I usually put lavender in the water and sleep like a baby. I have had many humidifiers, costing much more than this little machine … and none of them worked as well. My nose was irritated. I had to use moisturizing drops in my eyes every few hours. My lips were chapped. I needed to put lotion on my hands while at work. Plus with it being small, it only does my area, so no complaints again from anybody else. And now for some micro-picks for every type of humidifier you might be looking for. Makes it easy for even the kids to know when to fill them. Very quiet.
There is a tiny gurgle every now and then as air bubbles rise, but that is a negligible sound. This humidifier impressed reviewers with its ability to truly cover the entire house. This claims to cover over 3,square-feet and it does! I have an open, vaulted ceiling open floor plan. I placed this in the kitchen central to the main living areas not including the upstairs and it easily covers the 2,square-feet of main living area to include a master suite that sits right off the great room with little effort.
I love it … it has more features than the little one. It has different color lights, blue, red or green. The little has only blue. The light switch and mist switch are separate. But it makes me settled [that] it is auto-off when the tank is waterless!!! My nose has been so dry to the point that it was hurting to blow my nose. This product has two nozzles that can be aimed in different directions for more even coverage, and reviewers often cite the utility of the dial-knob to control how strong they want the vapor.
It puts out more mist than Snoop Dogg puts out smoke in the green room. So if the air went straight up it would get our ceiling damp. We now use it nightly for our dry air bedroom and it works very well. One nozzle is pointed toward my husband and the other nozzle towards my way. Usually I adjust it based on the amount of space you are trying to make humid.
You have made other comments that show you need to try and have more of an open mind. You commented on another article, "If, in an ideal environment earth , life only began once in 4. It is basic Science philosophy that extrapolation can act as a guide to discovery, new physics, etc. Extrapolating our Laws of Physics into the far past and to energy densities far from what we know doesn't make such fiction valuable.
I have a noticed a couple of 'red flag' comments - indicating a abundance of noise without any light. I suggest if you hear any of that in a thread, you ignore the comment entirely, its almost certainly rubbish. If it can't, even in principle, be measured, then it ain't physics. If you think you can visualize a 10 or 26 dimensional universe or an infinite dimensional quantum universe I welcome you to try! The theist argue that everything comes from something, therefore there -must- be a God, which gives rise to the question, "who made God? The whole question is a response to the inherent contradiction in the definition of God as the necessary first cause.
If you contend that something doesn't need to be caused by anything to exist, you actually destroy the theist argument; God as a creator, or creation itself as a single event, is no longer necessary for things to exist. Unless you explain why God would be the only thing that can exist without a cause, everything can exist without God. Returners: Not sure how you come to that conclusion Most of us on phys. Not sure how the use of math and modeling makes a case for the existence of a God.
And as far as the lack of "hearing" anything from another world that deniers claim A parallel earth could be down the street just light years away and we wouldn't hear it yet. Now think about a parallel earth orbiting a star that is ,, light years away still fairly close Something tells me dinosaurs weren't broadcasting RF. This comment has been removed by a moderator. Quantum patch. Are we finally witnessing the death throes of the Huge Bang Fantasy?? LaViolette is way ahead with his etheric fluid model, where space is composed of a multitude of undetectable sub-quantum particles which, under proper diffusive conditions, ignite into a self-sustaining, propagating, transformation reaction that we label a sub-atomic particle.
Like sound wave propagation in air, photon reaction propagation is limited by the ultimate transformation reaction speed set by characteristics of the local diffusive medium. And since disturbances of the transforming medium extend well in advance of and into the surrounding medium from the moving photon reaction, the double-slit experiment is easily explained. Sigh yet another who can not understand that atheism does not require an explanation of how it all began or a requirement to prove that God does not exist. The burden of proof for the existence of God lays completely on the shoulders of the theist.
If I am to play a game where the eternal disposition of my "soul" is at stake I will get the rules of the game directly from the game master, not some middleman with his or her own agenda. Until that day comes I will live my life the way I choose to and my choices do not require me to convince you that I am right about what I believe.
I've yet to understand how space can expand relativistically, if the speed of light doesn't increase to match. Of course, if it did, there would be no doppler effect to explain redshift, since redshift requires the light to take longer to reach the receiver and thus be redshifted. When I point this out, the usual response is "the light is just being carried along by the expansion.
