>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:14:37 +0930, Michael Gray newsguy.com>
>wrote in alt.atheism
>

>>On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:19:01 -0700, Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
>>yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>>>Greetings Mr. Gray, and my apologies for the nearly two week delay in
>>>response...

>
>[]
>

>>>>>As for what these words mean, I don't theink they are terribly
>>>>>cryptic. Almost any physics book will say that the universe began to
>>>>>exist with the Big Bang (or, perhaps, almost immediately after the Big
>>>>>Bang), and I think we all know what that means.

>>>>
>>>> I am a quantum physicst.
>>>> I know what these words mean more than you do.
>>>>
>>>> It is because of your sloppy use of these very precise words that I
>>>> was questioning you.
>>>>
>>>> But as you are doing exactly what you accuse Mr. Lee of doing,
>>>> insulting me, patronising me without cause, and without investigating
>>>> my actual knowledge and expertise on the subject, you come across as
>>>> highly sanctimonious, but for no good reason.

>>>
>>>A fair point. I have no training in physics beyond a couple of
>>>undergraduate courses when I was in college, and that was years ago.
>>>So, being that you are the one far more familiar on the subject, could
>>>you tell me what "exist" "began" and "universe" mean? What, in your

>>
>>To answer you properly would require me to write hundreds of pages of
>>advanced math & physics, so I will answer you briefly, but also
>>neccessarily incompletely.

>
>Which the vast majority, including me, would be quickly, if not
>immediately, lost.
>

>>"Universe" generally means every bit of matter and energy that we can
>>detect, or infer, even that which may be beyond our local event
>>horizon.

>
>Good descriptor.
>

>>"Exist" means something that is potentially detectable, directly or
>>indeirectly, given sufficiently advanced technology.

>
>Good.
>

>>"Began" is utterly meaningless in this context, and that is where most
>>folk trip over.

>
>The g-o-d letter string is the epitome of meaningless which renders
>anything said to follow the same.
>
>It all illustrates the limitations of language. In the future, if
>superstitious morons don't kill us all first, those language 'holes'
>will be filled and others will appear.
>

>>>understanding, does it mean when a physics text made for popular
>>>consumption states that the universe came into existence with (or
>>>immediately after) the Big Bang?

>>
>>It is a neccessarily condensed one sentence description of a process
>>that, (as I said), takes graduate training in Mathematics, Particle
>>Physics, and Cosmology (at the very least).
>>
>>It is, by its extrememly condensed nature, literally quite WRONG.
>>But to make it right is not logistically feasible.

>
>True. However the condensed nature allows other items to be grasped.
>As learning progresses new things can be introduced. Learning goes from
>the [student] known into the unknown.
>
>One cannot expect a toddler to deal with quadratic equations when s/he
>hasn't learned to count to Ten. An even greater gap, in general, exists
>in the greater populace towards 'began.'
>
>IME, the gap between the general populace and the myraid hypothesis'
>dealing with the Planck Constant and 'further back in time' is beyond
>measuring.
>
>Questions have been more than answered which never would have occured to
>those who lived a thousand years ago, much less two thousand, or further
>back. Such remains the case now.
>
>Consider:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage
>
>Charles Babbage FRS (26 December 1791 – 18 October 1871) was an English
>mathematician, philosopher, mechanical engineer and (proto-) computer
>scientist who originated the idea of a programmable computer. Parts of
>his uncompleted mechanisms are on display in the London Science Museum.
>In 1991, working from Babbage's original plans, a difference engine was
>completed, and functioned perfectly. Built to tolerances achievable in
>the 19th century, the finished engine indicated that Babbage's machine
>would have worked. Nine years later, the Science Museum completed the
>printer Babbage had designed for the difference engine; it featured
>astonishing complexity for a 19th century device.
>
>Difference engine
>
> Main article: Difference engine
>
>In BabbageÂ’s time numerical tables were calculated by humans called
>‘computers’. At Cambridge he saw the high error rate of the people
>computing the tables and thus started his lifeÂ’s work in trying to
>calculate the tables mechanically, removing all human error. He began in
>1822 with what he called the difference engine, made to compute values
>of polynomial functions.
>
>Unlike similar efforts of the time, Babbage's difference engine was
>created to calculate a series of values automatically. By using the
>method of finite differences, it was possible to avoid the need for
>multiplication and division.
>
>The first difference engine needed around 25,000 parts of a combined
>weight of fifteen tons (13,600 kg) standing 8 ft (2.4 m) high. Although
>he received much funding for the project, he did not complete it. He
>later designed an improved version, "Difference Engine No. 2". This was
>not constructed at the time, but was built using his plans in 1989-1991,
>to 19th century tolerances, and performed its first calculation at the
>London Science Museum returning results to 31 digits, far more than the
>average modern pocket calculator.
>
>/end excerpt
>
>I've read a hefty difficulty was induced via something which is very
>simple and common today. Standardized nuts, bolts, and screws. That
>was almost unheard of back then. Each item varied to a degree which
>would render the machine unuseable. So, great effort was put forth to
>find a way to have all the screws, nuts, bolts the same.
>
>Consider the technology level of that time [1840 seems like a good
>median]. Move forward 129 years and humans have landed on the moon.
>
>Mind boggling progress, at least to me.
>
>At the time of the moon landing people were still alive who had spent
>months travelling via Conestoga wagon to get from Missouri {I believe it
>was} to California or Oregon/Washington.
>
>Just a short time before the moon landing [late 1950's] these same
>folks were flying via jetliner in hours what once took months.
>
>Now we've got particle accelerators and all sorts of other mindboggling
>stuff.
>
>Ipods, and all sorts of other things might have been flights of fantasy
>thirty years ago. Who knows what the current flights of fantasy will
>generate.