Universe's, Intelligent Design

[Tormod]

The original post is a forum post, and not an article, as far as I can tell. It does not set forth a theory, it holds no discussion that progresses anywhere, and it is not obvious to me who this article targets. It puts forth undocumented questions and does not attempt to answer them in any way. It provides absolutely no new insight into anything.

 

I don't understand why this was published in the first place.

[FRIPRO]

I think that what my fellow moderators are getting at is that we are attempting to hold articles posted here to a set of standards which include grammar, structure, content and factuality. While I applaude the effort you are putting into your work, it needs to be elevated past the "infancy" stage to be posted here. It will soon be moved to another area where discussion and work can continue. At a later stage it may return to this forum.

 

Bill

 

 

BILL

 

Please do move this to another area, that you might think the discussion and work can continue. We are pioneering a new approach to publishing, live on the internet, as the author struggles to put his ideas on paper.

 

It is a rare oportunity to find out the opinions of others, and change the basic manuscript daily etc.

 

Thanks for your consideration. FRIPRO

[FRIPRO]

I think that what my fellow moderators are getting at is that we are attempting to hold articles posted here to a set of standards which include grammar, structure, content and factuality. While I applaude the effort you are putting into your work, it needs to be elevated past the "infancy" stage to be posted here. It will soon be moved to another area where discussion and work can continue. At a later stage it may return to this forum.

 

Bill

 

 

Bill Big Dog made the following statement and gave me permission to publish it on the UIDE manuscript, he said Quote:

 

"There is an overriding imperative in the Universe to bring order over chaos. And that universal imperative drives all things into a perpetual state of continuous improvement. Always seeking greater order, greater efficiency, greater wisdom, greater intelligence. And mankind is driven by this imperative, regardless of how individual men may otherwise believe." (PERMISSION GRANTED BY: "TheBigDog - in the Theology forum of Science theology-forum/5946-universe

 

FRIPRO

[InfiniteNow]

In the pass few years our technology has given us a greater insight into the birth of the Earth; however, it has not shed much light on the Universe itself.

Well, technology doesn't often shed light. Now, granted, we do create flashlights, and spotlights, and nuclear power... oh, and I guess chemoluminescence has been used underwater... then again, there's also fiber optics... Heat is a form of light too, so I guess I could say that we've generated new ways to start fire, heat objects and so forth... we also have street lamps... oh, and those really neat lights on the floor path of movie theaters that don't distract from the movie but keep you from bumping into everything after getting popcorn... Oooohhh.... the movie projector. Now there's a light shedding piece of technology that's fun for the kids too...

 

Okay, so technology does shed light. What was I saying? Oh yeah... technology hasn't shed much light on the universe itself, eh?

 

Is this a metaphor for "technology hasn't really assisted us in achieving a greater degree of understanding of our universe and it's origins?" If so, you may just be mistaken. Of course we still do not know everything, however, technology has clearly increased our level as well as our magnitude of understanding, not just of the Earth, but also of the universe.

 

I could pull up some Steven Hawking quotes, or maybe the history of the Hubble Space Telescope and the impact it's discoveries have had if that would help...

[FRIPRO]

Well, technology doesn't often shed light. Now, granted, we do create flashlights, and spotlights, and nuclear power... oh, and I guess chemoluminescence has been used underwater... then again, there's also fiber optics... Heat is a form of light too, so I guess I could say that we've generated new ways to start fire, heat objects and so forth... we also have street lamps... oh, and those really neat lights on the floor path of movie theaters that don't distract from the movie but keep you from bumping into everything after getting popcorn... Oooohhh.... the movie projector. Now there's a light shedding piece of technology that's fun for the kids too...

 

Okay, so technology does shed light. What was I saying? Oh yeah... technology hasn't shed much light on the universe itself, eh?

 

Is this a metaphor for "technology hasn't really assisted us in achieving a greater degree of understanding of our universe and it's origins?" If so, you may just be mistaken. Of course we still do not know everything, however, technology has clearly increased our level as well as our magnitude of understanding, not just of the Earth, but also of the universe.

 

I could pull up some Steven Hawking quotes, or maybe the history of the Hubble Space Telescope and the impact it's discoveries have had if that would help...

 

Thanks for the reference URL on science I will read the carefully.

 

Steven Hawking is wrong about the universe being created 13 billion years ago from a big bang. "our universe and it's origins" Again the Universe is eternal

 

He also told us last week we had better leave for Mars as the Earth's life is shorter than you think.

 

Our television signals are about 66 light years out into space. Our small space ships are just about to the end of the solar system. Hubble is looking at Galatic Clusters that are greatest distance from the Earth, but no one knows why old Glaxies are in the middle of the new fantasticly large Galaxtic Clusters. That is how much we on Earth know about the Universe!