So there is supposed to be expanding space, based on the redshift of intergalactic light and we know this because we can compare it to stable units of measure, based on the speed of the exact same light??? Of course, every time observations refute this theory, some enormous new force of nature is proposed and accepted. We accept gravity is "equivalent" to acceleration, but the surface of the planet isn't rushing out to keep us stuck to it. Couldn't there be some optical effect, "equivalent" to recession, causing redshift. As an optical effect, the reason we appear at the center would be quite logical.
If it compounded on itself, it would explain why this expansion curves parabolically and so no need for dark energy. Also the CMBR would simply be light from ever more distant sources, shifted completely off the visible spectrum and so be the solution to Olber's paradox. Or we can stick to inflation, dark energy and multiverses.
I can only wonder if another generation of cosmologists will chase after that goose, or will they wise up and push the reset button. Suggesting space is composed of theoretical particles is 11 steps backwards. This theory is seeking to replace one current theory of the universe.
If, as mentioned in the article, it fits with current observations and gets rid of the uncomfortable truth that the entire theory breaks down at the beginning with the big bang, it is truly a step forward. The current model of the universe fits well with some observations, as did Newtonian Physics, but just like Newton, there were many areas Einstein did not understand or have the ability to observe. Its only a matter of time before a new theory supersedes it. The drawing is probably incorrect.
In all likelihood, the explosion and expansion would be isotropic and thus should be represented by an expanding sphere. The problem with the Big Bang is that it begs the question "What was there before it? Personally, I favor a cyclic universe which undergoes periodic expansions, followed by contractions, followed by a singularity state Big Bang , and then repeats ad infinitum.
It is difficult to prove this as there is no "memory" across a Big Bang event. I believe Hawking postulated something like this in one of his earlier works. The Big Bang and subsequent collapse have strong implications for anyone who believes that consciousness preceded substance. Not talking God, just consciousness. Admit it: you believe in consciousness!
Allow Your Light to Fill the Darkness: A Primer to Living the Light Within Us According to the Tao: Daniel Frank: lirodisa.tk: Books. Allow Your Light to Fill the Darkness: A Primer to Living the Light Within Us According to the Tao eBook: Daniel Frank: lirodisa.tk: Kindle Store.
If indeed spirit evolves through multiple incarnations in the apparent physical universe, then if the universe finally collapses, all the spiritual advances of billions of lifetimes get wiped out. As child Alvy says in Annie Hall, if the universe is doomed "What's the point? Again, if consciousness preceded substance, then the Big Bang start point is a problem, because consciousness is eternal.
No big bang, no problem. I like this new theory and am rooting for it. Indeed, in the s and s he made contact with both J. Krishnamurti and the Dalai Lama whose teachings helped shape his work" -I suspect religious philo voodoo mysticism. Not talking God, just consciousness Consciousness is the favored substitute du jour for the soul. It is as fantastical as is god. Um, if the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't all the hydrogen been burned?
Well, isn't it the same thing which ancient texts of hinduism says en. When things get too dense and the calculations begin to fall apart I don't think you just throw up your hands and say "Well, the universe existed forever" and go home for the day. That's just not a solution worth accepting.
This is absolutely fascinating! I have always been a fan of the multiverse theory. The equation will have to predict CMB though, let's just wait and see. TheGhostOfOtto: when you say consciousness is a myth are you saying you are not conscious?? Is it completely wiped out? Do we all start again as amoebas or less? Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet. It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing. Dark energy is dark matter continuously emitted into the Universal jet. In all likelihood, you are right.
However, this picture allows one to label epochs and not have other quadrants of the sphere confusing the visualization and type. It's simplified. Big Bang for dummies Or maybe you dont. And if you think they arent then you dont know what you are talking about. Dennett's main argument is that the various properties attributed to qualia by philosophers—qualia are supposed to be incorrigible, ineffable, private, directly accessible and so on—are incompatible, so the notion of qualia is incoherent.
The non-existence of qualia would mean that there is no hard problem of consciousness, and "philosophical zombies", which are supposed to act like a human in every way while somehow lacking qualia, cannot exist. Mass and energy lasts forever, although they can convert. As they exist today, they always did in one way or another.
