Hi Annie,

Well it does show you that Dolphins are pretty close behind us, and that cats are smarter than dogs. But then again we all knew that anyway. Also shows why birds cam navigate thousands of miles to their breeding ground, and gives some credence to the saying "are you a man or a mouse?".

squeak squeak ....

Well I don't know about cats or dogs but agree dolphins and pigs and octopus are up there on the smart chain. For years I would watch geese fly into the US and never miss a lick, I seen that they think they have magnetic sensing and others say they fly IFR (I follow roads) who knows who is right.

Octopus live only 3 years and pigs is until dinner time.

Hi Grant :) Elephants aren't bad at collaborative problem solving either, and have very good memory skills. Saw a really charming documentary about them a while ago. Re migratory birds - I remember reading that over land, some species are definitely using roads to navigate by now. But um... how to get back on topic...... none of them er... seem too worried about the big bang though :)

I have thought pretty close to Chris to a point and that is if there was a big bang it was from a supernova and the supernova formed large stars which supernova's themselves forming other black holes where therein Galaxy's formed around them making smaller and smaller stars and the parade goes on. It seems that supernova's is the back bone to most of this and if I'm wrong so be it. I do agree we are just one bubble in a bath tub of other bubbles. I thought this for 70 years now. now they are gathering and go on for trillions of year(long after I bite the dust) Since we think in 2 d we don't see the 3 d picture.

There that my 10 cents worth.

I'm no expert in any way but whos' to say i'm wrong?

I think it so vast we will never understand it all Chris, One dies 2 more born along the way. It's like the never ending story. where all this material comes from I haven't a clue but it'd there. expansion of the universe I think is an attraction of the others around us more so than dark matter which has never been proven. But if something from the outside would make sense, a new universe forming eating up old? this could take trillions and trillions of years to happen but it all has to go somewhere. Like I said it's just my thoughts.

---

Cheers everybody
Life is short so don't sip
Beer speaks, people mumble

Chris your a kick in the pants. :))

or bust any beers with those guy's

---

Cheers everybody
Life is short so don't sip
Beer speaks, people mumble

Believe?? It's not a religion, it's a well proven scientific theory. Google about it!

Believe?? It's not a religion, it's a well proven scientific theory. Google about it!

I try to keep religion out of it.

---

Cheers everybody
Life is short so don't sip
Beer speaks, people mumble

AArrggghhh!! Religion vs Science, not again!!!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

But Yo is trying to make the point that Chris and Grant are talking about what they believe the Universe to be like. While, of course, they are entitled to their opinion and it can be fun to read, their views are certainly not of mainstream science, and many findings in the mainstream community have negated the possibility of some of their opinions as ever being correct. But like all things in science, new data will always bring about new possibilities and new conclusions.

But Yo is trying to make the point that Chris and Grant are talking about what they believe the Universe to be like. While, of course, they are entitled to their opinion and it can be fun to read, their views are certainly not of mainstream science, and many findings in the mainstream community have negated the possibility of some of their opinions as ever being correct. But like all things in science, new data will always bring about new possibilities and new conclusions.

Keeping our minds open and questioning is the key definitely :) and remembering that many a "preposterous scientific concept" at the outset - proved to be nothing of the kind :) ... whilst obviously not forgetting that many a preposterous one um... was... :))

But Yo is trying to make the point that Chris and Grant are talking about what they believe the Universe to be like. While, of course, they are entitled to their opinion and it can be fun to read, their views are certainly not of mainstream science, and many findings in the mainstream community have negated the possibility of some of their opinions as ever being correct. But like all things in science, new data will always bring about new possibilities and new conclusions.

Keeping our minds open and questioning is the key definitely :) and remembering that many a "preposterous scientific concept" at the outset - proved to be nothing of the kind :) ... whilst obviously not forgetting that many a preposterous one um... was... :))

100% agreed, always question, but I think the ratio of correct "preposterous scientific concepts" to incorrect "preposterous scientific concepts" pretty much means that most theories by armchair scientists are at odds with ever being correct, or certainly not going to be proven correct as long as no active research is being done... which brings us back to the reason why the mainstream community isn't supporting "preposterous scientific concepts" when they have research that shows it to be wrong in most cases. :-D

But Yo is trying to make the point that Chris and Grant are talking about what they believe the Universe to be like. While, of course, they are entitled to their opinion and it can be fun to read, their views are certainly not of mainstream science, and many findings in the mainstream community have negated the possibility of some of their opinions as ever being correct. But like all things in science, new data will always bring about new possibilities and new conclusions.

Keeping our minds open and questioning is the key definitely :) and remembering that many a "preposterous scientific concept" at the outset - proved to be nothing of the kind :) ... whilst obviously not forgetting that many a preposterous one um... was... :))

100% agreed, always question, but I think the ratio of correct "preposterous scientific concepts" to incorrect "preposterous scientific concepts" pretty much means that most theories by armchair scientists are at odds with ever being correct, or certainly not going to be proven correct as long as no active research is being done... which brings us back to the reason why the mainstream community isn't supporting "preposterous scientific concepts" when they have research that shows it to be wrong in most cases. :-D

*sigh* yes... it has long been a problem getting my armchair into scientific research facilities... :)

I thought preposterous's died out with the dinosaurs?

