<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More Thoughts (and now math!) On What Came Before the Big Bang</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/</link>
	<description>Space and astronomy news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun,  8 Nov 2009 05:58:23 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mars A. Saurian</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-61371</link>
		<dc:creator>Mars A. Saurian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:40:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-61371</guid>
		<description>dan Says: 
December 28th, 2008 at 4:21 pm 

God does exist.


No, no he does not. If you want to believe there is a higher force at work in the universe, that&#039;s fine and dandy. But to think that in the vastness of this universe this crap planet was created before anything else and then because of an insignificant spec named &quot;Adam&quot; ate an apple which brought a curse into all of the universe which allowed God to create death, degeneration, suffering, to think that there is a grand invisible human like creator that is always responsible for good happenings and the slaughter of evil but never bad things and the killing of innocent, and that he&#039;s never wrong even when he is, he knows all even when he doesn&#039;t, to think that even though God created non-frequent homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom which would include the fully sentient beast we call Man (and Woman), meaning things like the immense pleasure one can experience in sexual play while the internal prostate of the male is stimulated (by another man or a woman) is a big oops on God&#039;s bodily design &amp; sexual guidelines, to think he gives a hoot if you take his name in vain, lie with a person of the same sex, don&#039;t show up for worship on Sunday, kill a fellow human being for your own undesirable pleasure or for the glory of him, eat shellfish, get a handjob before marriage, steal a pack of gum while in line at the grocery store, understand and believe (belief with reason, not with faith) in the natural process of evolution, and all that jazz, to think all of that and so much more just so you can have a religion to cling to, just so you can preach the parts you like, just so you can follow the bits of the faith&#039;s practices as you see fit and not as the religion itself commands, thereby perpetuating the lie that there is a Biblical God no matter what bigotry that brings or simpleton mentality it continues to support is the most egotistical, ignorant, hypocritical, self-righteous, willfully blind-eyed, socially degressive, undermining, and pretentious nonsense one can spout, ever.

^_^</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>dan Says:<br />
December 28th, 2008 at 4:21 pm </p>
<p>God does exist.</p>
<p>No, no he does not. If you want to believe there is a higher force at work in the universe, that&#039;s fine and dandy. But to think that in the vastness of this universe this crap planet was created before anything else and then because of an insignificant spec named &#034;Adam&#034; ate an apple which brought a curse into all of the universe which allowed God to create death, degeneration, suffering, to think that there is a grand invisible human like creator that is always responsible for good happenings and the slaughter of evil but never bad things and the killing of innocent, and that he&#039;s never wrong even when he is, he knows all even when he doesn&#039;t, to think that even though God created non-frequent homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom which would include the fully sentient beast we call Man (and Woman), meaning things like the immense pleasure one can experience in sexual play while the internal prostate of the male is stimulated (by another man or a woman) is a big oops on God&#039;s bodily design &amp; sexual guidelines, to think he gives a hoot if you take his name in vain, lie with a person of the same sex, don&#039;t show up for worship on Sunday, kill a fellow human being for your own undesirable pleasure or for the glory of him, eat shellfish, get a handjob before marriage, steal a pack of gum while in line at the grocery store, understand and believe (belief with reason, not with faith) in the natural process of evolution, and all that jazz, to think all of that and so much more just so you can have a religion to cling to, just so you can preach the parts you like, just so you can follow the bits of the faith&#039;s practices as you see fit and not as the religion itself commands, thereby perpetuating the lie that there is a Biblical God no matter what bigotry that brings or simpleton mentality it continues to support is the most egotistical, ignorant, hypocritical, self-righteous, willfully blind-eyed, socially degressive, undermining, and pretentious nonsense one can spout, ever.</p>
<p>^_^</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck R.</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-61201</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck R.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:33:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-61201</guid>
		<description>God I&#039;m tired of God showing up in these articles.