[TheBigDog]

Bill Big Dog made the following statement and gave me permission to publish it on the UIDE manuscript, he said Quote:

 

"There is an overriding imperative in the Universe to bring order over chaos. And that universal imperative drives all things into a perpetual state of continuous improvement. Always seeking greater order, greater efficiency, greater wisdom, greater intelligence. And mankind is driven by this imperative, regardless of how individual men may otherwise believe." (PERMISSION GRANTED BY: "TheBigDog - in the Theology forum of Science theology-forum/5946-universe

 

FRIPRO

Yes, I posted that and gave you permission to use it. It was my summary of your theory. It is not an endoosement of your theory being fact. I think that you have some keen ideas that need further exploration, but much of it appears to be so nebulous that it will never be backed up by demonstration. That leaves the burden of proof on you to get this idea a foothold in the scientific community. As flattering as the idea is, you will need more than me as a reference to do that. :)

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Steven Hawking is wrong about the universe being created 13 billion years ago from a big bang. "our universe and it's origins" Again the Universe is eternal

I quickly panned upward on the screen to verify that we were not in the Theology forum before I made this request, and upon confirming this fact, I post the following:

 

Support your statements. There are two here for which I would like support (beside your own paper/manuscript/thesis/essay/connect the dots/ink blot demo...).

 

In what way are we wrong about the proposed 13 byo estimate for the universe?

If the universe is eternal, offer some hard data to support this claim.

 

If you want to move into the bonus round, you'll even explain to me why you think Steven Hawking is solely responsible for the estimated 13 by age of the universe.

[FRIPRO]

I quickly panned upward on the screen to verify that we were not in the Theology forum before I made this request, and upon confirming this fact, I post the following:

 

Support your statements. There are two here for which I would like support (beside your own paper/manuscript/thesis/essay/connect the dots/ink blot demo...).

 

In what way are we wrong about the proposed 13 byo estimate for the universe?

If the universe is eternal, offer some hard data to support this claim.

 

If you want to move into the bonus round, you'll even explain to me why you think Steven Hawking is solely responsible for the estimated 13 by age of the universe.

 

I guess you are right I do not know who else is the author of the theory of the Universe's creation by the big bang.

 

I still believe 100% that the Universe was not created by the big bang. (That is what my manuscript on UIDE is all about).

 

One reason that comes to my mind is the logic that you can not create anything out of nothing- therefore the Universe must have existed prior to the big bang, and it is only a local bang.

 

I also do not subscribe to the concept of Intelligent Design (Id) the religious theory of Creation. A god could not have been in existance before the "big bang" unless the Universe was. FRIPRO

[Pyrotex]

Yes, ...As flattering as the idea is, you will need more than me as a reference to do that.

Yes, you will need more than TBD as a reference.

 

You will need a LOT more than TBD as a ref.

 

You will need VASTLY, HUGELY, MONSTROUSLY more than TBD as a ref.

 

You will need a GARGANTUAN, MEGAZILLION, STUPENDOID, GIGABIGGER more than TBD as a ref.

 

You will need... ... ... ...

... my brain is tired, now. I think I will go take a nap. :wink:

[Pyrotex]

Does this thread contain anything resembling a point?

If it has one at all, it appears to be this: "The Universe being is a living consciences organizism, the same as the Earth."

 

However, all the evidence that FRIPRO is able to muster is entirely circumstantial. He has obviously invested a lot of time (and himself) in this and apparently does not realize the "gap" between what he is doing and what needs to be done to have this be even a marginal "scientific theory". I think the high regard he has for astrology pretty much says it all.

[eye on the skies]

alright lets think about all this...

When it comes to matters of God, there are bound to be some things that we just cannot comprehend. Was there someone to create everything in existence? Well then where did this person come into existence?

 

its a valid argument, but when we try to explain eveything in ways that 'make sense', its easy to forget what is actually real. the fact is not everything makes sense. Bumblebees are too heavy for their wings to be able to lift them, but they can anyway. science will never figure out how the universe was created because it would require evidence from before it existed. if nothing existed back then, then how did the universe even form? well, it's kinda like i said...we are incapable of understanding EVERYTHING about the myseries of this world. We'll never figure all of it out. Some things are better left a mystery.

 

whether or not you agree or know where I'm coming from, I'd appreciate no judgements or disdainful comments.

[Pyrotex]

alright lets think about all this...

When it comes to matters of God, there are bound to be some things that we just cannot comprehend.... Bumblebees are too heavy for their wings to be able to lift them, but they can anyway.... Some things are better left a mystery...

Okay, no judgements against you will be made.

I just wanted to present you with some very bad news. Science has figured out how the bumblebee flies. Yes. It seems that we were using models of bird wings--with wing area, flapping speed, total weight to be carried, flying speed. Would not work. Only in the last 10-12 years have we successfully videod the bumblebee in super-slow-motion. Its wings do NOT flap like a birds!!! We were using the wrong model. Its tiny wings actually "sweep" the air off its back so fast that a partial vacuum forms over its back. It's this low pressure zone that holds the bee in the air. Once the computer models were built to simulate THIS (and not a flapping bird wing), the numbers all worked out! The bumblebee produces more than enough lift to fly.

