The problem with postulating a beginning from my pov is this leaves the
question of 'what was before the beginning ad infinitum. To avoid getting
involved too deeply in the fractalization of the cosmos it seems more
practical to see the cosmos as a unity the outside of which, again from a
practical pov is non-existence. The analysis of non-existence should perhaps
be seen as a mental exercise by existence to increase its complexity and
could be seen as a conceptual increase in the size of the cosmos as
presumably non-existence will have no objections to being taken over by
existences as if it did it would then be existence:-) This is in no way
meant to imply that on a local level compression and violent expansions,
have not, are and will not occur and that some state changes will give the
impression of difference. A more productive path might be looking into the
very strong possibility that existence/events can be both generated and
cancelled as this also tends to answer the beginning question:-)

"Dr ***" wrote in message ...
The problem with postulating a beginning from my pov is

.... that, with the exception of Dennis, no one is really interested?
That is a serious preblem indeed.
You have my sympathy.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Dr ***" wrote in message
...
The problem with postulating a beginning from my pov is
di
.... that, with the exception of Dennis, no one is really interested?
dr
No I don't see that as a problem Dirk because I'm sure that in the scheme of
things it matters little what you or I think about the beginning even if
there ever was one but it can be amusing to toy with the idea in the
interest of reducing your income tax.
di
That is a serious preblem indeed.
dr
I'm sorry you have such a problem with your income tax I personal have not
payed any for years and years since I had a word with the beginning and had
them both cancelled.:-)
di
You have my sympathy.
dr
Thank you for your sympathy but could you throw money in future as you can
then claim it as a charitable contribution and so reduce your income tax.
Dr ***
Dirk Vdm

"Dr ***" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Dr ***" wrote in message
...
The problem with postulating a beginning from my pov is
di
... that, with the exception of Dennis, no one is really interested?
dr
No I don't see that as a problem Dirk because I'm sure that in the scheme of
things it matters little what you or I think about the beginning even if
there ever was one but it can be amusing to toy with the idea in the
interest of reducing your income tax.
di
That is a serious preblem indeed.
dr
I'm sorry you have such a problem with your income tax I personal have not
payed any for years and years since I had a word with the beginning and had
them both cancelled.:-)
di
You have my sympathy.
dr
Thank you for your sympathy but could you throw money in future as you can
then claim it as a charitable contribution and so reduce your income tax.
Dr ***
Dirk Vdm


AFAIK the only drawback to being associated with Dennis is that
you could get draw into a love triangle with Dirk.

Dennis McCarthy was the deputy project manager for the Cosmic Background Explorer at Goddard from 1983-1989. He stayed at
Goddard in 1990 as the Associate Director for the Space Sciences Directorate, moving in 1991 to Headquarters to be the Program
Manager for the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). He followed the project back to Goddard in 1992, where he was the Deputy Project
Manager for the HST Servicing Mission, and later Deputy Associate Director of Flight Projects. After his various positions on HST,
McCarthy was Program Director for the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE), Johns Hopkins University's first Principal
Investigator (PI) program. Since 2000, McCarthy has been the Vice President and Director of Engineering Services at Swales
Aerospace, where he is responsible for all engineering discipline support to NASA, universities, and industry.
http://appl.nasa.gov/ask/issues/19/interview/

Shoooooot ! I'm honored... but I'm not Dennis. ROFL

Sue...

"sue jahn" wrote in message ...

"Dr ***" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Dr ***" wrote in message
...
The problem with postulating a beginning from my pov is
di
... that, with the exception of Dennis, no one is really interested?
dr
No I don't see that as a problem Dirk because I'm sure that in the scheme of
things it matters little what you or I think about the beginning even if
there ever was one but it can be amusing to toy with the idea in the
interest of reducing your income tax.
di
That is a serious preblem indeed.
dr
I'm sorry you have such a problem with your income tax I personal have not
payed any for years and years since I had a word with the beginning and had
them both cancelled.:-)
di
You have my sympathy.
dr
Thank you for your sympathy but could you throw money in future as you can
then claim it as a charitable contribution and so reduce your income tax.
Dr ***
Dirk Vdm


AFAIK the only drawback to being associated with Dennis is that
you could get draw into a love triangle with Dirk.

Dennis McCarthy was the deputy project manager for the Cosmic Background Explorer at Goddard from 1983-1989. He stayed at
Goddard in 1990 as the Associate Director for the Space Sciences Directorate, moving in 1991 to Headquarters to be the Program
Manager for the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). He followed the project back to Goddard in 1992, where he was the Deputy Project
Manager for the HST Servicing Mission, and later Deputy Associate Director of Flight Projects. After his various positions on HST,

McCarthy was Program Director for the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE), Johns Hopkins University's first Principal
Investigator (PI) program. Since 2000, McCarthy has been the Vice President and Director of Engineering Services at Swales
Aerospace, where he is responsible for all engineering discipline support to NASA, universities, and industry.
http://appl.nasa.gov/ask/issues/19/interview/

Shoooooot ! I'm honored... but I'm not Dennis. ROFL

No, Dennis, your're definitely not that one.
Careful with the cat.