Saying that the universe is so and so old is like pulling a rabbit from a hat If the universe has no beginning, and the time it has existed is infinite, then, Shouldn't we already have reach a state of thermal equilibrium second law of thermodynamics? Or am I wrong? I don't know how many have followed my complaints about the Big Bang Theory or how corrections to make the trajectories of the physically visible universe work through dark matter and energy are philosophically counter-intuitive even if mathematically effective.
While the illustration is trying to use 2 dimensions to illustrate a 4 dimensional problem I still have a problem with that "expansion" period and am more of the mind that the "change of state" from a prior universe is probably more closely on track. While a lot of energy had to be injected into the universe for the immense distances and speeds to be obtained it does not therefore infer that it was injected at a point. Perhaps the theory of black holes representing a hole into another universe is correct and that the energy in this is coming from a "lower division universe" into ours via many many "black holes" of theirs.
So do we look for the energy sieves? Tell us more about it The certainty of the universe having a beginning that involves a big bang may be in doubt, but the certainty that is argument will have no end, is certain. Before jumping on the bandwagon, it would be helpful to remember this is a pure guess.
The math is simply window dressing to the pure guess. Was wondering how long before ol' "movementis OK but who said gravity can work in hyper-dimensions? Oh its an assumption Well I will stick with observation and observation clearly indicates that gravity is a gauge phenomena, not a quantum phenomena. Sorry but my previous post was for a different article, for some reason it ended up here, but the article I wanted to post is actually closed to posting now. Not sure how this is measurable. Also, it suggests we live in a potential universe Which makes no sense.
This goes well with my theory that OUR universe is just other side of event horizon of black hole. Thus multi-bang multi-verse. And other theory that dark matters are universe in different dimension where we are only connected by gravity. Always fascinated by the big bang, very small and hot and having everything in it needed to make the universe, how does that happen? What is before that and where is that from? Think about it, it is mind boggling that there is no beginning and no end. For the big bang, at least we have sort of a beginning.
As usual this is extremely interesting yet even in a fairly low tech article I get lost in the jargon and concepts so I have to approach it from an intuitive or philosophical level. But what comes to mind is aside from the mathematical calculations, much of what we understand seems to come from ever more sensitive technical devices.
I hope and wonder if mankind can exist long enough to understand and produce such inventions to point us in a definitive direction of the "theory of everything. A university press release on fringe science that shouldn't have been posted without critical review. Two problems stand out: 1. The problem with Bohm theory is that it isn't relativistic. This is also problematic: "the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity,". That has never been true, since it necessitates extrapolating GR into the Planck regime where it breaks down.
The big Bang is the beginning of the human race universe , what is beyond that i think our physics cant answer that question for now unless we understand what is dark matter. I've never understood sciences need to believe in systems that are least flawed. Just because we can our current understanding of the universe to measure it doesn't makes those measurements correct. It's obvious the big bang theory is flawed because is doesn't explain time before the singularity. I like your approach: "The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity.
I hope you continue to develop this newish theory. I'm not bent to dark matter. Not sure your result that the Universe does not have an age. That gives me doubt. But doubt and proof resolving this is the foundation of physics and all science.
I really like what you are doing. Zog the Great. So where does this leave Sheldon and Leonard et al? Sir Fred Hoyle knows. As WG said, fun to watch! Very many nuts of woo as expected, even creationist antiscience trolls which should stick to their magic sites of voodoo. Or is it woo doo - they do fancy magic agencies making life out of clay!? But also some lucid and even contextual points for once: MP3Car: "You commented on another article, "If, in an ideal environment earth , life only began once in 4.
Darwin responded to that question nearly 2 centuries ago: life can only start once or not, or a few times , because later attempts will be food for existing life. Everyone interested in astrobiology should know this. This is science fiction and not science. More evidence points to the Big Bang Theory than away from it. This includes the Biblical account of Creation which all these atheist wackos are really trying to undermine with all their malarkey about dark energy, dark matter, gravitons, the Higgs Boson and all the other modern day physics non-sense.