 

The lesson here is that mysteries are often just a product of our incomplete understanding or a misdirected approach. The universe (so far) is explanable in natural terms. Are there still mysteries? Oh, yes! And there probably always will be. But the mysteries of a hundred years hence will be different from our mysteries today.

 

Should some things be better left a mystery? No. There is no justification for this at all, except perhaps, out of fear that "knowing the answer" will somehow pose a threat to one's belief system.

[FRIPRO]

Okay, no judgements against you will be made.

I just wanted to present you with some very bad news. Science has figured out how the bumblebee flies. Yes. It seems that we were using models of bird wings--with wing area, flapping speed, total weight to be carried, flying speed. Would not work. Only in the last 10-12 years have we successfully videod the bumblebee in super-slow-motion. Its wings do NOT flap like a birds!!! We were using the wrong model. Its tiny wings actually "sweep" the air off its back so fast that a partial vacuum forms over its back. It's this low pressure zone that holds the bee in the air. Once the computer models were built to simulate THIS (and not a flapping bird wing), the numbers all worked out! The bumblebee produces more than enough lift to fly.

 

The lesson here is that mysteries are often just a product of our incomplete understanding or a misdirected approach. The universe (so far) is explanable in natural terms. Are there still mysteries? Oh, yes! And there probably always will be. But the mysteries of a hundred years hence will be different from our mysteries today.

 

Should some things be better left a mystery? No. There is no justification for this at all, except perhaps, out of fear that "knowing the answer" will somehow pose a threat to one's belief system.

 

I thank you for the fantastic answer that Science has figured out how the bumblebee flies. I did not know this I am sure it must be evolution. With respect to your statement (The universe (so far) is explanable in natural terms. ) We just do not know what natural terms are? But I would like to consider this while I write my manuscript: Reference:http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html

[FRIPRO]

Well, technology doesn't often shed light. Now, granted, we do create flashlights, and spotlights, and nuclear power... oh, and I guess chemoluminescence has been used underwater... then again, there's also fiber optics... Heat is a form of light too, so I guess I could say that we've generated new ways to start fire, heat objects and so forth... we also have street lamps... oh, and those really neat lights on the floor path of movie theaters that don't distract from the movie but keep you from bumping into everything after getting popcorn... Oooohhh.... the movie projector. Now there's a light shedding piece of technology that's fun for the kids too...

 

Okay, so technology does shed light. What was I saying? Oh yeah... technology hasn't shed much light on the universe itself, eh?

 

Is this a metaphor for "technology hasn't really assisted us in achieving a greater degree of understanding of our universe and it's origins?" If so, you may just be mistaken. Of course we still do not know everything, however, technology has clearly increased our level as well as our magnitude of understanding, not just of the Earth, but also of the universe.

 

I could pull up some Steven Hawking quotes, or maybe the history of the Hubble Space Telescope and the impact it's discoveries have had if that would help...

 

With all due respect to your words: "Is this a metaphor for "technology hasn't really assisted us in achieving a greater degree of understanding of our universe and it's origins?" If so, you may just be mistaken."

 

Man takes pride in his space and telescope programs; but, we must face the fact that we are hardly out of our own solar system.

 

True, man does have a degree of understanding close in to his planet, but the Universe size is emense and beyond our present comprehension. So a road map is necessary to guide our comprehension of the Universe and it origins, if it even had a beginning (which I challenge).

 

My manuscript on UIDE is being design (with contributions from men like you) to be that road map. Any constructive coments with your permission would be included in UIDE

 

Refer to : http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html

[InfiniteNow]

Will you include my non-constructive comments as well?

[FRIPRO]

I quickly panned upward on the screen to verify that we were not in the Theology forum before I made this request, and upon confirming this fact, I post the following:

 

Support your statements. There are two here for which I would like support (beside your own paper/manuscript/thesis/essay/connect the dots/ink blot demo...).

 

In what way are we wrong about the proposed 13 byo estimate for the universe?

If the universe is eternal, offer some hard data to support this claim.

 

If you want to move into the bonus round, you'll even explain to me why you think Steven Hawking is solely responsible for the estimated 13 by age of the universe.

 

The Big Bang did take place about 13 billion years, and it did reshape this part of our Universe. But by no means did it create the Universe. It is simple logic--you can not create anything out of nothing. So the Universe did exist before the Big Bang.

[InfiniteNow]

But by no means did it create the Universe. It is simple logic--you can not create anything out of nothing. So the Universe did exist before the Big Bang.

If you were to simply preface this comment with, "I don't have any solid proof, but I personally believe that..." I would not take issue with it. However, you have stated it in terms of the absolute, and for that I will request you support your statement with evidence beside personally written manuscripts.