax.com>, Leroy
<roy@ta.boy> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 23:36:03 -0700, nenslo wrote:
>
> > .... Science and Religion are
> >subject to the very same fundamental flaw - reasoning from Effect to
> >Cause has just as many diverging fanlike ramifications as reasoning
> >from Cause to Effect does, so your chance of picking the exact right
> >one that gets you to the genuine original source is mighty damn slim.
> > ....
>
> Yeah.
>
> If your idea of how to get the truth is Divine Inspiration /
> Revelation, then the explanation you end up with for how everything
> got started goes something like, "God said Let there be light." In
> other words it gets "revealed" to you that the Universe unfolds by
> Divine Revelation, which sounds a lot like the assumption implicit in
> your method of inquiry.
>
> On the other hand if your preferred method is to do experiments, you
> wind up with Big Bang & Evolution. Theory that says "Nature
> experiments."
>
> Primogenesis recapitulates epistemology.
>
> L

It's turtles.... all the way down!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: rev dode <dode(pee)@tystie.com>

Chaz wrote:

>
> Oh... by the way... soryy for all the fucking fucker fuck stuff... it's in
> my roots... I'm scottish... we like that word a LOT.
>
> Yeah... don't take me too seriously... i'm just a fuckin' fucked musician
> fuck.

A fucking amusing fucked musician, this fucking thread has broken the
miserable fucking mood I've been in most of the day. BTW it is now becoming
unacceptable to punctuate conversation with fuck, fucking, fuckwit or
fucked-fucking-fuckwits even in Scotland. This fucking country is fucking
fucked.

Fuck the lot of you.

Dode

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>

In article <3e9705b0$0$29715$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, rev dode
<dode(pee)@tystie.com> wrote:

> A fucking amusing fucked musician, this fucking thread has broken the
> miserable fucking mood I've been in most of the day. BTW it is now becoming
> unacceptable to punctuate conversation with fuck, fucking, fuckwit or
> fucked-fucking-fuckwits even in Scotland. This fucking country is fucking
> fucked.
>
> Fuck the lot of you.
>
> Dode

We heard a fuckload of fucks on daytime national TV during the
Statue-Head-Launching and -Surfing Operations broadcast. CBS or whoever
I was watching kept cutting over to an audio-only report from an
embedded reporter who was hunkered down with some soldeiers being shot
at about a mile away from the celebrations. The reporter was very
obviously scared half shitless. Along with the rapid-fire shooting
noises, plenty of rapid-fire, high intensity cussing was heard in the
background: "Get the fuck down, where's he fucking at, shit, let's get
the fuck over there, holy shit."

CUSSING! I can't believe they let those soldiers do that. On DAYTIME
TV!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Reverend DJ Epoch <nunyabiz@noway.com>

"Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com> wrote in
news:110420031555013997%stang@subgenius.com:

>
> We heard a fuckload of fucks on daytime national TV during the
> Statue-Head-Launching and -Surfing Operations broadcast. CBS or
> whoever I was watching kept cutting over to an audio-only report from
> an embedded reporter who was hunkered down with some soldeiers being
> shot at about a mile away from the celebrations. The reporter was very
> obviously scared half shitless. Along with the rapid-fire shooting
> noises, plenty of rapid-fire, high intensity cussing was heard in the
> background: "Get the fuck down, where's he fucking at, shit, let's get
> the fuck over there, holy shit."
>
> CUSSING! I can't believe they let those soldiers do that. On DAYTIME
> TV!!
>

Well hell, that's just all part of that fucking "Shock and Awe" bullshit.

--
_________________
-- Reverend DJ Epoch
-- The Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Motion
-- Cathedral, Carwash and Dancehall
-- Home of the Traci Lords Memorial Brothel

Divine Southern Redneck Clench Recruitment site at:
http://revdjepoch.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: kdetal@aol.com (KD et al)

>Chaz wrote:

>> Yeah... don't take me too seriously... i'm just a fuckin' fucked musician
>> fuck.

Yes, but do you make fucking beautiful music? Or is that beautiful fucking
music...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: kdetal@aol.com (KD et al)

Chaz writes:
>Dark matter, dark energy, and an accelerating Universe
<nice enthusiastic recap of Nova show snipped>

I always wonder how many years of research behind those shows are by the time I
actually see them on TV. : (
You can learn some current things from magazines, but theres not that much for
the layperson.

