Drakar Mgner Your information is outdated. The univese is no longer expanding and dark energy doesn't exist.
Remove
Suresh Wanayalae Drakar Mgner ha ha, please read this first : the best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe. The mass–energy of dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contribute 26.8% and 4.9%, respectively,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
Managehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
Suresh Wanayalae Unais Adeem Read this completely first: https://bauddha-tharka.blogspot.com/.../i-have-theory-and...
1.) Existence = Imagine a ball.
2.) Non-Existence= Imagine a ball size of space (without the ball ).
3.) Existence with Non-Existance = Imagine a ball appear and disappear. It meens, the ball and space use the same place.
Those three things with distance created the Universe. Those three things don't need a start. Big bang is not the start. Big bang is the time when the ball appear before it disappear again.
Replies:
Jaswinder Singh Chaggar:
Ok good, 1 item 1st, which one?
Suresh Wanayalae:
Jaswinder Singh Chaggar 1.) Existence with Non-Existence > This can be the first 1. Because "best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
But the distance has a potential to seperated it without a start because not only Existance with Non-Existance is a part of the Universe, but also Distance is also a part of the universe naturally.
So we can expect a wave of those three things without a start.
That waves make them be larger and smaller from time to time.
2.) Existence = Imagine a ball.
3.) Non-Existence= Imagine a ball size of space (without the ball ).
Manage1.) Existence = Imagine a ball.
2.) Non-Existence= Imagine a ball size of space (without the ball ).
3.) Existence with Non-Existance = Imagine a ball appear and disappear. It meens, the ball and space use the same place.
Those three things with distance created the Universe. Those three things don't need a start. Big bang is not the start. Big bang is the time when the ball appear before it disappear again.
Replies:
Jaswinder Singh Chaggar:
Ok good, 1 item 1st, which one?
Suresh Wanayalae:
Jaswinder Singh Chaggar 1.) Existence with Non-Existence > This can be the first 1. Because "best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
But the distance has a potential to seperated it without a start because not only Existance with Non-Existance is a part of the Universe, but also Distance is also a part of the universe naturally.
So we can expect a wave of those three things without a start.
That waves make them be larger and smaller from time to time.
2.) Existence = Imagine a ball.
3.) Non-Existence= Imagine a ball size of space (without the ball ).
Drakar Mgner Do some more research and let me know your new theories. You can obviously grasp the concept. You might provide some valuable perspective.
Remove
Suresh Wanayalae Drakar Mgner Dark energy and dark matter detected on their gravity. And those things are the reason why our universe is accelerating.
If you can understand this you will receive the answer.
1.) Existence = Imagine a ball.
2.) Non-Existence= Imagine a ball size of space (without the ball ).
3.) Existence with Non-Existance = Imagine a ball appear and disappear. It meens, the ball and space use the same place.
Existence with Non-Existence > This can be the first 1. Because "best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
ManageIf you can understand this you will receive the answer.
1.) Existence = Imagine a ball.
2.) Non-Existence= Imagine a ball size of space (without the ball ).
3.) Existence with Non-Existance = Imagine a ball appear and disappear. It meens, the ball and space use the same place.
Existence with Non-Existence > This can be the first 1. Because "best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
Suresh Wanayalae Unais Adeem I'm showing you facts. You don't have facts.
read this:
"double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles".
I think that the connection between Manifest and non Manifest (connection between 0 and 1)(or space- nospace junction) supported the space to be larger than nospace, but nospace created a net (wave) between space to balance it, I think that net is the wave reaction of particles. Not only the nospace (particles) try to eat space (gravity), but also it tries to separated the space and nospace junction. And when it separate the connection between Manifest and non Manifest duality (the moment where there is no "space" or "nospace" Space = Free form of Emptiness + Distance, And: Nospace = Solid form Emitiness + Distance), it makes two separate Space and Nospace for a moment, and then that Space join with Space which cause the space to be larger than nospace, but the Nospace (smallest quantum particle) appear and disappear instantly making a wave between space. And when it happens the main particle wave too, because the newly created nospace (string) shake the space and shake the particle too. Those newly created nospaces (quantum particles (strings) around the main particle) disappear instantly. But we can see it from the "double-slit experiment".
