No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[mr.brunch]

It's not that current technology can detect light that far away, it's that light has a top speed.... There fore any light there is has taken 13 ish billion years to reach us. If it was older , the light would have had more time to travel and further bright objects would be apparent.
If that makes sense.

Personally I am not sold on the Big Bang explanation, and the inflation idea is so much worse.... Just because you can explain it using a balloon don't make it easier to swallow

 

[mr.brunch]

Maybe if you waited nearly 14 billion years for said watch, it may happen? Who knows.

 

[bombadil.360]

Maybe if you waited nearly 14 billion years for said watch, it may happen? Who knows.

yeah, right, who knows.

maybe next time I'll leave on vacation, I'll leave an empty pot on the stove, and a bunch of chopped vegetables, and hope to have some soup ready by the time I get back... if it does not happen, it was because my vacation was way too short, right?

 

[AuxinRiver]

It's not that current technology can detect light that far away, it's that light has a top speed.... There fore any light there is has taken 13 ish billion years to reach us. If it was older , the light would have had more time to travel and further bright objects would be apparent.
If that makes sense.

Personally I am not sold on the Big Bang explanation, and the inflation idea is so much worse.... Just because you can explain it using a balloon don't make it easier to swallow

What if there are "things" emitting types of light we cannot detect and we name those things "black wholes"

 

[AuxinRiver]

Maybe those things are neither "black", nor "wholes"

 

[bombadil.360]

Auxin, is english your mother tongue?

if not, I can forgive the black "Wholes" thing, but if yes, you have some issues...

peace

 

[mr.brunch]

Indeed... I personally think we know next to fuck all about what is really going on, but no one wants to admit that.
Just a month or 2 ago it was announced that our own galaxy is around 50% bigger than previously thought... And that's in out own back yard.
Then I hear they found a super massive black hole near the edge of the observable universe that " shouldn't be there ". Well, looks like we better re think, not just clutch at straws

 

[genedigger]

exactly how i feel mr brunch we dont know the half of it yet.primitive man would squat to take a shit which shoots the shit outta yo ass, basicly no wiping needed.we have evolved to the point that we sit up on a toilet seat,which is a very unnatural way to shit.then we cover our hands with paper and shove them up our asses to get out the excess that.we are not getting smarter!

 

[waveguide]

Indeed... I personally think we know next to fuck all about what is really going on, but no one wants to admit that.

i know this post is about your own expression, that's cool.

that's what JM was saying. you should look up epistemology. i've posted the word every five pages since the beginning of the thread. my expectations are zero, but.. it would be kind of a fantasy adventure trip for me if *someone* got it.


i always like to think about society like, thank god i'm not bleeding to death, eh?

 

[waveguide]

exactly how i feel mr brunch we dont know the half of it yet.primitive man would squat to take a shit which shoots the shit outta yo ass, basicly no wiping needed.we have evolved to the point that we sit up on a toilet seat,which is a very unnatural way to shit.then we cover our hands with paper and shove them up our asses to get out the excess that.we are not getting smarter!

pretty cool. if you get like a crate and sit it in front of western toilets, you can use a more natural position that is possibly healthier in ways we can avoid discussing here

eh? eh? different kinda shit bro bros, are we learning from others here, about the life taken from us by convention?

that n*gger tagore said, "where roads are made, i lose my way" - that's some shit there

 

[Weird]

what makes you think people aren't using that process in the basis of belief?