For example, they didnt mention that the Dark Matter Theory is not a fully
accepted theory yet. Other researchers have found data that does not conform to
what would be expected from Dark Matter. All I think they can honestly say is
they dont know yet. ( But are very excited about all this new stuff! lol)

Here is MY prediction- mark it in your yearbooks:

Just as we were surprised to find black holes as the NORM rather than the
abberation, and at the center of *every* galaxy, I think when we have equipment
sophisticated enough we will find that the entire Universe has at its center a
black hole of massive ( to us) proportions, meaning one of two things:

1. What appears to us from our limited view as acceleration OUTWARD is actually
a larger CIRCULAR motion just as the holes in the center of galaxys have direct
control on the speed of their surrounding stars ( even the outer ones where
physical effect should not exist) and we will find that instead of accelerating
outward, everything is accelerating in its immense circular orbit of the Black
Hole in the Center

AND/OR

2. The black hole at the center may cause periodic acceleration and slowing
down as it *breathes* ( becomes active, and deactivates, much as the ones in
the center of galaxies do). In which case there would never be an end to the
universe, as the acceleration and gravitational pull would go in cycles based
on the activity at the center.

I've often wondered why I havent read of that theory yet. Why the scientists
make it an either we expand and die or contract and die and never theorize that
perhaps the universe breathes in cycles just as we do. But we, being so minute,
only get to see one kind of cycle during our lifetime.

>This is truly an amazing time to be a >scientist. I wish I was so, but I'm
>also happy to be a fan and spectator to >the sport.

Me too, I agree. All poor slobs like me can do is watch in wonder.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: kdetal@aol.com (KD et al)

>The Big Bang is speculation based on marks on paper. It is a
Nenslo wrote:

>conclusion based on the very same quality of thought and calculation
>which came to the conclusions instantly dispelled by evidence of a
>continuously expanding universe. It seems to make sense based on the
>data currently at hand. PERIOD.
>>

Nice mind.

>Dark Matter appears to me to be a FUDGE FACTOR, an indetectable
>something invented to cover the disparity between calculation in the
>lab and observed experience.

Yep. To which the quickly appearing and disappearing subatomic particles have
added a new twist.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>

> Real scientists learned the lesson of the twentieth century. They
> learned that no model could ever be taken as final,

Guess no one in here ever heard of Unified Field Theory. (aka. the final
theory) It's something 20th century physics came up with... but don't
worry, it's just science so it's just another religion.

No wonder they burned the Library of Alexandria.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rabbi Shankar <me@privacy.net>

> No wonder they burned the Library of Alexandria.

well said...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>

On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 23:12:44 GMT, Chaz <swampradio@excite.com> wrote:

>Guess no one in here ever heard of Unified Field Theory. (aka. the final
>theory) It's something 20th century physics came up with... but don't
>worry, it's just science so it's just another religion.
>
>No wonder they burned the Library of Alexandria.

So you're saying that my attitudes are analogous to the Christians who
burned the library at Alexandria? Based on what I've written?

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com

Ego. Id. "Bob".

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: kdetal@aol.com (KD et al)

>> Real scientists learned the lesson of the twentieth century. They
>>> learned that no model could ever be taken as final,
>>
>>Guess no one in here ever heard of Unified Field Theory. (aka. the final
>>theory) It's something 20th century physics but don't
>>worry, it's just science so it's just another religion.

Um, unless you've heard something new I haven't ( entirely possible) the last I
understood is that yes, we are all dying for a unified field theory PROOF but
as of yet, every attempt has met with failure, due to the force of gravity
which hasnt been able to be incorporated into it yet.

Are you saying they've come up with a *formula* for a unified field theory
incorporating all four forces that has been accepted? Or just that they have
the unified field theory, which has been around a long time ( Einstein) but
hasnt been proven.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>

Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com> wrote:

> So you're saying that my attitudes are analogous to the Christians who
> burned the library at Alexandria? Based on what I've written?
>

The Christians have really not a lot to do with it. They were just the
tool.

The Library was burned down because the people... the masses... the
normal Joe Blow didn't understand science. It was kept like a priestly
class vocation. To many commoners... who helped in the riots and revolts
against knowledge, and the embracing of religion and mysticism...
(this event, by the way, is the watershed that brings the Dark Ages into
being)
... science was a weird magical thing they didn't understand and saw no
use for. And the library was, to them, inhabited by black magic priests.
So the obvious solution was to kill the last scientists and burn all the
books, so God and the gods will all be happy.

The last scientist at the Library of Alexandria: HER name was Hypatia.
The maddened crowd brought her out to the street before they burned the
library, and filleted the skin from her flesh using sharpened abalona
seashells. The guy who led the charge was named Cyril (b.376 - d.444) The
catholic church made him a saint. Saint Cyril of Alexandria... he was a
fun guy... look him up.