Dirk Vdm

Dr *** wrote:
The problem with postulating a beginning from my pov is this leaves
the
question of 'what was before the beginning ad infinitum.


In my POV, that is not necessary. What was before the beginning of our
universe was absolute space in the area where our universe appeared.
The same for any other universes if they exist. The most general of
all existences must be absolute space, defined simply as space devoid
of anything in it. It is from there back that your "ad infinitum" must
begin and not before.

From there forward, our universe was emptied into absolute space, which
the corruption of it defined the edges of our universe then from the
beginning and defines it still today. Space was not emptied out in the
contents of the BB, if that is what caused our universe to be created,
but Dark Matter was what first polluted absolute space regardless of
its origin, and Dark Matter fills our space as the medium for all
visible matter.

Visible matter, then, is the product of Dark Matter interactions
between the matter which formed shortly after the BB, or else visible
matter may have formed as the result of the energy of the creation of
the universe.

TomGee

"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dr *** wrote:
The problem with postulating a beginning from my pov is this leaves
the
question of 'what was before the beginning ad infinitum.


tg
In my POV, that is not necessary. What was before the beginning of our
universe was absolute space in the area where our universe appeared.
The same for any other universes if they exist. The most general of
all existences must be absolute space, defined simply as space devoid
of anything in it. It is from there back that your "ad infinitum" must
begin and not before.
dr
Do you mean 'back' from 'space deviod of anything'?
Is not space unless it is dimensionless, existence and if so how long had it
been there devoid of anything?
So same problem with 'space deviod of anything'.
tg
From there forward, our universe was emptied into absolute space,
dr
From where was our universe emptied from?
tg
which
the corruption of it defined the edges of our universe then from the
beginning and defines it still today. Space was not emptied out in the
contents of the BB, if that is what caused our universe to be created,
but Dark Matter was what first polluted absolute space regardless of
its origin,
dr
Are you suggesting that Dark Matter had no beginning?
tg
and Dark Matter fills our space as the medium for all
visible matter.
dr
Interesting idea that Dark Matter is promoted to visible matter.
tg
Visible matter, then, is the product of Dark Matter interactions
between the matter which formed shortly after the BB, or else visible
matter may have formed as the result of the energy of the creation of
the universe.
dr
Thanks for your pov Tom, it seems a personal and arbitrary one as far as
beginnings go which is fine as I would tend to see all beginnings as that,
which I think was my point :-)
Dr ***
TomGee

Dr *** wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dr *** wrote:
The problem with postulating a beginning from my pov is this leaves
the
question of 'what was before the beginning ad infinitum.


tg
In my POV, that is not necessary. What was before the beginning of
our
universe was absolute space in the area where our universe appeared.
The same for any other universes if they exist. The most general of
all existences must be absolute space, defined simply as space devoid
of anything in it. It is from there back that your "ad infinitum"
must
begin and not before.
dr
Do you mean 'back' from 'space deviod of anything'?


Yes, because we have not been able to think of the origin of absolute
space as yet. I have thought of the origin of the space of our
universe, as I explained in my first post, but before that there is
only my proposition that before our universe began, the space in which
it was created and expanded into was a relatively small part of the
absolute space which exists extended beyond the current edges of our
universe, or else the other sci-fi proposition that there was a Great
Void into which the BB spewed space and the other elements which are
our universe. That means there was no space, absolute or otherwise,
before the BB, and it means that somehow, as yet unexplained, space was
part of the singularity of the BB and was emptied out into a Great Void
which is beyond the human brain's capacity to imagine.

The Great Void had to be created so as to accommodate physicist's need
for space to be expandable such as is claimed in the Inflationary
Period and to explain the observed symmetry as bodies move away from
us. My model does not need that simply because it contends that space
is not what is expanding but only the Dark Matter in it. It is
critical that the POV be well understood here to mean that matter is
not growing larger in the process of expansion but that Dark Matter is
moving "outwardly" so that we can say that the universe is expanding
due apparently to the momentum given to Dark Matter by the BB.


Is not space unless it is dimensionless, existence and if so how long
had it
been there devoid of anything?
So same problem with 'space deviod of anything'.


Well, I am not entirely sure what you are asking above, but I can tell
that you ask about how long absolute space has existed. We cannot even
guess at that answer since we haven't a clue about it. I would guess
that other universes exist in the same absolute space but at different
locations of it than ours, which of course makes those areas no longer
absolute space.


tg
From there forward, our universe was emptied into absolute space,
dr
From where was our universe emptied from?