Deism, hermetics, buddhism and other religions use rational philosophy as a basis.

for example, Hermetics helped both Tesla and Newton in their understanding of the physical world

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh7wDN_6Fac

[youtubeif]fh7wDN_6Fac[/youtubeif]

---------



Orthogenesis




Orthogenesis, orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution or autogenesis, is the hypothesis that life has an innate tendency to evolve in a unilinear fashion due to some internal or external "driving force". The hypothesis is based on essentialism and cosmic teleology and proposes an intrinsic drive which slowly transforms species. George Gaylord Simpson (1953) in an attack on orthogenesis called this mechanism "the mysterious inner force".[1] Classic proponents of orthogenesis have rejected the theory of natural selection as the organising mechanism in evolution, and theories of speciation for a rectilinear model of guided evolution acting on discrete species with "essences". The term orthogenesis was popularized by Theodor Eimer, though many of the ideas are much older (Bateson 1909).[2]

Contents

• 1 Definition
• 2 Origins
• 3 Comparison of Theories
• 4 Collapse of the hypothesis
• 5 Modern co-opted usage
• 6 See also
• 7 References
• 8 Sources

Definition[edit]


Theodor Eimer


Orthogenesis was a term first used by the biologist Wilhelm Haacke in 1893. Theodor Eimer was the first to give the word a definition; he defined orthogenesis as "the general law according to which evolutionary development takes place in a noticeable direction, above all in specialized groups."[3]
In 1922 the zoologist Michael F. Guyer wrote:

[Orthogenesis] has meant many different things to many different people, ranging from a, mystical inner perfecting principle, to merely a general trend in development due to the natural constitutional restrictions of the germinal materials, or to the physical limitations imposed by a narrow environment. In most modern statements of the theory, the idea of continuous and progressive change in one or more characters, due according to some to internal factors, according to others to external causes-evolution in a "straight line" seems to be the central idea.[4]
​

Orthogenesis was often related to neo-Lamarckism; Eimer popularized the concept of orthogenesis in his book Organic Evolution as the Result of the Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics According to the Laws of Organic Growth (1890). In his work Eimer used examples such as the evolution of the horse to argue that evolution had proceeded in a regular single direction that was difficult to explain by random variation. To orthogenesis trends in evolution were often nonadaptive and in some cases species could be led to extinction.[5]
Peter J. Bowler has defined orthogenesis as:

Literally, the term means evolution in a straight line, generally assumed to be evolution that is held to a regular course by forces internal to the organism. Orthogenesis assumes that variation is not random but is directed towards fixed goals. Selection is thus powerless, and the species is carried automatically in the direction marked out by internal factors controlling variation.[6]
​

According to (Schrepfer, 1983):

Orthogenesis meant literally "straight origins", or "straight line evolution". The term varied in meaning from the overtly vitalistic and theological to the mechanical. It ranged from theories of mystical forces to mere descriptions of a general trend in development due to natural limitations of either the germinal material or the environment... By 1910, however most who subscribed to orthogenesis hypothesized some physical rather than metaphysical determinant of orderly change.[7]
​

Orthogenesis has been described as an "anti-Darwinian" evolutionary theory because of its stance on the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection.[8] After studying butterfly coloration Theodor Eimer published a widely read book on orthogenesis titled On Orthogenesis: And the Impotence of Natural Selection in Species Formation (1898). In the book Eimer claimed there were trends in evolution with no adaptive significance and thus would be difficult to explain by natural selection.[9] Stephen J. Gould wrote a detailed biography of Eimer. Gould wrote that Eimer was a materialist who rejected any vitalist or teleological approach to orthogenesis and explained that Eimer's criticism of natural selection was common amongst many evolutionists of his generation as they were searching for alternative evolutionary mechanisms as it was believed at the time that natural selection could not create new species.[10]
Origins[edit]


Henry Fairfield Osborn


The orthogenesis hypothesis had a significant following in the 19th century when a number of evolutionary mechanisms, such as Lamarckism, were being proposed. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck himself accepted the idea, and it had a central role in his theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, the hypothesized mechanism of which resembled the "mysterious inner force" of orthogenesis. Orthogenesis was particularly accepted by paleontologists who saw in their fossils a directional change, and in invertebrate paleontology thought there was a gradual and constant directional change. Those who accepted orthogenesis in this way, however, did not necessarily accept that the mechanism that drove orthogenesis was teleological. In fact, Darwin himself rarely used the term "evolution" now so commonly used to describe his theory, because in Darwin's time, evolution usually was associated with some sort of progressive process like orthogenesis, and this had been common usage since at least 1647.[11]

more: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Orthogenesis?qsrc=3044

 

