Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:23:10 -0500
Message-ID: <5B5A118D.955@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:23:09 -0700
From: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astronomy
Subject: Re: Deep Thought
References: <5B54F677.2732@ix.netcom.com> <frm7roF1al8U1@mid.individual.net> <2c4e096f-096b-51e5-690c-039b1b01dbbe@PointedEars.de> <pj6asp$ptf$1@dont-email.me> <froak3FfmlvU1@mid.individual.net> <pj8e4h$i8c$1@dont-email.me> <frs519Fc63sU1@mid.individual.net> <5B596BF0.3E6F@ix.netcom.com> <pjck6e$1abs$2@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 180726-4, 07/26/2018), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 99
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.219.229.47
X-Trace: sv3-PqaVnBlTGef7G2qyHszbXKvW/AYD7EEVR+GaxCSuC5y2Sf9q5BcLJyQCToyTD/O3oeYnIfXfWCpGnUh!3MzUiARatqkn0ILT5wHhl+JhAnnkTzHSfzQqa2zMZ5tqD7CiMhJSb9FECVbF1OwBGTGu6/xRAHdz!9PAv6QBJEw==
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5515
Xref: csiph.com rec.arts.sf.written:495514 sci.physics:695731 sci.physics.relativity:465799 alt.astronomy:300552

benj wrote:
> 
> On 7/26/2018 2:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 25.07.2018 um 01:52 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> >>
> >>>>> <sci-fi>
> >>>>> I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
> >>>>> more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much
> >>>>> larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all
> >>>>> finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be
> >>>>> a single pixel in the following rendering:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
> >>>>> (a zoom...)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> </sci-fi>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nice pictures!
> >>>
> >>> Thank you. :^)
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
> >>>> world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
> >>>
> >>> Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% load
> >>> of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a single,
> >>> crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the following
> >>> online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, contained
> >>> within a black hole centered at the point of bifurcation:
> >>>
> >>> http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
> >>>
> >>> Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically
> >>> create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, then
> >>> click a couple of points within the parametric square.
> >>>
> >>> Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
> >>
> >> Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could
> >> possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or bi-quaternions
> >> (complex four vectors).
> >>
> >> I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.
> >>
> >> (btw - you may have look at my 'book' here:
> >>
> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6  )
> >>
> >>>> To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
> >>>> underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
> >>>>
> >>>> Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
> >>>> event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
> >>>>
> >>>> This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
> >>>> like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
> >>>>
> >>>> Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
> >>>> 'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own
> >>>> space.
> >>>>
> >>>> Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
> >>>> 'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
> >>>> universal at all.
> >>>
> >>> Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange feeling
> >>> that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always there, will
> >>> continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure at all! I
> >>> just have a little feeling.
> >>
> >> https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
> >>
> >> The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually
> >> split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to
> >> nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what
> >> apparently does not happen).
> >>
> >> That would be a creation out of nothing.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> > nothing doesn't exist..there will always be something where there is nothing.
> >
> >
> > In other words...you cannot "creation out of nothing" since 'creation' means..."bring *something* into existence".
> >
> >
> > So, something comes from nothing...(using your own words 'creation')
> >
> That is a really deep scientific thought, faker.



There is nothing scientific about nothing since physics is about the properties of...something.