what happened with your daughter....... how Christian of you.

CR.........

"Hypno" <6660666@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
news:vk6693-p3d2.ln1@news.infowest.com...

"GoDrex" <godrex35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m-acnRPW777O3F3eUSdV9g@ptd.net...

how about the "if he had a brain he wouldn't have started the thread in
the
first place" arguement? ;)

Defeated by the 'if the argument didn't have merit you wouldn't have
responded' argument.

um... no. I just responded for the fun of it. It doesn't have merit, just
lack of thought and sense.

"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnds0umf.1evn.usenet@goodwill.io.com...

In our last episode,
<11s0oglnr4sj785@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented wbarwell
broadcast on alt.atheism:

Lars Eighner wrote:

<snip>

It is quite probable our island universe

Is that a religious statement, or is it supported with even a
scintilla of evidence? Is it in any way testable or falsifiable?

Actually, it goes along with M Theory, (Membrane Theory). The idea,
as
little of it that I grasp, is that there are indeed multiple universes.
Each with it's own unique combination of the universal forces mixed at
different ratios. (Goes to explain why gravity in *our* universe seems
out of proportion to the other forces.) Einstein explained gravity as
the bending of space by mass. That has been shown to be true by
observations of light bending around our sun. Why is gravity apparently
weaker than we think it should be? I don't know - hell, I don't even
know why we *think* it should be stronger.
Our beginning, (our *universes* beginning) was a collision of two
other
membrane universes. Matter was created from the energy of that
collision, and the properties of our universe were determined at the
time of the collision point. We evolved based upon the laws our universe
was created with.
The theists have it backwards: The universe wasn't created for us,
we
evolved in the environment of our universe. The reason everything looks
as if it was made for us is that we evolved in the everything we see. In
another universe with different properties, life that might evolve there
would find *their* universe not surprisingly comfortable to their
makeup.
M Theory is a serious supposition - not considered whacko at all.

David H.
aa #2217

"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnds0umf.1evn.usenet@goodwill.io.com...

In our last episode,
<11s0oglnr4sj785@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented wbarwell
broadcast on alt.atheism:

Lars Eighner wrote:

<snip>

It is quite probable our island universe

Is that a religious statement, or is it supported with even a
scintilla of evidence? Is it in any way testable or falsifiable?

Actually, it goes along with M Theory, (Membrane Theory). The idea, as
little of it that I grasp, is that there are indeed multiple universes. Each
with it's own unique combination of the universal forces mixed at different
ratios. (Goes to explain why gravity in *our* universe seems out of
proportion to the other forces.) Einstein explained gravity as the bending
of space by mass. That has been shown to be true by observations of light
bending around our sun. Why is gravity apparently weaker than we think it
should be? I don't know - hell, I don't even know why we *think* it should
be stronger.
Our beginning, (our *universes* beginning) was a collision of two other
membrane universes. Matter was created from the energy of that collision,
and the properties of our universe were determined at the time of the
collision point. We evolved based upon the laws our universe was created
with.

The theists have it backwards: The universe wasn't created for us, we
evolved in the environment of our universe. The reason everything looks as
if it was made for us is that we evolved in the everything we see. In
another universe with different properties, life that might evolve there
would find *their* universe not surprisingly comfortable to their makeup.
M Theory is a serious supposition - not considered whacko at all.

Lars Eighner wrote:

In our last episode,
<11s0oglnr4sj785@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented wbarwell
broadcast on alt.atheism:

Lars Eighner wrote:

In our last episode,
<91f837240601071331w6b4d3504wf72e94c566bfad63@mail.gmail.com>,
the lovely and talented Nightphoenix broadcast on alt.atheism:

Equally vital is the intensity of the electromagnetic force
in
relation to the other three. For example, some physicists figure
this force to be 10,000,-
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1040) times that of
gravity. It might seem a small change to that number to add one more
zero (1041). Yet that would mean that gravity is proportionally
weaker, and Dr. Reinhard Breuer comments on the resulting situation:
"With lower gravity the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of
gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high
enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way: the sun would
be unable to shine." You can imagine what that would mean for us!

I dub this the "If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle"
argument.

We evolved in this universe as it is. Of course if the universe
were something it isn't, it is overwhelming unlikely that we
would be what we are. Duh! Anything follows from a false
premise. So if you say, "suppose the universe were not what it
is," that is necessarily a false premise: you are saying
"suppose x != x."

It is quite probable our island universe

Is that a religious statement, or is it supported with even a
scintilla of evidence? Is it in any way testable or falsifiable?

Yes, it is testable by the fact that virtual particles can and
do pop into existance from a vaccum. Fields do form the basis
for the underlying physics that creates particles.
Magnetic fields exist. They can influence particles
while not themselves transmitting forces.

The existance of these feilds was intuited by Paul Dirac,
who was confronting teh mysteries of why an electron
does not spontaneously dump its energy and drop to the
lowest possible energy state.

This lead to the discovery of negative - postive energy and
from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to the discovery
of virtual particles. Further more, later on, it was
found matter relies on such fields to draw energy from
to borrow energy from, to exchange virtual particles that
are the basis of matter as we experience it.

This is all tied up inexorbably in a system that has
been tested thusly extensivley for almost 80 years now.

It is tested. This tested theory indicates that the
fields behind matter as we know it in this Universe
are not confined to this Universe.

As this universe grows immensly old and empty, we will
have other "big booms" inside this Universe, and the
estimates are that this on average will happen about
every 250 billion years.

Such "singularities" are rare as compared to more
common VP pairs, but not totally different in kind
and rely on ther same underlying fields for their existance.

Proven fields that have been instrumental in understanding
how physics works quite successfully to date.

Fields are the underlying reality, our physical
universe of matter relies on that as much as chemistry
relies on the existance of atoms.

is but one of an
infinite number of such in a larger Universe.These are born from
underlying fields that may be different for each Universe.
Some island universe are born with a different physics, they may not
inflate, and will quickly end. Some nmay be so simple, that they
cannot have life, some, physics so complex life is impossible. Only a
relative few would be capable of live, but in an infinite universe.