*forehead/palm*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>God I&#039;m tired of God showing up in these articles.</p>
<p>*forehead/palm*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter thurley</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-51893</link>
		<dc:creator>peter thurley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:14:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-51893</guid>
		<description>if time began at the big bang then before this cause and event  was non existant,. If this is true then man can never expect to even theorise on anything before the big bang as it is impossible to reason without causality. Perhaps before the beginning of the universe the event preceded the cause.........No time?unchanging eternity? Oh, but it changed. I suppose we will always wonder why.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>if time began at the big bang then before this cause and event  was non existant,. If this is true then man can never expect to even theorise on anything before the big bang as it is impossible to reason without causality. Perhaps before the beginning of the universe the event preceded the cause&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;No time?unchanging eternity? Oh, but it changed. I suppose we will always wonder why.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dirk</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-51187</link>
		<dc:creator>Dirk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 10:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-51187</guid>
		<description>When we talk cosmology can we please stop explaining our own fabrics by thinking of crypto-theorethical solutions starting with God, philosophy, 12 dimensions and other crap to explain a made up big bang, incredible dark matter or evil gravity waves. We reached a sad point where scientific progress stands still, for these counterproductive interferences have become a serious part of &#039;fundamental&#039; physics. 
Science is explaining phenomena by experiments and logic, that&#039;s all there is to it. Concentrate at the donut, not at the hole.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When we talk cosmology can we please stop explaining our own fabrics by thinking of crypto-theorethical solutions starting with God, philosophy, 12 dimensions and other crap to explain a made up big bang, incredible dark matter or evil gravity waves. We reached a sad point where scientific progress stands still, for these counterproductive interferences have become a serious part of &#039;fundamental&#039; physics.<br />
Science is explaining phenomena by experiments and logic, that&#039;s all there is to it. Concentrate at the donut, not at the hole.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jerry</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-48262</link>
		<dc:creator>jerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:48:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-48262</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve conducted some curve fitting exercises too. Ever notice how the anisotrophy in the CMB resembles the back of a reptile?

It&#039;s turtles...all the way down.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#039;ve conducted some curve fitting exercises too. Ever notice how the anisotrophy in the CMB resembles the back of a reptile?</p>
<p>It&#039;s turtles&#8230;all the way down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anirudh Kumar Satsangi</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-47964</link>
		<dc:creator>Anirudh Kumar Satsangi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-47964</guid>
		<description>Many views on the Origin of Universe are available. Most popular view is that universe was born with a big-bang from a highgly dense energy point. But I have some different view on it. I think the universe was not born from a concentrated point or ball like structure but it has evolved from an infinite vast expanse of field of gravity. Philosophically or religously we may call it field of consciousness or spirituality.

A great flow of current of gravitation force descended down from this source and has created many regions of pure gravitation force below it. This was the creation for quite some time in the first phase of the creational process. In the second phase when the current of gravitation force further descended down then electromagnetic forces and matter (weak and strong nuclear forces)manifested and the entire universe of the second phase was completed with the admixture of all the forces viz., gravitatin force, electromagnetic forces, and matter (weak and strong nuclear forces. The completion of the whole cosmos in two phases was also hinted in one of the speeches of Prof. J.V.Narlikar some years back. When the process of creation of universe reverts back in Brahmand (universe created during second phase of creational process)the matter merges into electromagnetic force and then finally electromagnetic forces merge into gravitation force and nothing remains except field of gravity in a highly dense body (Black Hole. The process of reversal does not take place in the universe created during first phase of creation. The cycle of universe completes like this.

Many philosophical-scientific evidences and theologians views can be quoted in support of this assumption</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many views on the Origin of Universe are available. Most popular view is that universe was born with a big-bang from a highgly dense energy point. But I have some different view on it. I think the universe was not born from a concentrated point or ball like structure but it has evolved from an infinite vast expanse of field of gravity. Philosophically or religously we may call it field of consciousness or spirituality.</p>
<p>A great flow of current of gravitation force descended down from this source and has created many regions of pure gravitation force below it. This was the creation for quite some time in the first phase of the creational process. In the second phase when the current of gravitation force further descended down then electromagnetic forces and matter (weak and strong nuclear forces)manifested and the entire universe of the second phase was completed with the admixture of all the forces viz., gravitatin force, electromagnetic forces, and matter (weak and strong nuclear forces. The completion of the whole cosmos in two phases was also hinted in one of the speeches of Prof. J.V.Narlikar some years back. When the process of creation of universe reverts back in Brahmand (universe created during second phase of creational process)the matter merges into electromagnetic force and then finally electromagnetic forces merge into gravitation force and nothing remains except field of gravity in a highly dense body (Black Hole. The process of reversal does not take place in the universe created during first phase of creation. The cycle of universe completes like this.</p>
<p>Many philosophical-scientific evidences and theologians views can be quoted in support of this assumption</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anirudh Kumar Satsangi</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-47963</link>
		<dc:creator>Anirudh Kumar Satsangi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:25:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-47963</guid>
		<description>Excerpt from &quot;The Yoga of Physics&quot; by Fritjof Capra, his keynote address at the Los Angels symposium on Physics and Metaphysics, on October 29, 1977 is given below for reference.

