BS: in the beginning and now

Subject: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Nov 19 - 08:21 AM

In a moment of inspiration/epiphaney I saw that the big bang was so dense that time was at a near standstill similar to what we see near super massive black holes today. What we call inflation today looks like the universe suddenly popped into existence in no time. Well it did because time was virtually stopped by the unimaginable density.
This ( my/Occams Razor,) view of the big bang is not recognized by mainstream comologists to my surprise. This expansion of the universe eventually gave way to what we see as a steady expansion that has slowly evolved into a more accelerated expansion of the universe in the recent billions of years.

I interpreted this as an effect of the growing number of black holes that act like small regional partial big bangs and is respondsible for the dark energy that pushes space in an acceleration BECAUSE black holes have the ability to transform matter into space. This is quite different from stars transforming matter into energy.

So the universe expanded in no time at first and went along steadily and now again is speeding up.

A small boy from England grew up with an inquisitiv mind and has now shown how matter can turn into space inside black holes. His name is Roger Penrose. Its fair to say he is unpopular in some circles.

This is part of his contribution that causes me to see that a transformation of matter into more spacetime is a possibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83yGeDri0ds

This is not as hard as it may first seem. Just add an extra step of the transformed matter energy tunneling out of BHs in the form of space energy and the question of WHAT IS DARK ENERGY becomes something simple to understand.

In the beginning something did not come from nothing
it came from something, partially like the black holes that create more space, and may be the elusive dark energy which is the cosmological question of our time.

The ultimate Black Hole may be the big bang

The future is unknown as to if all matter will ever be drawn to a single point again if everything continues to accelerate apart, but it looks doubtful. It looks like we are in a one shot universe.
Cosmological reincarnaion does not look like it has a chance here. That may be up to a different universe in the multiple universe.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Nov 19 - 10:48 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/kids/video/new-type-of-black-hole-may-be-the-smallest-ever-discovered/vi-AAJQnhp?ocid=spartandhp
There are more surprises to come

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Nov 19 - 02:10 PM

Some cosmologists believe that in a million trillion years when the universe is cold with no more stars, matter or even black holes that slowly radiated away, there is still the inherent energy of space itself that could have a quantum event that might reignite matter energy into existence again.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Joe_F
Date: 10 Nov 19 - 05:55 PM

The universe is a rotten vacuum. In the beginning there was nothing, which decayed.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Nov 19 - 08:18 AM

Entropy rules like Joe says

Enter THE BIG RIP

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Nov 19 - 02:36 AM

So the Universe dies?

R.I.P.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 19 - 06:34 AM

die? well...It goes to a lower energy level which bears no resemblance to what we see now. We or our remants will go the way of this olde universe. Old acquaintance will be forgot as space and particals rip apart obeying new fundamental weaker forces.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 19 - 08:46 AM

but the future is off topic.
The above interpretation of the mystery of the theory of inflation was based on Eienstienian principles. The Dark energy fluctuation mystery goes beyond Albert and goes deep into how space time and matter change inside black holes.

While a BH sucks up matter gravitationaly, it spits out space.
For simplicity sake there is alot wrong with that statement but it serves to get a handle on what Eienstein could not elucidate. The Penrose diagram (googleable) shows how matter and space change places inside a BH.

Am I guilty of cherry picking? Yep

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Nov 19 - 09:18 AM

Black Whole cherries?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Nov 19 - 07:00 AM

If egg heads want to solve the mystery of dark matter they will have to bring the Hadron collider to the point of destruction and smash a gram of anti protons with protons and look for the remnants.
Dark matter is the remainder of the post big bang annihilation of matteer and anti matter. It didn't all turn into E. THE magnitude of that explosion was unthinkable and only left the slight remainder of 1 or 2% of visible matter.
3 great mysteries solved in 3 days, next?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: BobL
Date: 15 Nov 19 - 02:12 AM

The existence of dark matter is postulated to account for anomalies in various astronomical quantities such as distance, speed and mass, that cannot be measured directly.
Be funny if the methods for measuring them indirectly turned out to be wrong, wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Nov 19 - 09:54 AM

Ah

James Clerk Maxwell said long since.

To measure is to know. - mind you we have measured and we still don't know, but at least we know we don't know! So we know it is a known unknown.............

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Nov 19 - 11:11 AM

We have measured by type 1A and approximate candle power as well as other means but we all know light moves at different speeds in different mediums.

All I know is that I can't see it except for gravitational lensing.
The damn dark stuff has no electromagnetic radiation.