Greek classic society was a weird dicotomy. In some ways, the demise of
the Library was the fault of the scientists themselves, for they never
reached out to the population and the society... the concerns of the
culture was of no concern to them.

While the cosmos and the motion of the planets was brought into
question... slavery was not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>

Awww fuck... you fucking fucker Dode... you are fuckin' precious... Fuck
the lot of you too. This fucking topic is getting fucked up skanky old
news now though, so maybe I'll (being the fuckin' musicain instigator
fuck that I fucking am) start a new fucked fucking thread to see what
fucks jump fuckin' up and fuckin' down

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>

>
> CUSSING! I can't believe they let those soldiers do that. On DAYTIME
> TV!!
>

Those fucks should be fuckin' shot.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>

kdetal@aol.com (KD et al) wrote in
news:20030412233313.27549.00000606@mb-fp.aol.com:

> Yes, but do you make fucking beautiful music? Or is that beautiful
> fucking music...
>

well... gosh... thanks.

But what you hear as my music, to me is really just a series of wave
function tables.

And how do I know which chords to use and when... is it art??? Do I
"feel" that it's "right"??? NOPE!!! it's all science. And just HOW do I
use REAL science to write songs and decide what chords to use in what
songs and where???

It's called the Harmonic Series. I learned about it in a Physics of
Acoustics courses in college. It tells us why a I-IV-V progression sounds
right to us, and why a ie. I-vii-IV+ doesnt. I have simply learned...
using science, what chord progressions humans like to hear.

And why do humans like certain chord progressions over others???...
because we are just a part of the system... not observers...

(In actuality... observation is a myth... an illusion of a being trapped
in three spacial dimensions. You cannot observe anything... you are a
part of it. You can't taste your own tongue.)

... so humans like things that are stable... and intervals closest to the
bottom of that harmonic series graph are the most stable.
ie.

I (root or tonic) - V (dominant) - IV (subdominant)

ii, iii, vi, and vii are all less stable but very useful, and all the
notes/pitches in between those are even less stable and less useful in
song writing/composition.

Sure... it's just a system... but it's system that opens a door that lets
me know how to write and select music that humans will enjoy hearing. And
what is the bottom line to all this hidden science... well... it's when
every now and then someone tells me that I make beautiful music.

And I just smile, and think of all that my pal Einstein has taught me.
peace luv and rockets away
~Chas

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Accelerating Universe
From: Chaz <swampradio@excite.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2003 8:50 PM
Message-ID: <131oa.29688$ey1.2680435@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>

kdetal@aol.com (KD et al) wrote in

> I always wonder how many years of research behind those shows are by
> the time I actually see them on TV.

an awful lot.

: (
> You can learn some current things from magazines, but theres not that
> much for the layperson.

Read Michiu Kaku... he'll explain it to you.

If that's too deep right off the bat, read some Sagan first.

> For example, they didnt mention that the Dark Matter Theory is not a
> fully accepted theory yet.

Nothing that is labeled a theory is full accepted.

Even when the theory is proven scientifically, there will still be years
and years of other scientists trying to disprove it. Even Einstein got
proven wrong on some things (he refused to believe in chaos as a guiding
force in the Universe - which is no longer a theory - We can now USE it,
as Doc Mojo did in creating MojoWorld... as Eric Wenger did in using Doc
Mojo's chaos mathematics to create Bryce... as nature itself uses it to
create all the diversity you see in nature, from the veins in a maple
tree leaf to the fuzzy "movements" of electrons about their nucleus to
the scattering of the galaxies through the cosmos. Einstein refused to
believe that God would "play dice with the Universe." Niels Bohr happily
bitch slapped Einstein down on that one.
http://www.emr.hibu.no/lars/eng/schilpp/

They loved each other... but they also loved and delighted in tearing
into each other. That's how science works at its best. (actually, it was
Einstein that delighted in these debates, because Bohr would get so
frustrated at him, but no matter how sincerely Einstein debunked Chaos,
Bohr would
1.) freak out visibly - which ol' Al loved seeing, 2.) disappear into the
night, and 3. reappear the next day with a set of formuli to debunk the
debunker, which 4.) would piss off Einstein and the cycle would begin
anew.

I think they really were the only two people on Earth who could
understand each other.

> Other researchers have found data that does
> not conform to what would be expected from Dark Matter.

Awww. Dark Matter is just a term for "who knows what the fuck it is."

It goes along with Dark Energy... but keep in mind, we're just finding
this stuff out -now-... there's gonna be fuckin' years of work done by
physics fucks to figure out all the fuckin' shit the Hubble is
revealing..