Double-slit experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Manageread this:
"double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles".
I think that the connection between Manifest and non Manifest (connection between 0 and 1)(or space- nospace junction) supported the space to be larger than nospace, but nospace created a net (wave) between space to balance it, I think that net is the wave reaction of particles. Not only the nospace (particles) try to eat space (gravity), but also it tries to separated the space and nospace junction. And when it separate the connection between Manifest and non Manifest duality (the moment where there is no "space" or "nospace" Space = Free form of Emptiness + Distance, And: Nospace = Solid form Emitiness + Distance), it makes two separate Space and Nospace for a moment, and then that Space join with Space which cause the space to be larger than nospace, but the Nospace (smallest quantum particle) appear and disappear instantly making a wave between space. And when it happens the main particle wave too, because the newly created nospace (string) shake the space and shake the particle too. Those newly created nospaces (quantum particles (strings) around the main particle) disappear instantly. But we can see it from the "double-slit experiment".
Double-slit experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Suresh Wanayalae Drakar Mgner I don't know what you think about science, maybe you will tell me that thee earth is flat too.
Space is moving (bending) on nospace (Black Hole/ Stars/ Particle and etc) that is what the gravity is.
You can expect few types of universes there:
★ "'Space' Universe": Imagine a universe with Space only.
★ "'No Space' Universe": Imagine a universe with No Space (Black Holes) only. Which is not empty, but filled with something solid.
★ "'Both Space and No Space' Universe": Our universe. Which has empty space and solid materials (Black Hole, Stars, Planets and etc).
ManageSpace is moving (bending) on nospace (Black Hole/ Stars/ Particle and etc) that is what the gravity is.
You can expect few types of universes there:
★ "'Space' Universe": Imagine a universe with Space only.
★ "'No Space' Universe": Imagine a universe with No Space (Black Holes) only. Which is not empty, but filled with something solid.
★ "'Both Space and No Space' Universe": Our universe. Which has empty space and solid materials (Black Hole, Stars, Planets and etc).
Suresh Wanayalae Drakar Mgner I really felt sad about your logics. I don't know why some people don't have common sense. Don't worry about my theories. I don't think you are intelligent enough to understand it. And I don't like to waste my time with you. I could understand you from your comments.
Manage
Drakar Mgner You've wasted time learning pseudoscientific garbage from Wikipedia, but yeah don't listen to me. I only shattered all your theories with a dumbass meme.
Remove
Suresh Wanayalae Drakar Mgner I couldn't find your identity from your facebook profile. You are usng a fake FB profile. I don't know what your purpose and whether you are getting paid to be so stupid. However, No need a creator to create the universe. But some people want a creator to create the universe, and that people don't want a creator to create the creator. That is not a problem with the existance of the universe, that is a problem with some people.
The problem is some people don't want a creator to create the creator. They have given a bullshit definiition to the creator to create itself. But they call it facts. I don't know how beliefs can move a person away from reality that far.
ManageThe problem is some people don't want a creator to create the creator. They have given a bullshit definiition to the creator to create itself. But they call it facts. I don't know how beliefs can move a person away from reality that far.
Suresh Wanayalae Drakar Mgner My Logic:
Distance causes the universe to separate emptiness into two forms. It is the positive form of emptiness and the negative form of emptiness.
★ Space = distance + positive form of emptiness
★ Black Holes = distance + negative form of emptiness
★ Space + Black Holes = (distance + positive empty) + (distance + negative empty)
We can see it from this Buddhist Explanation too: "Form is emptiness, Emptiness is form."
It sounds like that there are two forms of emtinesses. (Positive Form Of Emptiness And Negative Form Of Emptiness)
When the emptiness acquire a distance it can create an Universe (or Multiverse).
★★★★★★★
Empty + Distance = (positive empty + distance) + (negative empty + distance) = Space + Black Holes = Universe
ManageDistance causes the universe to separate emptiness into two forms. It is the positive form of emptiness and the negative form of emptiness.
★ Space = distance + positive form of emptiness
★ Black Holes = distance + negative form of emptiness
★ Space + Black Holes = (distance + positive empty) + (distance + negative empty)
We can see it from this Buddhist Explanation too: "Form is emptiness, Emptiness is form."
