Gender: Female Location: next to the classy-est bar in town
hmmm
i was just wondering if any one could tell me some things. i am a capricorn and i was born on the 18th of january 1986. i was born at 2.10 pm and weighed 7lb 11. i am now 15 and hope to discover myself truely and find out wot my starsign has got to do with my life. i am wondering if it has anything to do with wot job i will be best at and stuff. i hope some one can help me.
__________________
ive gone 2 find myself,
if i come bck b4 i return
keep me here
Also not completely true. There is a great deal of evidence to support the theory, such as;
The 'After Glow' residuel effect
The fact that astronomers have been able to look back to within 1/ 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000th of a second prior to event zero and no further. They have been able to measure the extreme energies of the big bang
The age of the Universe has been calculated to about 12 Billion years old.
The hypothesis of the Big Bang layys in understanding what was actually going on in there, as the actions and reactions defy many of the common physics we understand, p[urely because they were so extreme.
On thing that has been proven is the E=mc*c (m c squared) still held up and that is how matter was able to form form pure energy.
I'm no astronomer, but those that are have universally (no pun intended) accepted the Big Bang as fact. The evidence gathered is pretty irrefutable now.
The very echos of creation, in many forms, have been found and measured. From these the numbers above have been calculated along with many others.
The background to this is far to vast to reproduce here but I can certainly recommend a number of great books and documentaries on the subject.
Hey Barbie,your Rising sign is pisces,
Your a very well cut diamond,you symbolize compassion and self sacrifice. your character posseses all the quality aspects of each star sign,like the mysticism of Scorpio,the Genius of Aquarius,the friendliness of saggitarius,and the versatility of gemini,as being the last sign of the zodiac your personality reflects all of the intuitive vibes flowing from each sign.
So thank god you were born at 2:10 pm
__________________ In spring when woods are getting green,i'll try to tell you what i mean,in summer when the sun will Burn,perhaps you understand the Aquarius Urn.
I have to say that I used to think astrology was a load pf old rubbish, however Dim introduced me to a site by Astrologer Jonathan Cainer and I started to check out my stars every day.
I was surprised at just how much of what he said made sense with what was going on in my life. Whether I read it at the beginning of the day or the end I can always see correlation.
well, there is more than everyone knows about it, it's all very complicated and we are not talking about reading the daily horoscope in the newspaper...
Oh, of course not. Funnily enough We bought Mandy's brother in law John Cainers book for his birthday. I had a very quick flick through as I was wrapping it, there seemed a lot to it...
All that Big Bang 'evidence' is purely circumstantial, RC. Not conclusive. There are quite a lot of different theories on how the universe came into existence and even about how it develops. Strangely enough, they're all quite different.
But maybe Ush with his clever friends could shed some light on this.
Everything I stated is a solid and proven fact. Not some hypothetical situation created in the mind of some bored under-grad. Everything I listed has been measure, recorded and confirmed as factual evidence of the Big Bang.
Whilst the actual Event Zero is a theory, something I didn't dispute, the overwhelming evidence is there. This was my point initially when you made the statement;
The fact of the matter is that worldwide there is now so much evidence that Event Zero was a Big Bang that it is now the most widely accepted creation theory of a non-religious nature.
What is more worrying is the Big Crunch, but we're at least 12 billion years away from that so you don't need to pay it to much thought...
Oh, I'm not denying it's not a viable theory. Probably so, but it's not a proven fact. Or as scientists will have it: it's probable, likely even, but we can't prove it. There's no record, no picture of it, just conclusions based on clues.
NOTE: Astrology discussees, bare with me, you'll like the conclusion
No, and there never can be, but if you can measure something that occured 1.e-36 seconds after it happened, which has been done, measured and proven beyond any reasonable scientific doubt then that seems like evidence to me.
If you measure the current expansion rate of the universe, including the deceleration effect and then work that back to define when Event One was then that seems like evidence to me.
ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign.
With that said it must also be recognised that the universe is infinte and hereto beyond the understandiing of human beings. We are unable to realise, nor explain how the universe actually exists.
We (the human race) have gathered evidence to support our theories, they fit the theory and provide us with answers. Are they correct, who knows, but the point is that there is a mass of evidence, whether it correctly identifies the solution to the question id a completely different issue.
And this neatly brings me to my final point, to those who say the stars DO NOT influence their destiny I say prove it! We can't even explain out own universe, who is to say that we are not guided, or even controlled by those stars?
Who is to say that beyond those stars is not some greater purpose that controls our very beings? Some might call it God, some might call it fate, some might well call it simply Destiny. Whatever it is, it seems to me that if there are wonders out there that we can not explain, then we should not simply dispell any theory on the universe, out lives, indeed our very existence.
queeq, Dim, Raz and a few of the other older members may remember that we had a rather heated and emotional thread about Religion about a year back. I was trying to explain how I had no religion but still had what I called Faith. I think that last paragraph goes a long way to trying to explain what I meant back then.
I was just being scientific here. Besides, we were not talking about evidence. We were talking about the Big Bang being a proven fact. And as you just stated above, we don't know anything like that for sure. It's just a workable hypothesis that has not been denied. But it's also not a perfectly working fact, because if it was we could create lots of different universes. And since we can't recreate, we still don't know if and how. After al, we know only so little about the universe. And then the few clues or evidences that we have are supposed to answer the mysteries of the universe? Come on. In fields like this scientists CANNOT go beyond: it's possible, we can't prove it, but it is possible with what we know.
religion like in god made the universe;
and queeq, if it's proven that planets are "floating" away from eachother
T²/r³=?? (can't remember) ... This is WELL known among scientists and because they know the time-elapsing and/or the r from a planet (distance core-"outside")
so they know the planets are going away, so what caused this then?
It's a little thing that gives the big bang the extra point
No one, it was just an interesting aside, that linked to things I said in that thread last year, nothing more. Just thought I'd mention it.
Rubbish!!! YOU said there was no evidence, I have pointed out that there is plenty... Breaking down you comment that orginally started this line of the thread.
"Actually, the concept of a big bang is just a hypothesis,"
This was NEVER in dispute, at no point have I actually argued that you are incorrect with this statement.
"there's no evidence for that."
Clearly the topic WAS evidence of the big bang, for which I have provided a number of documented examples.
In Summary; What you said originally is in direct conflict with what you are saying now, your latest post is actually the complete reverse of what you said a couple of days ago. My stance has been constant.
There is a whole raft of evidence that leads to a conclusion, though it still does not allow the conclusion to be proven conclusively.... (Almost a contradiction, but not quite!)
Just accept that graciously and allow the topic of astrology to continue peacefully.
Last edited by Ratcat on Nov 24th, 2001 at 10:39 PM
KMC Community Forums
Nov 22nd, 2001 02:13 PM
hmmm