Hey, hey, hey there In the BB it all came into existence in a flash of an explosion the same as Creation. Physicists expect everything to be quantum physics at its basis. Gravitons is what you get out of gravity when you quantize it same as every other field. However, those gravitons only show that GR is compatible with QP, not that the theory is complete.
Neros Fiddle. Existence itself is infinite. It must be. The Big Bang is a remarkable point in time but pondering why anything exists at and HOW everything exists is truly and ultimately inexplicable. Wheeew: "If the universe has no beginning, and the time it has existed is infinite, then, Shouldn't we already have reach a state of thermal equilibrium second law of thermodynamics? What happens is that the universe comes out of a cold, rapid expanding state inflation , whereupon the inflation field potential energy gets converted to heat Hot Big Bang.
Inflation may or may not be eternal backwards, we can't tell yet, but since the inflationary multiverse the most likely configuration has always been expanding it has no equilibrium to attain. Exactly correct, something came out of nothing and impacted with something which created the big bang.
Be it internally or externally is unknown, however since we can assume it was of a bigger whole before it expanded, we can assume it had eternity to prepare for it. That is a good enough solution, since physics makes sense but its absence does not, you can't for example make a distribution on anything else than events. Maybe you should start study physics? It usually helps to understand the issues before asking questions or commenting on known science.
One gets the distinct impression that no one has a clue. Cosmology seems a horrible was of time. Even if we arrived at the correct account what went down- what would we do with it? Sit there and stare at it like a nice painting a wall?
Published by Philosophical Library. Plant Productivity and Environment. An Awakened Understanding. The Arabidopsis aba mutant reveals a specific function for neoxanthin in protection against photooxidative stress. The Undying Lamp of Zen. These illnesses have been compared to the sicknesses that affect the natural body, which
This Ira-bot idiot hasn't yet realized that in his own case that same sentence could be truncated to read Usually you just make up something that sounds like a person with a mental condition So where does that leave this Ira Moron? Yep, you guessed it, folks Poor useless Internet Moron Uncle-bot. Bewitching subject I'm probably the least qualified here to give an opinion Other time one gets a whiff of BS I keep on coming back This is the most important of all subjects I wonder if their model can be applied to the singularity inside black holes.
I would imagine, for consistency, that black holes would also lose their singularity, which might allow the inside of them to be modeled and evolved through time. Night Rider. The only trouble with an eternal universe is sooner or later it'll run out of fuel Hey, hey there So if ya don't buy into the big bang - why buy into the creation theory? Readers here need to know the purpose this article was written, to put the scientific community on notice that they need to begin weaning themselves off BB because it is so close to Creation.
There is a small horde of astrophysicists who are just beginning to sound the alarm bells that the James Webb telescope with its infrared spectrometry, will in just a few years hence take a mask off a universe heretofore unimagined. Cosmology will go through a rebirth when the JWT takes pictures of galaxies on the other side of that Primordial gas. It is mind boggling, to say the least! Enough to make you mental! I think the "big bang" did happen and is responsible for life on this planet, and changes that took place on other planets within this solar system and was with the explosion of a planet, in it.
Mace Kelly. Works for me perfectly as it just makes sense to me, and is consistent with Buddhist cosmology and insights. I am that I am, therefore so was the universe, if you believe in a God or whatever the Supreme Being is, then the universe had no beginning, it always was! Very difficult for the human mind to comprehend this because we can't conceive of a "no beginning". If you were a Supreme being explaining to your creations how they were made children always ask where babies come from , and intellectually the Supreme was as far separated from his creations as we are from lab mice, how would YOU explain the Universe's beginning..
Let there be light, separating the heavens from the firmament etc makes a lot more sense as a way we would explain it to first graders doesn't it? Its a massive oversimplification of an unfathomable answer. We didnt see it start, we won't see it end, and we have already missed a lot of the best parts. Math and physics continue to refine by degrees how close we are to a "True" answer. The real truth is realizing that the rabbit hole really does not have a bottom, only levels, and a door that goes down -when you find the key.
But the truth is, the evidence against Big Bang existed from its very beginning - even his co-author Edwin Hubble was aware of it. Cosmologists have for years been trying to figure out how to beat back the methodology of Creationists adopting many of the principle tenets of BB. They see their opportunity with the JWT, that it will discover that the vaunted Primordial Gas Cloud is not what they have assumed it to be, the edge of the universe. I don't know if anyone has mentioned it but: what about the loss of energy over time?