It sounds like that there are two forms of emtinesses. (Positive Form Of Emptiness And Negative Form Of Emptiness)
When the emptiness acquire a distance it can create an Universe (or Multiverse).
★★★★★★★
Empty + Distance = (positive empty + distance) + (negative empty + distance) = Space + Black Holes = Universe
Drakar Mgner Mathematical probability supports a creator and that's hard fact. Which you would know if you did actual research. We can detect the size of the universe from cosmic background radiation and Big bang calcs support the existence of a creator. Ignorance is bliss, but ignorance isn't an excuse for stupidity.
Remove
Suresh Wanayalae Drakar Mgner probability isn't a fact. it just caused to support life in this universe, but there can be time when there are universes which don't support life, but it doesn't explain a existense of a creator. According to Buddhism there were 70 aeons (70 big bangs) when there were no Buddhas. and again there were around 30 aeons (30 big bangs) when there were no Buddhas. Usually a Buddha appear when there are living beings, but we can understand that there are written evidencde in Buddhism that clearly stated that there were Universes where Buddha don't appear, that meens Buddhism talk about probability too. And it is scientifical. You can't show a God, you can just show the existance of living beings to prove the existence of a God, But it is totally stupid.
Suresh Wanayalae I like to complete this conversation with another important fact about the probability of the existence of the universe with life.
That probability totally agree with my theories (explanations) about the existence of the universe, and it explains why it supported living being without making it a unique probability. I'll try to explain it briefly.
Our observable universe have 68.3% dark energy, 26.8% dark matter and 4.9% ordinary matter. Scientists think the balance between the dark energy and dark matter is a unique combination, but is not the case according to my theory. Actually the three things which created the universe were already balanced. The three things are
1.) Existence (space) = Imagine a ball.
2.) Non-Existence (dark matter and ordinary matter) = Imagine a ball size of space (without the ball ).
3.) Existence with Non-Existence (dark energy) = Imagine a ball appear and disappear. It means, the ball and space use the same place.
Those three things were already interconnected, so a balanced combination can happen within a small range of probabilities, because those 3 things should be balanced within maximum 33.33% range of probabilities, but because those three things can move from one place to another on the unlimited distance of the universe those three things can always maintain the percentage from a cyclic process of regeneration. So, as an example if we give a fixed 33.33 percentage for each of them. then we can count the probability range like this:
Probability Range = 100% - (33.33% x 3) = 100% - 99.99% = 0.01%
From that example we can say there can be only 0.01% range of those three things which might break the law of the balance of them with the support of unlimited distance of the universe, or if the fixed rate is 33.3333 then only 0.0001% range which break the balance of the three things, or if the fixed rate is this 33.333333333333% then only 0.000000000001% range might break the balance of those three things and make waves making big bangs within a very small range of probabilities.
I hope this explanation is enough for now.
That probability totally agree with my theories (explanations) about the existence of the universe, and it explains why it supported living being without making it a unique probability. I'll try to explain it briefly.
Our observable universe have 68.3% dark energy, 26.8% dark matter and 4.9% ordinary matter. Scientists think the balance between the dark energy and dark matter is a unique combination, but is not the case according to my theory. Actually the three things which created the universe were already balanced. The three things are
1.) Existence (space) = Imagine a ball.
2.) Non-Existence (dark matter and ordinary matter) = Imagine a ball size of space (without the ball ).
3.) Existence with Non-Existence (dark energy) = Imagine a ball appear and disappear. It means, the ball and space use the same place.
Those three things were already interconnected, so a balanced combination can happen within a small range of probabilities, because those 3 things should be balanced within maximum 33.33% range of probabilities, but because those three things can move from one place to another on the unlimited distance of the universe those three things can always maintain the percentage from a cyclic process of regeneration. So, as an example if we give a fixed 33.33 percentage for each of them. then we can count the probability range like this:
Probability Range = 100% - (33.33% x 3) = 100% - 99.99% = 0.01%
From that example we can say there can be only 0.01% range of those three things which might break the law of the balance of them with the support of unlimited distance of the universe, or if the fixed rate is 33.3333 then only 0.0001% range which break the balance of the three things, or if the fixed rate is this 33.333333333333% then only 0.000000000001% range might break the balance of those three things and make waves making big bangs within a very small range of probabilities.