&quot;What is the nature and origin of the universe? what is space? what is time? Throughout the ages men and women have been fascinated by these questions. Different approaches have been developed in different cultural contexts and at different times.&quot;

&quot;We shall look at modern Western science, on the one hand , and Eastern mysticism - particularly the tradition of Yoga - on the other. We shall see that they lead to very similar views of the world.&quot;

&quot;My field is Physics, a science which, in the 20th century, has led to a radical revision of many of our basic concepts of reality.&quot;

&quot;In the Yoga tradition it is said that there are many paths, all leading to spiritual knowledge and Self-Realization. I believe that modern physics, to some extent, can be such a path. Its view of the universe is in harmony with those of the great yogis and sages. In that sense, I&#039;m going to talk of the Yoga of Physics.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excerpt from &#034;The Yoga of Physics&#034; by Fritjof Capra, his keynote address at the Los Angels symposium on Physics and Metaphysics, on October 29, 1977 is given below for reference.</p>
<p>&#034;What is the nature and origin of the universe? what is space? what is time? Throughout the ages men and women have been fascinated by these questions. Different approaches have been developed in different cultural contexts and at different times.&#034;</p>
<p>&#034;We shall look at modern Western science, on the one hand , and Eastern mysticism &#8211; particularly the tradition of Yoga &#8211; on the other. We shall see that they lead to very similar views of the world.&#034;</p>
<p>&#034;My field is Physics, a science which, in the 20th century, has led to a radical revision of many of our basic concepts of reality.&#034;</p>
<p>&#034;In the Yoga tradition it is said that there are many paths, all leading to spiritual knowledge and Self-Realization. I believe that modern physics, to some extent, can be such a path. Its view of the universe is in harmony with those of the great yogis and sages. In that sense, I&#039;m going to talk of the Yoga of Physics.&#034;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. Pressure</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-47892</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. Pressure</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 23:30:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-47892</guid>
		<description>Maybe we are &quot;god&quot; who want to forget all about everything!

Maybe we using power of mind and maked lot of very thiny energyconcentration! And then we play dice with these very thiny energyconcentration?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe we are &#034;god&#034; who want to forget all about everything!</p>
<p>Maybe we using power of mind and maked lot of very thiny energyconcentration! And then we play dice with these very thiny energyconcentration?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-47891</link>
		<dc:creator>dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 23:21:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-47891</guid>
		<description>what sparked the big bang, what created this reality which sparked the big bang, etc......the questions will never be answered and will go on forever.  We need to accept our ignorance, people.  God does exist.  science and religions are trying to find this being but it doesn&#039;t want to be found.  keep looking....LMAO.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>what sparked the big bang, what created this reality which sparked the big bang, etc&#8230;&#8230;the questions will never be answered and will go on forever.  We need to accept our ignorance, people.  God does exist.  science and religions are trying to find this being but it doesn&#039;t want to be found.  keep looking&#8230;.LMAO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. Pressure</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-47886</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. Pressure</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 22:25:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-47886</guid>
		<description>All the phenomens can be explained by one force and this force is the  pressure. (Don´t forget the power of thought! You also can move yourself by the power of thought! Quite right. You get yourself to move with the help of the muscles . You so you send message of your brains to your muscles and you get yourself to move? What is power/force of this thought, which get you to move there where you want?).


We can describe by people what happens in the atomcores all the time. For example one thousand people can go to the space and curl up close to each other. Now we have made an energyconsentration of people that covers a certain spot of the space. We know that the biggest part of the atoms is empty space. Also between people there exists empty space that does not expand or curve. 

Now these people can begin to straighten or in other words to open up and this way they push themselves away from each other. One can observe the hardest pressure in the middle of this human energyconsentration and people who locate in the middle must do an enormeous job so that they woun´t 
flatten in the centre. These people in the centre sweat the most. This is excactly the same thing that happens without gravitation for example in the centre of the earth and in the centre of the sun. 

The density of the human energyconsentration reduces and the people push themselves away from the centre of the human energyconsentration. Now for a little while we can observe a phenomen of gravitation without a drawing force (that actually does not exist) on the surface of the human energyconsentration. 

In my opinion the space does not expand or curve. If it would expand, could you describe how does the space expand? 

It is easy to describe how the energy all the time turns into a less dense energy in the atomcores, so I think that it is time to forget all about the magical expanding and curving of the space. You can also forget all the spare spacedimentions, the dark substance and the dark energy. 

So the space does not expand or curve! 

The atomcores expand and open up expanding electrons and expanding photons and they beam their expanding energy as waves away from themselves. This is how it goes! 

When you look at the galaxy, you can understand that the energy inside the galaxy is denser than outside the galaxy. If you look at a star, you can understand that energy inside the star is denser than outside the star. This way you will know for sure that the energy inside the atomcore is denser than outside the atomcore. It is not difficult to understand that the energy inside the protons / neutrons is denser than outside of them and the energy inside the qvarks is denser than outside the qvarks and so on... 

It it also easy to realize that outside the visible universe the is an area, where is really much more energy than the visible universe has all together and the energy some where out there is much denser than than it is in a visible universe. Still in that area far away from the visible universe there is no centre point where the energy would be denser than outside it. 

That three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentration that bems energywaves with the nature of the galaxies, is formed also from separate three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentrations ect. And so the smaller separate energyconsentrations we talk about, the denser and denser the 
energy is all the time. 

So the atomcore does not have a centre point, where the energy would be denser than outside it. There is no centre point also at the universe, outside which the energy would be less denser. 

Because the MOVEMENT takes place towards a less dense area, then the visible universe MOVES as an entity away from that one point that is really far away from the visible universe and where the energy is much denser than it is in a visible universe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All the phenomens can be explained by one force and this force is the  pressure. (Don´t forget the power of thought! You also can move yourself by the power of thought! Quite right. You get yourself to move with the help of the muscles . You so you send message of your brains to your muscles and you get yourself to move? What is power/force of this thought, which get you to move there where you want?).</p>
<p>We can describe by people what happens in the atomcores all the time. For example one thousand people can go to the space and curl up close to each other. Now we have made an energyconsentration of people that covers a certain spot of the space. We know that the biggest part of the atoms is empty space. Also between people there exists empty space that does not expand or curve. </p>
<p>Now these people can begin to straighten or in other words to open up and this way they push themselves away from each other. One can observe the hardest pressure in the middle of this human energyconsentration and people who locate in the middle must do an enormeous job so that they woun´t<br />
flatten in the centre. These people in the centre sweat the most. This is excactly the same thing that happens without gravitation for example in the centre of the earth and in the centre of the sun. </p>
<p>The density of the human energyconsentration reduces and the people push themselves away from the centre of the human energyconsentration. Now for a little while we can observe a phenomen of gravitation without a drawing force (that actually does not exist) on the surface of the human energyconsentration. </p>
<p>In my opinion the space does not expand or curve. If it would expand, could you describe how does the space expand? </p>
<p>It is easy to describe how the energy all the time turns into a less dense energy in the atomcores, so I think that it is time to forget all about the magical expanding and curving of the space. You can also forget all the spare spacedimentions, the dark substance and the dark energy. </p>
<p>So the space does not expand or curve! </p>
<p>The atomcores expand and open up expanding electrons and expanding photons and they beam their expanding energy as waves away from themselves. This is how it goes! </p>
<p>When you look at the galaxy, you can understand that the energy inside the galaxy is denser than outside the galaxy. If you look at a star, you can understand that energy inside the star is denser than outside the star. This way you will know for sure that the energy inside the atomcore is denser than outside the atomcore. It is not difficult to understand that the energy inside the protons / neutrons is denser than outside of them and the energy inside the qvarks is denser than outside the qvarks and so on&#8230; </p>
<p>It it also easy to realize that outside the visible universe the is an area, where is really much more energy than the visible universe has all together and the energy some where out there is much denser than than it is in a visible universe. Still in that area far away from the visible universe there is no centre point where the energy would be denser than outside it. </p>
<p>That three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentration that bems energywaves with the nature of the galaxies, is formed also from separate three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentrations ect. And so the smaller separate energyconsentrations we talk about, the denser and denser the<br />
energy is all the time. </p>
<p>So the atomcore does not have a centre point, where the energy would be denser than outside it. There is no centre point also at the universe, outside which the energy would be less denser. </p>
<p>Because the MOVEMENT takes place towards a less dense area, then the visible universe MOVES as an entity away from that one point that is really far away from the visible universe and where the energy is much denser than it is in a visible universe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Lam</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-47835</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Lam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:11:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-47835</guid>
		<description>To:  Bob,   You offer some very good points to ponder.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To:  Bob,   You offer some very good points to ponder.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kenn hammer</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-47477</link>
		<dc:creator>kenn hammer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:15:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-47477</guid>
		<description>i just saw a program about the m teory with a mindblower</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i just saw a program about the m teory with a mindblower</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bob</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-47168</link>
		<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:37:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-47168</guid>
		<description>The matter does not come from anywhere. e=mc^2  and the results of inelastic scattering experiments point to the fact that energy was converted into the matter we see. 

The most fundamental particles are quarks  and two of them (you can&#039;t separate them) make up a meson. When a beam of electrons are fired into a meson, the exchange particles of the quarks, gluons, behave like rubber bands. They grow stronger as they expand. But when enough energy of a beam makes the gluon field snap, the energy is converted to another pair of quarks. This matches how a universe would start with just one meson and reproduce by inflation.

Science is not based upon finding eternal truth. Science is based upon fasification and seeks ideas that are less false. Scripture is not the only basis for religion. Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton were both very religious persons. However, both felt that experimentation is the act of asking nature a question. When any of us puts water into a pot and adds enough heat it will boil no matter who does the experiment and no matter what language one speaks. Kepler reasoned that all experiments were the way in which humans communicated with superior beings. He felt that when there was a descrepency between scripture and experimental results, he would always side with those results from science for religious reasons. He saw too many believers of scripture bashing one another&#039;s heads in to believe what was put in writing, something humans used to distort reality too often for their own selfish interests.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The matter does not come from anywhere. e=mc^2  and the results of inelastic scattering experiments point to the fact that energy was converted into the matter we see. </p>
<p>The most fundamental particles are quarks  and two of them (you can&#039;t separate them) make up a meson. When a beam of electrons are fired into a meson, the exchange particles of the quarks, gluons, behave like rubber bands. They grow stronger as they expand. But when enough energy of a beam makes the gluon field snap, the energy is converted to another pair of quarks. This matches how a universe would start with just one meson and reproduce by inflation.</p>
<p>Science is not based upon finding eternal truth. Science is based upon fasification and seeks ideas that are less false. Scripture is not the only basis for religion. Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton were both very religious persons. However, both felt that experimentation is the act of asking nature a question. When any of us puts water into a pot and adds enough heat it will boil no matter who does the experiment and no matter what language one speaks. Kepler reasoned that all experiments were the way in which humans communicated with superior beings. He felt that when there was a descrepency between scripture and experimental results, he would always side with those results from science for religious reasons. He saw too many believers of scripture bashing one another&#039;s heads in to believe what was put in writing, something humans used to distort reality too often for their own selfish interests.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Feenixx</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-3/#comment-47115</link>
		<dc:creator>Feenixx</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:50:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-47115</guid>
		<description>#  Some Guy wonders
 but then, how was reality created!? *head explodes*

Some Perception Theorists use a complex model. I see it as philosophy, rather than as science, even though it uses mathematical terms. The bare bones version goes like this:

They look at the the set of all possibilities. They call it &quot;Etic Reallity&quot;.

They look at the set of possibilities individuals select for themselves as valid - a subset of Etic Reality. They call it &quot;Emic Reality&quot;.

They look at the intersection of all Emic Realities relevant in a particular case (say, all Cosmologists studying the Big Bang). They call it &quot;Consensus Reality&quot;.

So.... those who explore Reality created it themselves by consensus? WHAT?????</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#  Some Guy wonders<br />
 but then, how was reality created!? *head explodes*</p>
<p>Some Perception Theorists use a complex model. I see it as philosophy, rather than as science, even though it uses mathematical terms. The bare bones version goes like this:</p>
<p>They look at the the set of all possibilities. They call it &#034;Etic Reallity&#034;.</p>
<p>They look at the set of possibilities individuals select for themselves as valid &#8211; a subset of Etic Reality. They call it &#034;Emic Reality&#034;.</p>
<p>They look at the intersection of all Emic Realities relevant in a particular case (say, all Cosmologists studying the Big Bang). They call it &#034;Consensus Reality&#034;.</p>
<p>So&#8230;. those who explore Reality created it themselves by consensus? WHAT?????</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Lam</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-2/#comment-47054</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Lam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:36:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-47054</guid>
		<description>To Rusty Shackleford,  You are correct, it would be nice if all the problems of the world could be solved.  Unfortunately that will never happen.  Also, you might be surprised at how many people recognize how special it truly is to be alive on planet earth.  And the squabbling you refer to is simply the unconscious exercising of the wonderful gift of thought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To Rusty Shackleford,  You are correct, it would be nice if all the problems of the world could be solved.  Unfortunately that will never happen.  Also, you might be surprised at how many people recognize how special it truly is to be alive on planet earth.  And the squabbling you refer to is simply the unconscious exercising of the wonderful gift of thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rusty shackleford</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-2/#comment-47030</link>
		<dc:creator>rusty shackleford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:27:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-47030</guid>
		<description>I am a ignorant simpleton who enjoys seeing the verbal squabbling over what is logical and what is speculative. Although it pains me greatly that with so many problems in the world that, how we got here, is even relevant... Wouldn&#039;t it make sense to help rid the world of disease and poverty and then determine how the miracle of existence came to be? But I guess if we could help everyone, overpopulation would doom us all...

