must checkout the links

anyhow

George mentions the concept of time
i have long held that time is relative...

that at the big bang..all 'E'[energy]at the time..
is presumed to have been able to 'fit'...with-in an area..the size of this [.]*[full stop dot][.]

any linear change of time..would necessarily be
measurable..only by changes of state...
as hyper dense 'matter'..expanded

[or de-compressed]..changing state
from solid..to say liquid....time thus would be moving ever faster..as space time expands ever faster..[if science facts saying so..can be believed]

[its here ..just after god re-created..the last big bang..
that..the use of the word concepts..of the '..''darkness..moving on the face of the deep''..'..in genesis..seems prophetic /plagiarized?..

yet again...

anyhow..as usual science theories are evolving..
much like described my previous topic..re the evolution of evolution..
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5899&page=0

in lue of science facts/falsify-ables..
ie true VERIFIABLE FACT..using real science method..
any old godless theory will do..fake it till you break it...

anyhow..as time seems to fly
get ready for the next change of state..
as we depressurize..universally in this material realm..into ever finer gas..or aether..

only half serious
no..really..seriously*..

anyhow..cheers

Dear david f,

>>I don't see that however the earth, solar system and universe originated has anything to do with belief in God.<<

I agree, except than “originated” seems to implicitly assume an absolute, Kantian, concept of time. Therefore I prefer to speak of “models” of the universe, rather than its origin. Of course, at the time when the bible was written this distinction would not make sense. Howver, today we have to learn to interpret these texts rather than take them literally.

Poirot and I hinted at different models of the universe based on different interpretations of available physical theories. On the other hand, there are different interpretations of the bible (or other sacred texts), including concepts of God pictured therein .

These are unrelated: there are theists as well as atheists who prefer Penrose’s model to the Bing Bang one, and I presume there are theist as well as atheist specialists who are critical of it.

Of course, there are those, who naively confuse the aims of scientific texts with that of sacred texts, and vice versa. Or in Galileo’s words, who confuse the scientific question expressed as how “heavens go” with the existential question of how to “go to heaven”, i.e. what is the purpose (if any) of human existence.

OUG,

You are right, physics is not the only way to approach time, that we all seem to be familiar with, without knowing why and how. Augustin’s “What, then, is time? If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not” still holds.

George, consilience is the key to making rationalism a useful endeavour, it seems to me. Empirical congruence is the final test, whereas epistemiologically divergent congruities are what drive exploration beyond rigid empirically-grounded modalities.

I think I'm starting to get the germ of an idea.

Antiseptic,

Although “consilience” is a 19th century term, it was made popular by EO Wilson’s book, and this is also where I know the concept from.

I have to admit, I feel uneasy about Wilson's sweeping conclusions whether epistemological or ontological: There are differences between methods of research, forming and verifying new theories in social sciences and in, say, physics. Also it is clear what is meant by stating that cells, molecules, the brain, nations, etc. exist. It is not nearly so clear when one claims that spacetime, gravity, quarks, photons, electromagnetic waves, fields, etc. exist.

This is just off the cuff. A quick googling brought me to http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n21/jerry-fodor/look, which contains, I think, a more thought through criticism of Wilson’s concept and book.

Thanks for the reference, George. I thought a quote from Wilson within it was instructive: ‘The ongoing fragmentation of knowledge and resulting chaos in philosophy are not reflections of the real world but artifacts of scholarship.’

He's a very impressive mind all round. I wish I could speak with him.

we are still..on the same page
time to me has always been used..too loosely..[to have any definitive 'standard'..as a science measure..let alone a consistant proof.

eg..a..24 'hour' day..is absurd..when we KNOW..the earth..is slowing down..
ie a 'day' at one time..was much less..
as measured in 60 minute/hours..ditto the 365..'day/year'..as we continue our elliptical/spiral..into the sun

[another recent change..i have noted
is apparently..we dont circle the sun..but spiral into it

i have also noted the expanding earth thesis
with intrest[taking it as a signof an ever reductionof the presure of a big bang

further on the big bang..it couldnt have been a 'bang'..
as vacuum if it dont carry sound..plus no-one outside the 'space/time''..of it..to note any 'bang'

and all matter was inside it..
[i presume ,much..i know../but yearn to know]

while we are at it space/time..seems absurd/spin
as space and time are variable..till we prove all space = consistent ..and all measure of 'time..is constant

im likewise..not happy with E=mass times the speed of light..times the speed of light..

[ie a mass depends on its weight..in speculative units
and gravity itself isnt a consistent..even just here on earth[let alone throughout space

never the less for models
[ie not reality..it will work..>>in theory]
bnt must not be regarded as any science 'proof'..only a potential

thesis..not fact].,.

plus the speed of light dont equate..to mass..
though its initial velocity may..have frictional..as well as fictional drag

light is particle's photons..
bumping free other photons in..in waves/caused by specific events
its not so much that then bend..but scatter..like a pool ball knocking on/releasing the next photon..

much like waves of water dont move..as much as pass on the force..[study has revealed the water particles bump together..thus pass-on the pressure..to the next particle./.

so at a molecular level..they appear to rotate..
as the pressure wave passes by..but moving the water particle..that returns back to near where is was..pre the initiating event..force.

time modifies all theory...i ever heard of
yet facts cant change..but then what is fact..
taking models as fact..is not science..as such..
cause its a model..and science studies/verifies fact