I hope this explanation is enough for now.
Suresh Wanayalae Maybe we will be able to measure that small range of probabilities from the amount of ordinary matter (from the gravity of ordinary matter).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Oliver Ramsay No sorry but chickens have always had eggs. The humble egg goes all the way back to before life came to land all animals lay eggs just some hatch immediately on birth and is called a placenta
Remove
Oliver Ramsay Maybe not bacteria as they breed through cell division but every multicellular life form has eggs in one way or another
Remove
Oliver Ramsay And if you think fish are a younger species then chickens I would advise you go do some research
Remove
Suresh Wanayalae Oliver Ramsay Fish may have come earlier. (Human Evolution from Fish to Humanhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5ukxKXsP6Y).
however multicellular life came after single cellular life. so no reason to argue about that. eggs came later. If you try to prove a existence of a creator, it is a different story. You can find answer to that from here: ://bauddha-tharka.blogspot.com/.../i-have-theory-and...
Managehowever multicellular life came after single cellular life. so no reason to argue about that. eggs came later. If you try to prove a existence of a creator, it is a different story. You can find answer to that from here: ://bauddha-tharka.blogspot.com/.../i-have-theory-and...
Oliver Ramsay I'm not trying to prove existence of any creator just pointing out that eggs have been around millions and millions of years before chickens came on the scene
Remove
Suresh Wanayalae Oliver Ramsay I didn't tell u that the first egg came from a chicken. evolution created the chicken from fish. fish came from small cellular life which didn't started with egs.
Manage
Oliver Ramsay "baby chickens where not eggs at the beginning. Later on it became a egg to protect the baby chicken."
Suresh Wanayalae are you sure your not trying to change your story to avoid looking like a fool
RemoveSuresh Wanayalae are you sure your not trying to change your story to avoid looking like a fool
Suresh Wanayalae Oliver Ramsay ha ha. I can understand that you are a follower of words without understand the meaning of it. "at the beginning" the grand parents of the checken were not chicken. I know that some God believers don't have enough intelligence to underst...See More
Manage
Suresh Wanayalae Oliver Ramsay Again you didn't understand the meaning. Chicken was just an example. I was talking about that first ancestors of chickens. If you want the right answer, you have to find it from the right place and time. However, if you can define the first chicken, then I can tell you that the birth of that chicken happened from an egg of first ancestors of chickens which genetically changed on evolution before the birth of your chicken. Don't try do find answers where you can't find it.
Manage
Oliver Ramsay I think we are both saying the same thing egg came along first and the chicken was a later mutation
Remove
Suresh Wanayalae Oliver Ramsay No, again you followed a one side of the words. I just told you to define chicken. But if you take (define) an egg as a first chicken, then the previous ancestor of chicken who put that egg put a genetically changed egg (baby chicken) on evolution. So it depend of your definition (genetic structure) of the chicken.
Oliver Ramsay Again we are saying the same thing here we are both saying a series of egg laying animals came before the chicken each time getting closer and closer to a chicken
Remove
Suresh Wanayalae Oliver Ramsay You don't know what you are asking. You didn't want me to use ancestors of chickens to answer your question. But again you use ancestors of chickens as chickens. I can't argue with a fool. If you use ancestors, then you have to go the beginning of the ancestors. The first ancestors didn't put eggs.
Oliver Ramsay No because after a while chasing back the ancestors are no longer chickens as multiple animals could have evolved from there
Remove
Suresh Wanayalae Oliver Ramsay You didn't get the point yet. You have to find a definition to chicken first. And another definition to ancestors first. You can select what came first from the ancestors. It can be a genetically changed egg or a genetically changed chicken. Or you can say the nearest ancestors was a egg or an ancestor which changed genetically few times after the birth on a virus impact or something like that was the first chicken. You can watch this video to learn how Endogenous Retroviruses can change animals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s Or if you want to win, you can say a single cellular life was an egg, Or you can say the first protein was an egg. Or the atoms are eggs.
YOUTUBE.COM
No comments:
Post a Comment