Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Holy Spirit, Trinity, angels and cosmology: ANSWER PART I
Message-ID: <265@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Sep-86 01:44:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: promethe.265
Posted: Sun Sep 28 01:44:23 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 00:40:12 EDT
References: <7568@tekecs.UUCP> <1503@mtx5a.UUCP> <7616@tekecs.UUCP> <260@prometheus.UUCP> <1285@utastro.UUCP>
Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc)
Distribution: net
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222
Lines: 89
Keywords: Trinity, Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Substance
Xref: linus net.religion.christian:4771 talk.religion.misc:298

>In article <260@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
>> ... 
>> To be a viable hypothesis and be able to provide the "energy/information"
>> source for the substance of the big bang, the concept had to meet certain 
>> requirements.  First the source had to logically predate the big
>> bang; second, it has to remain "hidden" from easy view or have a low
>> interaction "cross section" with respect to the three space physical
>> universe in spite of the fact that it can still generate quasars;
>> thirdly, the energy density of the substance must be higher than 
>> that of our physical universe, and finally any other characteristics}
>> should be in a very generalized sense consistent with the known physical 
>> universe.  The hidden requirement is because we scientist haven't been 
>> able to find the "creator" or any other mechanism "out in the open" 
>> within physical space that could do the trick.
>
In article <1285@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
>Here we have it. You can't find what you want to see (i.e. a creator to do
>the "trick") hence you conjure ..him .... satisfy your bias.

No! No! No! Paddy!  The Creator Substance CAN'T be physical matter
without upsetting the nature of matter.  Also, an "alien substance"
co-existing with physical matter would still raise havoc with the 
"universality of the "laws of physics" here in three space.  We don't 
expect Him, and therefore want NOT to see him "face to face" here in 
this space.   Now, if we DID FIND the CREATOR SUBSTANCE here in 3-space,
then I would have problems accepting the data until I really triple
checked it myself.  I couldn't help but think that it was not a logical 
way for THE GOD, and so perhaps it may be an intermediate form such as 
an angel.  I would take a long and hard look before I "worship".  

>..you conjure up spaces to squeeze him into to satisfy your bias.

It's quite reasonable to expect that since three space exists (as
known from conscious physical experience) that the simpler spaces 
of one and two probably exist too.  Also, since likewise we know 
that substance exists in 3-space, unique substances also are likely
to exist in the two lesser spaces.   

So rest a little easier Padraig, I didn't "conjure" them up, in 
spite of any rumors you may have heard about my being Druish. 

The energy/information density is "postulated" as being infinite
for the one space substance.  That's reasonable because two space
is intermediate in density, 1 space is the beginning, and we can
expect that time is omnichronous.  Such densities can be located
in an infinitesimal (no volume) 1-space and "no squeezing" is 
required.    The squeezing I mentioned in a previous posting was 
probably to point out the increase in energy and density with 
loss of volume (area).

>Also, covering assertions with more assertions is irritating to me. 

Gee, just like physics, huh?.  Generalize, and find those assertions
that make sense and you can accept as "a possible scenario".  Then
let's work on the others and perhaps you could suggest modifications
that would make even better sense.  Although I know this is possible,
I also know that I could win the lottery if Padraig buys a ticket for
me.  This is NOT a theory it is DOGMA.  :-)  Just  kidding folks.  The
operative word here is "HYPOTHESIS" and not dogma.  

>Where did you get the idea that any of this has to do with quasars? 

They are big energy "consumers" indicating high density.  If the big
bang was caused by a "decay of a chunk of hypermatter" than it is
possible that a secondary "wave" also released much smaller and
scattered "micro-shocks or sparks" which may have generated the dense
initial energy that these things are made of.  

>Why not seyfert galaxies?

Aren't Seyfert galaxies related to quasars or are "later stages" of quasars???  

>Why should the energy density be greater than that of our physical universe?

It's consistent with what we know from thermo and hydrodynamics.  
High Energy / (unit space)  ==  pressure ==  force / (unit boundary space)
Want to make a big Ka-boom?  Then suddenly release "pent up energy".  

>All I see  here is strings of buzz-words thrown together in an attempt to
>explain away that which you don't understand. You are using phrases
>like "low interaction cross-section" to protect your theories from
>examination. 

I am sorry you think that.  Cross-sections can be measured, and I think 
that there is evidence for the "graininess" of "gravity fields". (MTW)

+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP  | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+