They say right before the annihlation of matter vs. antimatter there were 1 billion and 1 particles of matter and only 1 billion particles of antimatter. Visible matter barely won, but the left over debris and energy is in my opinion the dark matter.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Nov 19 - 11:19 AM

If dark matter is complex enough, it may have grown life. Would we be invisible to dark matter life? Would dark matter life even evolve vision? etc. all the way down a silly rabbit hole.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: banjoman
Date: 16 Nov 19 - 06:45 AM

Mind boggling. I have given much thought to this post and I think I can just about get what your getting at. However, I still believe that creation was an act of will by some superior entity, call it whatever you want.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 08:11 AM

We ARE made of the universe and we are somewhat conscious
ergo the universe has and is consciousness banjo man.
Its our universe and anyone may play with its understanding.

Measuring fundamental forces, spacetime and that which is within our our senses and instruments is for experts.

Albert E was smart enough to derive thought experiments but more often than not others did the math for proof whether it was his wives or international experts. Some say his brain was unique with twice as much white matter (connective neurons) and a normal amount of grey matter (cortex) . Mainly he was dysleic by current standards.
Like I say anyone can play.

We call life 20 miles beneath our feet and 20 miles above our heads extremeophiles. We are pretty extreme ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 08:36 AM

They (astrophyicists) say that Albert's math and predictions break down inside black holes. What that means is that when you apply his math step by step you end up with an answer resulting in a repeating infinity + a repeating infinity + a repeating infinity...

Well why not?
We have assumed that infinities must be wrong

Now that we can explain how matter and space can change places inside a black hole and space is still being generated today...

I bet Albert E would be delighted.


Warning = this is just the way I saw it about 15 years ago
Over time I have improved my ability to explain this to people which is like learning a foreign language to me. I reserve the right to be wrong ;^/

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 09:01 AM

What is needed is an equation like E=MC2 where a little tiny bit of matter can become a great great deal of Energy,
BUT inside a great deal of energy like a black hole...
A tiny bit of matter can become a great great deal of space time.




It would explain dark energy and aspects of a multiverse.

'

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 03:43 PM

How spacetime tunnels out from the center of a black hole is one thing I can not visualize in a 3D universe. That space is drawn into a black hole faster than the speed of light and that a black hole slowly evaporates by some process like Hawking radiation or by Donuel spacetime radiation is easy to conceive of compared to space 'tunneling'.

That space is being generated in a black hole and goes 'somewhere' seems to take a more dimensional mind's eye than mine. Or as most people might rightly think, 'thats where the idea breaks down and falls apart'. But everything is not intuitive. Some scientists prefer the 'unintuitive' because they get more grants whether they prove a theory or not.

Soon we will be able to measure the horizon of the visible horizon of space with infrared telescopes but to take a measuement inside a black hole in our own back yard is like reaching the unreachable star.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 03:46 PM

Must confess I know very little of all these hypothesis , except that dark matter dark energy etc are unobservable fudge factors , and as you say yourself it’s a matter of believe .   Me of course, I’ll go with Genesis !

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 04:24 PM

Let there be light!

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 04:25 PM

Bud light.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mo the caller
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 06:28 PM

In principio et nunc et semper.

Sorry, could help myself;should have known that if it was Bach (which I've been practising for weeks about the house, and singing in a concert last night) it would have been above the line.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 07:30 PM

I get it.
I've been listening to music to make love by.
Some Indian ragas are hot but Howard Hanson's symphony #2 The Romantic Symphony is positively pornographic.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 08:10 PM

In the beginning was the Bay of Naples, the centre of the world. As for now we have Beethoven's late quartets, the last three sonatas and the Diabelli variations. The alpha, the omega, the beginning and the end of everything.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 09:00 PM

This is the second time you brought up those damn genius variations.
He was just showing off.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 09:25 PM

And it won't be the last. He out-Goldberged Bach whilst paying explicit homage to him.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 07:03 AM

He was fugal even when it came to finances.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 10:29 AM

and as you say yourself it’s a matter of believe

Er not exactly. If seeing is believing then gravitational lensing is real, measurable, and photographable. After that there is hypothesis because what causes it may not be seen, in any part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

What is more, given the right distances to stars/galaxies and the unseen thing, if there is relative motion the lensing will appear to move also. Given enough time.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 01:09 PM

For dark matter that is true enough. Acceleration of the universe by dark energy is my major thrust here. That too can be seen. I believe the mystery of WHY will be solvable. I offer one partial scenario. Partial because I know space can break many of our human conceived laws like the speed of light. How is simply a question that is on the verge of being measured.