[bombadil.360]

waveguide, what's your thing with epistemology? in and of itself it is merely a distrust, or a healthy criticism of any given Theory of Knowledge (ir other words, any given method to get to know).

if I were to guess, you want people to inject a dose of healthy doubt into how is it possible for people to know what they say they know; how trustworthy is that specific way to gather said knowledge, in short.

but that stuff is reserved only for people who have studied Hermeneutics (not to be confused with Hermetism), and the people who end up studying Hermeneutics are either studying a master in Philosophy or above, or Doctorate in Science (specially Mathematics) or equivalent levels of education.

you'll be hard pressed to find people who know about that geeky stuff even in ivy league universities, much less on an internet forum, but who knows, people can surprise you every now and then.

peace

 

[AuxinRiver]

Auxin, is english your mother tongue?

if not, I can forgive the black "Wholes" thing, but if yes, you have some issues...

peace

No, it's not. But they might as well call 'em wholes; they're neither.

 

[Weird]

MIT ranks the most influential people that have lived.

http://pantheon.media.mit.edu/rankings/people/all/all/-4000/2010/H10

 

[waveguide]

waveguide, what's your thing with epistemology? in and of itself it is merely a distrust, or a healthy criticism of any given Theory of Knowledge (ir other words, any given method to get to know).

if I were to guess, you want people to inject a dose of healthy doubt into how is it possible for people to know what they say they know; how trustworthy is that specific way to gather said knowledge, in short.

but that stuff is reserved only for people who have studied Hermeneutics (not to be confused with Hermetism), and the people who end up studying Hermeneutics are either studying a master in Philosophy or above, or Doctorate in Science (specially Mathematics) or equivalent levels of education.

you'll be hard pressed to find people who know about that geeky stuff even in ivy league universities, much less on an internet forum, but who knows, people can surprise you every now and then.

peace

epistemology is for everyman, eg. plato's cave or buddhism. nowt fancy about it expect the word i guess

if our preconceptions affect our perceptions, and i think we can agree that this is definitively so, then certainly mastering our handling of concept will directly correlate to our ability to handle what we perceive

 

[bombadil.360]

No, it's not. But they might as well call 'em wholes; they're neither.

I hear you, but the thing is, if some people working on that stuff come out and say: "hey, we don't really know, but we think it may be so and so" then their funding gets re-directed elsewhere, and they like their funding, so they say they know.

peace!

 

[bombadil.360]

epistemology is for everyman, eg. plato's cave or buddhism. nowt fancy about it expect the word i guess

if our preconceptions affect our perceptions, and i think we can agree that this is definitively so, then certainly mastering our handling of concept will directly correlate to our ability to handle what we perceive

I don't know if it is for every man; it is certainly in the grasp of every man, except of course those who want to remain willfully ignorant, you can't do squat about those.

peace

 

[DrFever]

You ever wonder how come bible doesn't have anything on it lol

 

[AuxinRiver]

I hear you, but the thing is, if some people working on that stuff come out and say: "hey, we don't really know, but we think it may be so and so" then their funding gets re-directed elsewhere, and they like their funding, so they say they know.

peace!

That's exactly it.
The way science works nowadays goes against achieving a real understanding reality (whatever that means).

I think real progress begins with an honest assessment of our current knowledge, which isn't much.

Science cannot even explain how magnets work. They can sure use them, but have no idea about what really makes them work. Ask a scientist about it. You'll get the weirdest imaginary explanations that aren't really explaining anything.

The same thing with gravity, black wholes, matter.

I really do think that all this technology we have developed is going in the wrong direction. Developing tools like telescopes and different measuring devices does give us some information, but only on a superficial level.

Maybe if we concentrated on developing the technology of our own brains, through meditation, psychedelics or a combination of both, we'd be a lot further along the path of understanding reality.

What do you guys think?