Since we can visibly see objects losing heat energy faster than it can be gained, wouldn't that still mean that at some point a massive amount of energy had to be inserted into the universe? I know people love looking into the past for the answers about our now, but in this case I think pondering about the future would be more helpful.
What happens after all the energy in the universe is back at 0? Does this paper even comment on entropy at all? It is truly miraculous how God used only a finite amount of time to create a past infinite universe. So this model is compatible with our interpretation of red shift SR's reciprocal time dilation makes it unnecessary to correct red shift for any time dilation effects. It will not be compatible with our interpretation of red shift if we use directional time dilation from Lorentz's Absolute Transformation.
In that case all of our cosmological measurements will require significant corrections.
I think it's about time we nailed down whether reciprocal time dilation is in fact operant over cosmological distances. Or any distances, for that matter. Thus far experiments demonstrate that time dilation is real; but except for GPS, they don't tease out the difference between reciprocal time dilation and directional time dilation. And for GPS, directional time dilation is the only solution that yields accurate geopositions. Matter keeps on transforming and trans-mutating from "one form" to another.
It never did occur to me that there was a beginning to our universe. It seemed obvious that after a certain amount of time less then billion years that gravity would pull together enough mass to create a big bang, probably happening many times. I said less then billion years because protons can only last that long.
I have not done the math for what happens to properties without the 'drag' factor. Glad to see the demise of Big Bang an irrational hypothetical construct without scientific rationale since the mass at this event would have to be infinitely large to account for the cosmic debris, aka galaxies and who would push the button?
Far more rational is relying on supernatural explanations such as formation from void or nothingness at infinity past, not natural scientific explanations that fail to explain humanly unknowable pre Bang events. God created things in such a way that only those who truly seek him WILL find him, so we can believe whatever we want to believe - it's called free will.
But a being that lives outside of our reality, who creates our reality, seems more feasible to me than matter creating itself from nothing. There has to be some intelligence there to "think" it into existence.
Matter has no intellect - it simply is. When something IS created, it's done in a lab, by intelligent beings - US. And even then, it's only a rearranging of atoms that already existed in another form. I'm always bothered by things like this. Since time began with the Big Bang, the concept of 'before the Big Bang' is nonsense. There was no 'before'; you can't have a series without time.
Therefore, you can only have events happening post-bang. It's about at this point that my head explodes from trying to wrap my brain around the article. Science needs another English tense. I've been saying this for years. I have the rest figured out too, just waiting for everyone to catch up to me. Well, if the universe has no beginning, the attempts by scientists working to prove this have no end.
Fair's fair, I guess. IF "with big IF" this theory happens to be true with no beginning and end of universe. The backwards extrapolation to a singularity using relativity dates back to the original Big Bang notion, which has long since been replaced by the much improved idea of cosmic inflation. Einstein's equations work well for the present, future and the past, but only back to the point where extreme conditions cannot be explained by relativity, and thus require quantum interpretation. The possible complexity of the quantum concept of inflation also includes the premise of a multiverse, and the probability of infinite extensions into both past and future.
Current cosmological discussions don't even mention a singularity. Proves it's real to me Just means it's always been there, tickin' away Always WAS something Everything IN the universe was created by it, not something outside of it Human's will believe almost anything to not believe that we are being simulated Phil DePayne. Big Bang cosmology is incomplete. General relativity is an approximation of space and time -- singularities described by GR should not be part of a valid model of the universe.
Believe what you will, quantum gravity or an act of God, but the BB model as it exists must be wrong. BTW, the world isn't flat and the earth revolves around the sun too. Wake up. No Big Bang. Phil our posts have crossed in etherland- wasn't 4 u. Never mind i just saw the gunnqu post At the risk of being very basic I am human! I suspect that most other posters here are too.
So we look around us and everything we see begins, grows then dies. When 2 items crash into each other something else begins. We see change all around us and that's where the problem is. We infer that everything has a beginning and an end or at least changes to something else. Even at the Q level we collide 'particles' to produce other states. That, of course, doesn't make it right.