When how what and why are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and satisfies scientific scrutiny we will believe it, but not because we 'believe'.

Even if the human mind is incapable of a solution I believe our humanly perseverence will continue to reveal new things

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 01:22 PM

'HOW' is simply a question on the verge of being measured.

Several things will be learned at the same time;
The rate of black hole formation
The number/size of black hole mass in the universe
The proportion of black hole mass to new space formation

The new questions that will be raised are limtless

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mossback
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 02:49 PM

and as you say yourself it’s a matter of believe

Science is not something one "believes in". We'll leave that to the god-botherers who prefer to live in a fact-free and/or reality averse universe.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Nov 19 - 09:07 AM

Whether one approaches cosmological questions from religion or science, the cosmology proceeds unconcerned and uninterrupted.

I support anyone's quest to understand the cosmic questions from any perspective they choose. Asking the questions is a wonder'ful thing to do. Insisting others must 'follow one path' is just arrogant, but no one has done that here Mossback. Commendable.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Nov 19 - 07:07 PM

Sure there are measurements that can be made , but it still comes down to what you believe ; how those measurements are interpreted. If you can suggest that the speed of light ‘law’ might be more flexible to account for cosmic evolutionary problems , why dismiss it for a special creation?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 19 - 11:00 AM

The speed of light can only slow down due to the medium it is in. Space energy is not bound by a speed limit when acted upon by gravity.
In turn space is shaped by mass' gravity. Good for you Pete, Space-Gravity-Time is flexible.
We still even have a huge discrepancy in answers from measuring the mass/size of a proton. The limits of knowing is omnipresent.

I wouldn't dismiss your special creation since I think creations are special.
You might see a conscience whim as a creation and I might see a sea of space energy that had finally absorbed all the mass type energy in existence and having a tiny quantum event, begin a release of the stored energy.

Since I was 6 I had a repeated dream of my own begining like a comet having to make a 'perfect' impact and location on Earth. That child like wordless sensation of perfection felt like a profound urgency.
I think differently now although I am probably not uninfluenced by my early thinking.
You can't dismiss my dream and I can not dismiss yours. :^/

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Nov 19 - 06:46 PM

5 Mysteries the Standard model can't explain

1. Why do neutrinos have mass?
Three of the Standard Model’s particles are different types of neutrinos. The Standard Model predicts that, like photons, neutrinos should have no mass.

However, scientists have found that the three neutrinos oscillate, or transform into one another, as they move. This feat is only possible because neutrinos are not massless after all.

“If we use the theories that we have today, we get the wrong answer,” says André de Gouvêa, a professor at Northwestern University.

The Standard Model got neutrinos wrong, but it remains to be seen just how wrong. After all, the masses neutrinos have are quite small.

Is that all the Standard Model missed, or is there more that we don’t know about neutrinos? Some experimental results have suggested, for example, that there might be a fourth type of neutrino called a sterile neutrino that we have yet to discover.


2.

What is dark matter?
Scientists realized they were missing something when they noticed that galaxies were spinning much faster than they should be, based on the gravitational pull of their visible matter. They were spinning so fast that they should have torn themselves apart. Something we can’t see, which scientists have dubbed “dark matter,” must be giving additional mass—and hence gravitional pull—to these galaxies.

Dark matter is thought to make up 27 percent of the contents of the universe. But it is not included in the Standard Model.

Scientists are looking for ways to study this mysterious matter and identify its building blocks. If scientists could show that dark matter interacts in some way with normal matter, “we still would need a new model, but it would mean that new model and the Standard Model are connected,” says Andrea Albert, a researcher at the US Department of Energy’s SLAC National Laboratory who studies dark matter, among other things, at the High-Altitude Water Cherenkov Observatory in Mexico. “That would be a huge game changer.”

3.

Why is there so much matter in the universe?
Whenever a particle of matter comes into being—for example, in a particle collision in the Large Hadron Collider or in the decay of another particle—normally its antimatter counterpart comes along for the ride. When equal matter and antimatter particles meet, they annihilate one another.

Scientists suppose that when the universe was formed in the Big Bang, matter and antimatter should have been produced in equal parts. However, some mechanism kept the matter and antimatter from their usual pattern of total destruction, and the universe around us is dominated by matter.

The Standard Model cannot explain the imbalance. Many different experiments are studying matter and antimatter in search of clues as to what tipped the scales.


4.

Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?
Before scientists were able to measure the expansion of our universe, they guessed that it had started out quickly after the Big Bang and then, over time, had begun to slow. So it came as a shock that, not only was the universe’s expansion not slowing down—it was actually speeding up.

The latest measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope and the European Space Agency observatory Gaia indicate that galaxies are moving away from us at 45 miles per second. That speed multiplies for each additional megaparsec, a distance of 3.2 million light years, relative to our position.

This rate is believed to come from an unexplained property of space-time called dark energy, which is pushing the universe apart. It is thought to make up around 68 percent of the energy in the universe. “That is something very fundamental that nobody could have anticipated just by looking at the Standard Model,” de Gouvêa says.

5.

Is there a particle associated with the force of gravity?
The Standard Model was not designed to explain gravity. This fourth and weakest force of nature does not seem to have any impact on the subatomic interactions the Standard Model explains.

But theoretical physicists think a subatomic particle called a graviton might transmit gravity the same way particles called photons carry the electromagnetic force.

“After the existence of gravitational waves was confirmed by LIGO, we now ask: What is the smallest gravitational wave possible? This is pretty much like asking what a graviton is,” says Alberto Güijosa, a professor at the Institute of Nuclear Sciences at UNAM.


These five mysteries are the big questions of physics in the 21st century, Ramos says. Yet, there are even more fundamental enigmas, he says: What is the source of space-time geometry? Where do particles get their spin? Why is the strong force so strong while the weak force is so weak?

There’s much left to explore, Güijosa says. “Even if we end up with a final and perfect theory of everything in our hands, we would still perform experiments in different situations in order to push its limits.”

“It is a very classic example of the scientific method in action,” Albert says. “With each answer come more questions; nothing is ever done.”

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Nov 19 - 07:15 PM

Which came first, waves or particles?
I still can not reconcile all aspects of the double slit experiment even after watching a macro version of it happening in real time.
I see the beauty in cosmic systems but the moment I ask why,
understanding usually evaporates to nothing. Certainty becomes uncertain like an optical illusion.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mr Red
Date: 22 Nov 19 - 07:08 AM

We'll leave that to the god-botherers who prefer to live in a fact-free and/or reality averse universe.

You missed-out Politicians - mind you I contend politics is a religion (aka belief system).

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Nov 19 - 06:13 PM

I admire your knowledge of the subject Donuel , even though I differ from your position, but I appreciate your humility before all the problems of standard cosmology .

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 19 - 07:27 PM

"Whether one approaches cosmological questions from religion or science, the cosmology proceeds unconcerned and uninterrupted.

I support anyone's quest to understand the cosmic questions from any perspective they choose."

Bullshit. I support anyone's quest to understand any questions, cosmic or otherwise, from the standpoint of requiring evidence. You won't answer any cosmic question, or any other scientific question, by applying faith or evidence-innocent belief. I think you know this. So let's not cut the God Squad any slack on this. We've indulged them enough for far too many centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Nov 19 - 03:57 PM

Oh dear Steve ; still crusading atheist ....    “....applying faith ....unless it’s atheist faith in a Godless explanation , it seems !

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mossback
Date: 29 Nov 19 - 08:29 PM

A "crusading atheist" - whatever that is supposed to be - is infinitely preferable to a crusading moron.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 19 - 08:32 PM

I'm no crusading atheist, Bill. I merely shrug and ask for evidence. Invariably, I then shrug some more...

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Nov 19 - 10:18 PM

"Atheist faith" is a category error. It is a misunderstanding of what atheist actually means.

Faith means belief IN something....usually referring to some theological position. Atheist simply means NOT believing in such a position.

I prefer to NOT be called an atheist, because it is usually taken to mean DISbelief... or denial, and I simply can't prove anything about such claims. When people make assertions about some particular 'belief' system, my stance is to be skeptical... to doubt... to need better evidence than is usually offered.
   I understand why many people DO accept some theological position... all sorts and all kinds... from all over the world throughout history. I personally just don't **need** some absolute answer to 'the meaning of life' in order to live a decent, happy life.... but I am also resistant to anyone suggesting that I should--- and when those who DO have such beliefs attempt to insert their brand of belief system into either my life, or my country's political system, I object. I always feel it is reasonable to meet claims with explanations of why such claims fail to convince. There are good reasons to doubt and to expect that 'beliefs' be respected... but restricted to areas which do NOT impinge on how I live my life.

   I have debated all this before here.... there is little doubt about my position(s)..or lack of positions. It is kind of disappointing to see it rise over & over.