:)
(though more :( for them of course).

their views are certainly not of mainstream science

Well they wouldn't be. That lot have a vested interest in keeping their jobs. Grant and I can open our minds to all sorts of possibilities, and if we look silly to our peers, it doesn't affect the paycheck.

Anyone's theory is as good as anyone elses, until it can be 100% disproved. All these ideas as to what happened in trillionths of a second AFTER the big bang are all fine and well, but not one of these clever clogs guys can explain what there was BEFORE the big bang. So everything that exists and will exist all happened at once out of nothing and is expanding into nothing that didn't exist until nothing was created out of nothing?

Well put. :) I don't believe in nothing either. :)

The quetion was Big Bang or Blooper? well that's my idea. no one has an answer yet or maybe never will. It's like what came first the chicken or the egg. Well I like both so they don't have a chance around here. :))

their views are certainly not of mainstream science

Well they wouldn't be. That lot have a vested interest in keeping their jobs. Grant and I can open our minds to all sorts of possibilities, and if we look silly to our peers, it doesn't affect the paycheck.

I'm not sure how I feel about your claim that a scientist's vested interest is in his paycheck, and how that relates to their egos in loving to find flaws in each other's work. Who wouldn't want to be known as the scientist who discovered how the Universe came to be? There's far more ego than there is payday, so methinks your allegation of a paid interest falls short of reality.

Anyone's theory is as good as anyone elses, until it can be 100% disproved.

I would think those that have a greater understanding of physics would have a better chance as proposing an accepted theory than a garbage man who just "believes". Isn't this why we accept science over religion? So you're saying that a biologist's educated theories are on equal footing with that of a believer in Intelligent Design?

All these ideas as to what happened in trillionths of a second AFTER the big bang are all fine and well, but not one of these clever clogs guys can explain what there was BEFORE the big bang. So everything that exists and will exist all happened at once out of nothing and is expanding into nothing that didn't exist until nothing was created out of nothing?

I'm not sure the prevailing theory is that nothing was before the Big Bang, therefore no one is claiming that something came out of nothing. Science only claims that the Big Bang happened, and we know this because of the background cosmic radiation left behind from this event.

On yer bike! At least Grant and I have an answer for that.

Right! Because having an answer is far more important than simply admitting you don't know. ;-)

The quetion was Big Bang or Blooper? well that's my idea. no one has an answer yet or maybe never will. It's like what came first the chicken or the egg. Well I like both so they don't have a chance around here. :))

I prefer to defer a theory until more evidence can be found to support said theory. Since I am not in a position to search for that evidence, and there are group of highly educated and intelligent individuals doing exactly this, I will leave it to them to figure out. :-)

But Yo is trying to make the point that Chris and Grant are talking about what they believe the Universe to be like. While, of course, they are entitled to their opinion and it can be fun to read, their views are certainly not of mainstream science, and many findings in the mainstream community have negated the possibility of some of their opinions as ever being correct. But like all things in science, new data will always bring about new possibilities and new conclusions.

Keeping our minds open and questioning is the key definitely :) and remembering that many a "preposterous scientific concept" at the outset - proved to be nothing of the kind :) ... whilst obviously not forgetting that many a preposterous one um... was... :))

100% agreed, always question, but I think the ratio of correct "preposterous scientific concepts" to incorrect "preposterous scientific concepts" pretty much means that most theories by armchair scientists are at odds with ever being correct, or certainly not going to be proven correct as long as no active research is being done... which brings us back to the reason why the mainstream community isn't supporting "preposterous scientific concepts" when they have research that shows it to be wrong in most cases. :-D

*sigh* yes... it has long been a problem getting my armchair into scientific research facilities... :)

lol! I love your posts Anniet! :-D

Myself and Chris have valid reasons and no one one can prove us wrong. what one said isn't gospel it's just their apinion.

---

Cheers everybody
Life is short so don't sip
Beer speaks, people mumble

Someone once said that citing free speech as a defense for a point of view is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it is not literally illegal to express.

I think the same holds true for people discussing science and claiming "no one can prove me wrong". You're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it is literally outside the bounds of science, or at least outside your understanding of the existing scientific theory.

I'm very open to discussing ideas and love to read people's opinions. I've even enjoyed having my understanding of time dilation corrected by people with a greater understanding than me. I don't see how the conversation can go further when one party throws a large net over an entire field of science and claims that the scientists are afraid to stand behind fringe ideas because they're too concerned with status or pay. You stop discussing ideas when you start throwing mud on those that don't agree with your conclusions and have a higher understanding of the topic to boot.

what came first the chicken or the egg

The idea came first...or was it the elementary particle? ;)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures