Where is all the Anti-Matter?

Lord Skimper wrote:Don't confuse perceived time and progression. No one observed the big bang, except maybe God....

By the same token, please do not redefine commonly used terms like time to fit your very peculiar definition, and then complain if people use the common, accepted one.

Lord Skimper wrote:Don't confuse perceived time and progression. No one observed the big bang, except maybe God....

The progression started with the big bang, before the big bang there was nothing after it progression started. Before the big bang or even the big bang wasn't even a point. Not even the notion of zero. Nothing at all. Then everything that is ever to be started and it the space and progression were.

Prove it.

I just did weren't you listening / reading?

Prove it wrong!

The E wrote:

Lord Skimper wrote:Don't confuse perceived time and progression. No one observed the big bang, except maybe God....

By the same token, please do not redefine commonly used terms like time to fit your very peculiar definition, and then complain if people use the common, accepted one.

What is this common one you are talking about?

The one I'm mentioning is referenced here: http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/mobile/touch/ep ... hropology/

Will adjust link if it doesn't work. Link needs flash so it won't run on Android.

Grashtel wrote:No. You are looking at the superficial similarities in terminology without actually understanding the meaning behind them.

I have to concur.

cthia wrote:Oh no. Not another disrespectful poster quickly making assumptions about someone he knows absolutely zero about.

I am also a Christian but "God" & "Satan" are "spirits" which is energy - that indicates Bosons (or something else we haven't yet discovered) not matter/anti-matter.

cthia wrote:I was simply expressing where I get my inspiration. I will not pre-publish anything here. I will say, that the immense power and heat generated by the Big Bang supercedes the inherent weak and strong particle forces.

This is interesting though.

Lord Skimper wrote:Time doesn't exist, it is a construct of the human mind, and perhaps a few other things.There is progression,in one direction so far, and the past which is what everything inhabits.

This has been disproven. It has been proven that, as relativity predicts, gravity has a distinct effect on time. Therefore if time was a figment of the mind, gravity would be unable to effect it. Time is a distinct dimension, just as space is. This has been proven threw repeatable experiments (if you have an atomic clock & a plane that is). The GPS & cellphone satellites have to take into account the time dilation of the Earths own gravity and adjust for it. When astronauts return to earth from orbit, they return to an earth at a slightly different point in time than the people left on Earth. This means that progression through time is NOT fixed and can be changed. Which indicates a variable velocity in time – not a fixed progression.

MAD-4A wrote:This has been disproven. It has been proven that, as relativity predicts, gravity has a distinct effect on time. Therefore if time was a figment of the mind, gravity would be unable to effect it. Time is a distinct dimension, just as space is. This has been proven threw repeatable experiments (if you have an atomic clock & a plane that is). The GPS & cellphone satellites have to take into account the time dilation of the Earths own gravity and adjust for it. When astronauts return to earth from orbit, they return to an earth at a slightly different point in time than the people left on Earth. This means that progression through time is NOT fixed and can be changed. Which indicates a variable velocity in time – not a fixed progression.

Time and perception of time is not the same thing. Time is not a dimension like others, you will never be able to actually travel anywhere in time, you can´t slow it down and you can´t speed it up.

There´s a cheat that lets someone effectively travel forward in time, and a "well, duh!" way of looking back in time, but neither involves affecting the actual progression of time in any way.

cthia wrote:
I was simply expressing where I get my inspiration. I will not pre-publish anything here. I will say, that the immense power and heat generated by the Big Bang supercedes the inherent weak and strong particle forces.

That sounds like a very good starting point for my own little pet theory(or part of it at least).

To say it simply, if you take a "black hole"(a concentration of a lot of mass in a very small volume), and keep piling on the mass, how far can it go before you cause the mass to implode, which would then possibly generate that "immense power and heat" that could potentially turn the implosion into an explosion because of lacking cohesive forces...

Sort of...

Lord Skimper wrote:
Gets confusing after this.

Last time I was this confused by your statements on page 2, I had a 6 pack too many for this Joe. Time definitely, meandered in and out. I still had to clean up my mess when time settled down...

MAD-4A wrote:

Lord Skimper wrote:Time doesn't exist, it is a construct of the human mind, and perhaps a few other things.There is progression,in one direction so far, and the past which is what everything inhabits.

This has been disproven. It has been proven that, as relativity predicts, gravity has a distinct effect on time. Therefore if time was a figment of the mind, gravity would be unable to effect it. Time is a distinct dimension, just as space is. This has been proven threw repeatable experiments (if you have an atomic clock & a plane that is). The GPS & cellphone satellites have to take into account the time dilation of the Earths own gravity and adjust for it. When astronauts return to earth from orbit, they return to an earth at a slightly different point in time than the people left on Earth. This means that progression through time is NOT fixed and can be changed. Which indicates a variable velocity in time – not a fixed progression.

"...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

Reference your proof please.