I was trying to read Donuel's speculations about new discoveries in physics and cosmology, when religion again crept in. I'll go back and try again...

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 19 - 04:13 PM

"Atheist simply means NOT believing in such a position."

Not to me does it. If I were to say I don't believe in your position, I'm arguing on your territory. Instead, I'm just saying that if you have a position you wish to promote then you need to argue it with evidence if it's to be on my radar for consideration. I do get directly interested when I'm told that evidence-innocent notions have "deep truths" or when such notions are foisted on young people in schools or on the citizens of countries that are led by religious zealots. Otherwise, have fun with your "beliefs." Reality is far more colourful and far more beautiful.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Nov 19 - 05:20 PM

"...if you have a position you wish to promote then you need to argue it with evidence..."

In that, we agree. I understand your personal use of the term, and as you remember, I also respond with concern when someone's 'faith' requires them to ignore, distort factual scientific research. That is another issue from the one on popular definitions of the word atheist.

In practice, my position looks & feels very similar to atheism... I just prefer agnostic as a label. I simply do not "know" about certain things like "in the beginning"... so *shrug*

I know the arguments for.. and against.. the rationale that "all things that exist must have a "cause", therefore something must have 'caused' the Universe." Cosmologists speculate.. and theologians insist. I am neither. I would bet that the answer is technically un-knowable.... but I don't even "know' that.

Meanwhile, watching the science and semi-science puzzle over it at least is more interesting reading than rehashing convoluted theological contortions.

Onward....

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 19 - 06:52 PM

I agree with all that. The trouble with atheism is that it's seen as a sort of absolutist concept. Here's where I am: if you tell me that little seven-legged blue men have an outpost on the outer rings of Saturn, well I can ridicule you and make you the butt of a million jokes and laugh in your face, but what I can't do is prove that you're wrong. The reason I can't is that you've proposed a notion that, ridiculous though it is, can't be checked. You may have done that either because you're deluded or, far more vexatiously, that you want to be a contrarian. I see the proposal that there's a God who can neither be explained (because he's been deliberately put beyond science), nor can explain anything, as a similar concept. All I can say is that I don't know whether you're right or wrong. But that isn't to say that I'm squarely on the fence. If the word atheist is to have any practical use, it must be acknowledged that those of us who adhere to it must accept that we have to shrug and admit that we can't prove your ludicrous notion, mainly because you've chosen to make it ludicrous.

And even Richard Dawkins admits that he doesn't know whether there's a God or not.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 10:50 AM

I see Steve having ceased his eclectic knowledge quest and settled for the closest paradigm he is arguably comfortable with argueing.

New findings are strange because of our incomplete knowledge be that of 9 billion light years distant black holes or sculpted carvings several centimeters away from our eyes.

for example:
I am now stymied by the remarkable similarities between the sculpted artifacts of a unique handled device in the left hand of Assyrian 'gods' and the same devices in the hand of South American carvings of 'Kings'. There is even a rider on the Indian Garuda flying giant bird carrying this rectangular 'thing'. As far back as the Olmec sculptures there is evidence of a multicultural cosmopolitan civilization and evidence of India, chinese and African traditions.

It seems:
We are still in a dark age of assumptions regarding human culture and technology.

The religious can be enlightened as an astrophysicist and visa versa. I have heard Vatican priests that see past all the absurd insistant BS and scientists at NIH who are too religious for their own good.

I don't confuse my own awe at the mysteries we are immersed in and humility. The mysteries are so enormous that one has no other option than to be humbled.

The miracles of our current grasp of tech are awe inspiring and beyond grasp of any one person. There is the possibility we are in the midst of a hive evolutionary mind.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 11:08 AM

When I say Steve has personally ceased his eclectic knowledge quest, I am speaking generationaly in which we are all bounded our times and limited discoveries and relative enlightenment. Steve is just fun to use as an example because he is so insistant in his own inimical way.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 05:10 PM

I entertain myself by coming up with different scenarios for the elimination of various ancient or future civilizations due to natural disasters, climate, leadership and failure of a 2 cent piece of hardware or even a software mistake.

Good or bad Leadership makes for the best villains but other life forms (monsters be they virus or behemouths) are always popular.

I can think of nothing nerdier. Its like the ultimate Debbie Downer movie some would lable as action sci fi adventure.

Religious leadership of the Mayans were killers in one scenario and scientific mistakes did in millions in other imagined extinctions.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition or a 80 year old Hitler.