So here we are, miniscule beings on a pebble in a vacuum... What we all fail to realize is the true appreciation we should feel for even having the opportunity to wonder, dream, think, and conceive our ideas of what we are witnessing. Understand that, and everything else seems as minute as the atoms we are composed of...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a ignorant simpleton who enjoys seeing the verbal squabbling over what is logical and what is speculative. Although it pains me greatly that with so many problems in the world that, how we got here, is even relevant&#8230; Wouldn&#039;t it make sense to help rid the world of disease and poverty and then determine how the miracle of existence came to be? But I guess if we could help everyone, overpopulation would doom us all&#8230;</p>
<p>So here we are, miniscule beings on a pebble in a vacuum&#8230; What we all fail to realize is the true appreciation we should feel for even having the opportunity to wonder, dream, think, and conceive our ideas of what we are witnessing. Understand that, and everything else seems as minute as the atoms we are composed of&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Lam</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-2/#comment-46999</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Lam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 04:06:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-46999</guid>
		<description>To Patrick Lee,  I think Einstein&#039;s E=mc2 sez it all.  Energy matter, matter energy.  Based on cosmic observations, energy had to logically precede the creation of matter.  This notion is logical.  It is the classic &#039;big-bang&#039; model of creation that I believe defies logic.  Also, your reference to multiple universes might actually exist and be nothing more complex  than an infinate void frothing with overlapping Hubble Spheres 27.4 billion light years in diameter.  It appears to me that how the univierse mechanism  works might be very simple.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To Patrick Lee,  I think Einstein&#039;s E=mc2 sez it all.  Energy matter, matter energy.  Based on cosmic observations, energy had to logically precede the creation of matter.  This notion is logical.  It is the classic &#039;big-bang&#039; model of creation that I believe defies logic.  Also, your reference to multiple universes might actually exist and be nothing more complex  than an infinate void frothing with overlapping Hubble Spheres 27.4 billion light years in diameter.  It appears to me that how the univierse mechanism  works might be very simple.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Lee</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-2/#comment-46991</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 02:52:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-46991</guid>
		<description>That anything exists at all is something that can be contemplated but defies logic. If you think about what came before creation it will warp the mind to some degree!! Even multiple Universes does not give rise to an answer of what brought about &quot;All That Is&quot;!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That anything exists at all is something that can be contemplated but defies logic. If you think about what came before creation it will warp the mind to some degree!! Even multiple Universes does not give rise to an answer of what brought about &#034;All That Is&#034;!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Lam</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-2/#comment-46985</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Lam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:22:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-46985</guid>
		<description>Hmm . . . what may have existed before the big-bang?  A guess might include an infinite void full of some unknown energy.  Energy equals matter and matter equals energy.  I read that somewhere.  If this is true, isn&#039;t it possible the &#039;big-bang&#039; is simply energy, maybe dark energy, mysteriously morphing into matter in our finitely small part of an infinitely large void.  A currently active morphing, I might add, on a scale we can&#039;t yet detect.  I seriously doubt that space, time, energy and matter &#039;big-banged&#039; into existance in an instant.  The big-bang&#039; defies logic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm . . . what may have existed before the big-bang?  A guess might include an infinite void full of some unknown energy.  Energy equals matter and matter equals energy.  I read that somewhere.  If this is true, isn&#039;t it possible the &#039;big-bang&#039; is simply energy, maybe dark energy, mysteriously morphing into matter in our finitely small part of an infinitely large void.  A currently active morphing, I might add, on a scale we can&#039;t yet detect.  I seriously doubt that space, time, energy and matter &#039;big-banged&#039; into existance in an instant.  The big-bang&#039; defies logic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-2/#comment-46953</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-46953</guid>
		<description>An after thought...do you want to get closer to the mind of God? Forget philosophy, theology, new age religion, devotional literature. Instead, study mathematics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An after thought&#8230;do you want to get closer to the mind of God? Forget philosophy, theology, new age religion, devotional literature. Instead, study mathematics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-2/#comment-46950</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:26:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-46950</guid>
		<description>From what I&#039;ve read here, I would have to conclude that God is without doubt a mathematician.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From what I&#039;ve read here, I would have to conclude that God is without doubt a mathematician.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-2/#comment-46877</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-46877</guid>
		<description>&quot;#  Astrofiend Says:
December 17th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

MarkusDemetrius Says:
December 17th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

&quot;Till then, the weak-minded among us will attribute it to the unanswered questions department ( GOD ). Feel free to join them if you like, their collective ignorance gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside.&quot;

Bit harsh in tone their Marcus - Joe was simply speculating about a very open question, and finished it off with &quot;but then again, who created God?&quot; which obviously shows he&#039;s mulling it over and not simply on here with some sort of arrogant agenda.

Being a scientist, I love the fact that I can look at any single person in the world and know that they are just as clueless as me when it comes to the question of what the ultimate truth or reality is - it is a great feeling knowing there is so much mystery left to uncover. That applies to you, me and everybody else on the planet.

So how do you know there isn&#039;t a god? There&#039;s no evidence either way, and to me your comment seems just as arrogant as those that come on here and spout the opposite view.