I am inclined to think it came out of something similar to the BB, but
only because it has somewhat better overall success at explaining the
observed than the old steady state theories. The SS theories, however,
do explain some things better except that they cannot seem to overcome
the increasing rate of the expansion process.


tg
which
the corruption of it defined the edges of our universe then from the
beginning and defines it still today. Space was not emptied out in
the
contents of the BB, if that is what caused our universe to be
created,
but Dark Matter was what first polluted absolute space regardless of
its origin,
dr
Are you suggesting that Dark Matter had no beginning?


No no, not at all. Dark Matter is distinct from space. It came out of
the BB into absolute space and the boundaries between the current
absolute space and the space of our universe define the size of our
universe.


tg
and Dark Matter fills our space as the medium for all
visible matter.
dr
Interesting idea that Dark Matter is promoted to visible matter.
tg
Visible matter, then, is the product of Dark Matter interactions
between the matter which formed shortly after the BB, or else visible
matter may have formed as the result of the energy of the creation of
the universe.
dr
Thanks for your pov Tom, it seems a personal and arbitrary one as far
as
beginnings go which is fine as I would tend to see all beginnings as
that,
which I think was my point :-)
Dr ***


I would ask you to note that nothing in my POV is arbitrary wrt to
observed effects. There is much ambiguity in science, so much so that
there can always be fashioned alternative explanations to those which
seem too close to fantasy and which are too easily overthrown with
straight thinking. And there are, unfortunately, too many of those as
well.

TomGee

"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...
Again your reasoning makes no sense Hobble. The lengths etc calculated
by surveyors are real distances but the quantities they represent are
not real as they are mere math constructs.

Yes. The reality is in applying the model to the real world situations.
Exactly as is done in Euclidean geometry and GR.

Bill


Did not someone in your
many years of schooling point that out to you?

Take 3 apples. The apples are real, but the no. 3 is their quantity
and not part of them. There is no such thing as a 3apples. So don't
throw out land boundaries etc yet, Chicken Little, 'cause the sky ain't
really falling down on you.

"TomGee" wrote in message
ups.com...
Dr***, that is a good point, but please remember that there is a lot
more of Dark Matter than there is of visible matter. Also, we don't
yet have a mechanism for Dark Matter to expand as I claim it is doing
(but I'm working on it). I just cannot accept that space has the
capability or capacity to do anything on its own. Even Einstein's
curved space requires massive gravitational objects to curve it. But
most of all, how can anyone accept the silly notion of the Great Void,
which we cannot even imagine.
dr
Perhaps dark matters is just electron depleted or never had :-) matter ?
I overcome the difficulty of the GV as you call it by seening it as a
relative state i.e. non-existance is a relative condtion and can be cured by
existance:-)
tg
It seems to me that Dark Matter was what came out of the BB, as visible
matter did not form until later when the universe cooled somewhat. It
may well be that visible matter is the product of Dark Matter, and if
so, it may be that we are of even less importance to the universe than
we have ever thought. We may be an afterthought, as it were, of the
great cosmological creation we call our universe, or even perhaps, a
waste product of it.
dr
Personaly I feel that waste is a problem of perspective and that as far as
unity is concerned there is no waste.
tg
I am claiming that maybe the universe is all about Dark Matter, and
visible matter is incidental to its creation. What we have always
thought was the universe - all that which we observe - is really
miniscule compared to the amount of Dark Matter in it. Maybe the
gravitation we observe is part of the byproduct of an antigravity
property of Dark Matter.
dr
It could be that in the phase of our cosmos that we are processing the
negative/electron component is somewhat of a rarity and so somewhere many
naked nuclei and are knocking about repelling each other.
tg
If Dark Matter ****s out real matter as a result of its interactions
within the universe, that kinda turns our world upside down and inside
out, don't it? Nature is a cold hard mother, and maybe that's why God
is so cold-hearted and vain within us.

Finally, Dr ***, my intent was not to put all the blame for everything
on Dark Matter, but only to show an alternative scenario to that which
has been presented as the only possible scenario. I still need the
mechanism for Dark Matter to expand, especially since my model claims
that Dark Matter is essentially stationary in space. But we don't have
a mechanism for space to expand either, and no one seems to be trying
to find one, which is why so many have come to accept it as fact. The
search for truth is not so simple as it seems at times, but it is
always humbling.
dr
If events define the size of things then without events you have a very very
small piece of non-existence:-) and as generally events are waves and size
is a function of wavelength a general lengthening of wavelength and a
reduction in frequency would provide a mechanism by which the size and
internal dimensions of our cosmos would expand ?
Dr ***
TomGee