> All I think
> they can honestly say is they dont know yet. ( But are very excited
> about all this new stuff! lol)

Real scientists are the first to say... "I could be wrong... I've been
wrong before."

>
> Here is MY prediction- mark it in your yearbooks:
>
> Just as we were surprised to find black holes as the NORM rather than
> the abberation, and at the center of *every* galaxy, I think when we
> have equipment sophisticated enough we will find that the entire
> Universe has at its center a black hole of massive ( to us)
> proportions, meaning one of two things:

Yep... that's already been theorized... BUT... THERE IS NO CENTER to the
Universe. It's expanding in all directions 4 dimensionaly through
spacetime. Wherever the observer/entity/you is, that's the center,
because everything is expanding away from you in all directions. And no
matter where you are, this is the same. So there can be no center.

I know that one kind of boggles, but think of the term "infinity"...
there can be no candidate for a largest number, because no matter what
number someone comes up with, you simply add 1 to it.

> 1. What appears to us from our limited view as acceleration OUTWARD is
> actually a larger CIRCULAR motion just as the holes in the center of
> galaxys have direct control on the speed of their surrounding stars (
> even the outer ones where physical effect should not exist) and we
> will find that instead of accelerating outward, everything is
> accelerating in its immense circular orbit of the Black Hole in the
> Center

I can dig this. Transfer this idea to a three dimensional baloon instead
of a circular orbit 2d turntable idea. Make sure to add time into the
picture... as we really can't talk about one without the other. It's
meaningless to say "space" or "time" used alone... it's all just
"spacetime". That way u never forget to include that 4th dimension in
things.

>
> AND/OR
>
> 2. The black hole at the center may cause periodic acceleration and
> slowing down as it *breathes*

Heh heh... maybe the whole damn Universe is just one big breathing
sphincter. And maybe what we know as Time, is really is someone sitting
on a big crapper... and since the beginning of all time, this entity has
been trying to take a crap, and that's the fluctuations and background
radiation. The Big Bang was really just this entity pulling his/her/it's
pants down to sit on the crapper - which would make sense, since they
talk about that initial period after the Bang, an approx 300k year period
where all the stuff of the Universe was illuminated everywhere. The whole
Universe at that time was alight... then a sudden deceleration and
darkening of things and the stars started to form. Hmmmm... think about
it. But what will happen next... yikes...

>
> I've often wondered why I havent read of that theory yet. Why the
> scientists make it an either we expand and die or contract and die and
> never theorize that perhaps the universe breathes in cycles just as we
> do.

Ohhh... that's definitely out there... in big wads. I don't think many
scientists make it a either/or thing anymore. It's really truly anyone's
game at this point. The String Theorists are hoping their esoteric
mathematic models will one day meet observational authentication coming
from the other direction. We'll see. They do have some pretty solid
arguments on their side, and no one's been able to debunk their math at
all... probably because no one understands it except them... for now...
but they're all teachers and their students are catching the whiff of
what it would mean for the person who cracks the holy grail of physics...
inified field theory.

ie. Graviton... it's a theory, but if they exist, the person who proves
it goes down in history with Einstein. Gravitons are the theoretical
particles that are the power of gravity. Right now, no one knows what
gravity is or how it works. You would think that with all the other
knowledge, we'd have a handle on gravity at least a little bit. We know
how it effects things very well cosmologically, but not quantumly... but
not anything at all about what the fuck it itself is. So the dominant
theory has always been that it's a wave. Some theorize that's it's on
some way whacked out fucked up place on the electromagnetic spectrum,
where all other waves are and work and intermingle. But there is another
camp... the Graviton camp. They say gravity is a particle... a graviton,
like protons and electrons and quarks and all the other particles.

Who knows... but it's fun to think about. Maybe it something else humans
can't comprehend... like Love. Maybe Gravity... is just Love. What makes
the Earth stay in orbit around the Sun?... FUCK!!! maybe all the science
is fucked... and maybe the Earth just loves the Sun. And the Sun is a
polyamorous big banger with a stable of hos named Mercury, Venus, Earth,
Mars, etc... SHIT!!! I could almost go with that. Love... what is it...
why do humans have it? Does it come from somewhereinside... or "out
there?" So what then is the deal with comets?... well... they horndogs.

>
> Me too, I agree. All poor slobs like me can do is watch in wonder.
>

and that's what it's all about. Like the parachute in the Mercury space
capsule.

~Dances with Rockets

Back to document index

Original file name: Accelerating Universe.txt - converted on Thursday, 29 May 2003, 19:18