People can have their personal view - even scientists - and I don&#039;t care what that is. However, if you&#039;re going to bring science into the fray, the only reasonable position to take in relation to religion in my opinion is a kind of disinterested agnosticism.&quot;

very well put</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#034;#  Astrofiend Says:<br />
December 17th, 2008 at 4:51 pm</p>
<p>MarkusDemetrius Says:<br />
December 17th, 2008 at 4:12 pm</p>
<p>&#034;Till then, the weak-minded among us will attribute it to the unanswered questions department ( GOD ). Feel free to join them if you like, their collective ignorance gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside.&#034;</p>
<p>Bit harsh in tone their Marcus &#8211; Joe was simply speculating about a very open question, and finished it off with &#034;but then again, who created God?&#034; which obviously shows he&#039;s mulling it over and not simply on here with some sort of arrogant agenda.</p>
<p>Being a scientist, I love the fact that I can look at any single person in the world and know that they are just as clueless as me when it comes to the question of what the ultimate truth or reality is &#8211; it is a great feeling knowing there is so much mystery left to uncover. That applies to you, me and everybody else on the planet.</p>
<p>So how do you know there isn&#039;t a god? There&#039;s no evidence either way, and to me your comment seems just as arrogant as those that come on here and spout the opposite view.</p>
<p>People can have their personal view &#8211; even scientists &#8211; and I don&#039;t care what that is. However, if you&#039;re going to bring science into the fray, the only reasonable position to take in relation to religion in my opinion is a kind of disinterested agnosticism.&#034;</p>
<p>very well put</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Prathapan</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-2/#comment-46802</link>
		<dc:creator>Prathapan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:14:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-46802</guid>
		<description>Hi,
        We will have to ask :

        G enerator
        O perator
        D estroyer

         for a lot of explainations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,<br />
        We will have to ask :</p>
<p>        G enerator<br />
        O perator<br />
        D estroyer</p>
<p>         for a lot of explainations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: general zod</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-2/#comment-46782</link>
		<dc:creator>general zod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:43:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-46782</guid>
		<description>two universes can occupy the same space and not detect the other if they are attached to different branes..i.e. the .basic universal fabric.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>two universes can occupy the same space and not detect the other if they are attached to different branes..i.e. the .basic universal fabric.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Some Guy</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/16/more-thoughts-and-now-math-on-what-came-before-the-big-bang/comment-page-2/#comment-46770</link>
		<dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:38:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=22400#comment-46770</guid>
		<description>Personally, I believe our Universe sits in an infinite field of other universes called the Multiverse. And the Multiverse, in turn, sits upon the very fabric of our plane of reality. In the Multiverse, infinite universes inflate and some &quot;Big Crunch&quot;-ify themselves independently of one another, like stars do when they go supernova and collapse into neutron stars/black holes.

I also believe the reason we can&#039;t detect these other universes is that there is an incredible amount of Dark Matter in between each universe, so much in fact that everything that hits the dark matter is deflected, kind of like how fog deflects headlights (although that could be because water is reflective... hmm...). Then again, I am torn between this and the theory of &quot;The universes are so far apart that any energy/radio waves/X-rays etc. from these universes hasn&#039;t made it to ours&quot;.  I think the latter makes more sense.

In that case, 13.7 billion years will count as only a minute when taken into context of how big this mythical Multiverse is. Also, it&#039;s enough to give anybody a migraine when thinking of it for too long. I know it&#039;s giving me one right now...

As a final note, we&#039;re beginning to know how the Universe was created... but then, how was reality created!? *head explodes*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally, I believe our Universe sits in an infinite field of other universes called the Multiverse. And the Multiverse, in turn, sits upon the very fabric of our plane of reality. In the Multiverse, infinite universes inflate and some &#034;Big Crunch&#034;-ify themselves independently of one another, like stars do when they go supernova and collapse into neutron stars/black holes.</p>
<p>I also believe the reason we can&#039;t detect these other universes is that there is an incredible amount of Dark Matter in between each universe, so much in fact that everything that hits the dark matter is deflected, kind of like how fog deflects headlights (although that could be because water is reflective&#8230; hmm&#8230;). Then again, I am torn between this and the theory of &#034;The universes are so far apart that any energy/radio waves/X-rays etc. from these universes hasn&#039;t made it to ours&#034;.  I think the latter makes more sense.</p>
<p>In that case, 13.7 billion years will count as only a minute when taken into context of how big this mythical Multiverse is. Also, it&#039;s enough to give anybody a migraine when thinking of it for too long. I know it&#039;s giving me one right now&#8230;</p>
<p>As a final note, we&#039;re beginning to know how the Universe was created&#8230; but then, how was reality created!? *head explodes*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