I view the BB as state that produced by another immediate prior state which had probable result states so that in a strange way both types theory can be correct which is not that different to what Losik posted about BB not completely wrong Perhaps a complex form of Markov Chain? Too simplistic I guess! Feb 10, Always has been, in some form or another.
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town Waiting for someone or something to show you the way. The whole question is a response to the inherent contradiction in theist argument" Asking the question "who made God" actually seems to miss the theist argument from first cause. Theists in this are arguing that everything within the universe seems to follow this pattern of causes where nothing arises from nothing.
So there would seem to be something outside of the universe, and so outside the laws of the universe, that could act on it as a first cause. A thing outside the universe and its laws that can act on it are attributes of what people have always called God. To move from this to a Christian god is something else, but that isn't what this argument was designed to do. So, the question "then who made god" seems to miss the point that it is claiming something has to exist outside the laws that govern the universe - like the law maker. Wow, so many crackpot arugments here.
But I just want to understand what on earth is being proposed here. Are they saying that there was just no singularity or are they saying the whole picture of the Universe expanding from hot, dense matter is wrong as if it expanded from a very hot, dense state, that is still a lot like a "Big Bang" even if there is no singularity? Interesting theory. He argued that the universe as a whole was ungenerated as well as indestructible. I'm saying that for last 20 years Anybody remember Calabi Yau Manifold? ReGo Now, take that and imagine it with even just a thousand more variable strings.
What do you get? An approximation of how our Universe might look from the outside And as far as the "something from nothing" dogmatics - why not "nothing from something"? It's what we all seem to be chasing The " While "something" has existence, "nothing" does not. So in effect if "nothing" existed it would have no time and no duration - it would be over in less than an instant.
The "existence of nothing" is a contradition in terms - and by extension "existence" is a tautology. Nothing is like "zero" - it's an abstract. Whereas "something" is not an abstract. So linking these two causally makes very little sense to me In effect this means that there is no alternative state to "something" existing what the "something" manifests as is an entirely different problem.
No beginning and no end, back to the steady state model, but then how to explain the light from most everything in the universe being red shifted? They've revived the aether theory again without telling us?
Looks like new ways of retelling some of the oldest theories of the universe. Quite funny comapring to 13th century St. Thomas Acquinas on the beginning of the Universe. He also considered that a better theory could replace the noble of "Saint"Ptolomeus system with the Earth as the centre ; 20th cent. It seems "scientists" are at playground now.
In other words, you can't fill a room with nothing. And please mop up any vacuum leaks you find on the laboratory floor. Lunchtime doubly so. This is a good question. The probability that this theory,whether true or false, is relevant to humanity's evolution is vanishingly small. Vacuum leaks are a choking hazard. Read this and don't choke while laughing. I don't know if it's true, but it sounds like it might be. If it goes through 'bang-crunch'-cycles then during the crunch stuff gets compressed into quark gluon plasma or even further down if there is a 'further down' How old is the universe?
Age is an expression of time. The universe expands. Is time a result of such expansion, or an intrinsic part of what being a being in the universe entails? First define the idea of the word "time" beyond a mere measurement of duration. Treat "time" as a dimension and plot events in 4-d. This is the only sensible way to think about things over such huge distances and times. I mean, what with all the gravity wells Black holes, neutron stars, supernovas, etc. Of all the thousands of gods worshiped over the centuries by many different cultures across the globe, which god exactly is it you are referring to?
So there isn't really any anomaly left to claim, and the blueshift you describe from the Pioneer maser is fully explained without resort to new physics. Does this falsify your idea, or just put it back into the category of "we'll see"? There is another theory which states that this has already happened. I appreciate the work involved in coming to the conclusion the universe had no beginning. However, Christians already knew this.
We just did not know how to mathematically figure it out. It may take an infinite amount of time to decide whether the universe has been around forever or not. Statistically speaking this theory needs to jump through some major hoops. If the universe had no beginning it has no end. The odds of us being on the time line where we would see signs of either end to the universe are infinitely small.
We see light from over 10 billion years ago and the universe looks different. We are not in a universe that has existed infinitely long or will exist infinitely long. The odds are infinitely huge that if we were in an infinite universe we would be near the middle of the time line and infinitely far from either the past or the future. There are no points or infinities, and nothing is continuous in Physics, these are concepts in Math.