|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
April 13th 04, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Nonsense leading to idotic notions
The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler
effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements' of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons... The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes... The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter... Nice going, Academia! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com 
|
|
#2
April 13th 04, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nonsense leading to idotic notions
Aladar wrote:
The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements' of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons... The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes... The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter... Nice going, Academia! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com Aladar, I thought (and hoped) you has taken my advice to retire to the countryside to paint flowers. General Relativity predicts that the universe will not be static... and the data does confirm that it is expanding from many many corners of astronomy and physics. Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html General Relativity Tutorial John Baez http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html Relativity on the World Wide Web http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html General Relativity and Cosmology FAQs http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ What is the evidence for the Big Bang? http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence The Big Bang http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node7.html
|
|
#3
April 28th 04, 01:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nonsense leading to idotic notions
Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
Aladar wrote: The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements' of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons... The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes... The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter... Nice going, Academia! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com Aladar, I thought (and hoped) you has taken my advice to retire to the countryside to paint flowers. General Relativity predicts that the universe will not be static... and the data does confirm that it is expanding from many many corners of astronomy and physics. Nonsense. General relativity provided field equations, utilizing Bojay Janos' curved space descriptions. It turned out to be a correct (close) description of the increased density collisions, caused by the numerous collisions inside a massive object, like a consequence of trajectory changes. There is no such idiotic predictions of "expansions"... or any non-static Universe... Also, you should know better: by not providing any of the alleged data from any corners of astronomy nor physics you just provided a proof of my point: The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... BS deleted with joy... Cheers! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com
|
|
#4
April 28th 04, 01:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nonsense leading to idotic notions
Aladar wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote in message ... Aladar wrote: The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements' of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons... The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes... The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter... Nice going, Academia! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com Aladar, I thought (and hoped) you has taken my advice to retire to the countryside to paint flowers. General Relativity predicts that the universe will not be static... and the data does confirm that it is expanding from many many corners of astronomy and physics. Nonsense. General relativity provided field equations, utilizing Bojay Janos' curved space descriptions. It turned out to be a correct (close) description of the increased density collisions, caused by the numerous collisions inside a massive object, like a consequence of trajectory changes. There is no such idiotic predictions of "expansions"... or any non-static Universe... Also, you should know better: by not providing any of the alleged data from any corners of astronomy nor physics you just provided a proof of my point: The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... BS deleted with joy... Cheers! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com What is the evidence for the Big Bang? http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence The Big Bang http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node7.html General Relativity Tutorial http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html Searched pages from www.aip.org for "big bang" evidence update http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bi...p.or g+update
|
|
#5
May 9th 04, 01:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nonsense leading to idotic notions
Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
Aladar wrote: Sam Wormley wrote in message ... Aladar wrote: The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... Indeed! The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements' of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons... And Higgs bozons... The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes... When a system of Neutron Stars - which has to form - works much better.. The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter... I did not even mention the "dark energy" idiotic notion... Nice going, Academia! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com Aladar, I thought (and hoped) you has taken my advice to retire to the countryside to paint flowers. General Relativity predicts that the universe will not be static... and the data does confirm that it is expanding from many many corners of astronomy and physics. Nonsense. General relativity provided field equations, utilizing Bojay Janos' curved space descriptions. It turned out to be a correct (close) description of the increased density collisions, caused by the numerous collisions inside a massive object, like a consequence of trajectory changes. There is no such idiotic predictions of "expansions"... or any non-static Universe... Also, you should know better: by not providing any of the alleged data from any corners of astronomy nor physics you just provided a proof of my point: The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... BS deleted with joy... Cheers! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com What is the evidence for the Big Bang? http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence No dear Sam, that is an evidence of the idiotic notion, only... The Big Bang http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node7.html Ditto... General Relativity Tutorial http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html It would be nice to talk really about GR, and not the idiotic notions... Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html "Two teams of astronomers have independently concluded that their observations of distant supernovas show that our universe is modeled locally be a Friedmann model with spacelike slices having const ant negative curvature." I would say - proves my point: it is an idiotic notion... Searched pages from www.aip.org for "big bang" evidence update http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bi...p.or g+update Anything else? I love your contributions! Cheers! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com
|
|
#6
May 9th 04, 02:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nonsense leading to idotic notions
Aladar wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote in message ... Aladar wrote: Sam Wormley wrote in message ... Aladar wrote: The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... Indeed! The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements' of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons... And Higgs bozons... The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes... When a system of Neutron Stars - which has to form - works much better.. The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter... I did not even mention the "dark energy" idiotic notion... Nice going, Academia! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com Aladar, I thought (and hoped) you has taken my advice to retire to the countryside to paint flowers. General Relativity predicts that the universe will not be static... and the data does confirm that it is expanding from many many corners of astronomy and physics. Nonsense. General relativity provided field equations, utilizing Bojay Janos' curved space descriptions. It turned out to be a correct (close) description of the increased density collisions, caused by the numerous collisions inside a massive object, like a consequence of trajectory changes. There is no such idiotic predictions of "expansions"... or any non-static Universe... Also, you should know better: by not providing any of the alleged data from any corners of astronomy nor physics you just provided a proof of my point: The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... BS deleted with joy... Cheers! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com What is the evidence for the Big Bang? http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence No dear Sam, that is an evidence of the idiotic notion, only... The Big Bang http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node7.html Ditto... General Relativity Tutorial http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html It would be nice to talk really about GR, and not the idiotic notions... Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html "Two teams of astronomers have independently concluded that their observations of distant supernovas show that our universe is modeled locally be a Friedmann model with spacelike slices having const ant negative curvature." I would say - proves my point: it is an idiotic notion... Searched pages from www.aip.org for "big bang" evidence update http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bi...p.or g+update Anything else? I love your contributions! Cheers! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com Eventually you come to accept my contributions an a much closer reflection of reality than your own. A toast to your health, Aladar! -Sam
|
|
#7
April 28th 04, 01:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nonsense leading to idotic notions
Aladar wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote in message ... Aladar wrote: The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements' of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons... The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes... The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter... Nice going, Academia! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com Aladar, I thought (and hoped) you has taken my advice to retire to the countryside to paint flowers. General Relativity predicts that the universe will not be static... and the data does confirm that it is expanding from many many corners of astronomy and physics. Nonsense. General relativity provided field equations, utilizing Bojay Janos' curved space descriptions. It turned out to be a correct (close) description of the increased density collisions, caused by the numerous collisions inside a massive object, like a consequence of trajectory changes. There is no such idiotic predictions of "expansions"... or any non-static Universe... Also, you should know better: by not providing any of the alleged data from any corners of astronomy nor physics you just provided a proof of my point: The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... BS deleted with joy... Cheers! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com What is the evidence for the Big Bang? http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence The Big Bang http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node7.html General Relativity Tutorial http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html Searched pages from www.aip.org for "big bang" evidence update http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bi...p.or g+update
|
|
#8
April 28th 04, 01:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nonsense leading to idotic notions
Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
Aladar wrote: The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements' of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons... The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes... The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter... Nice going, Academia! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com Aladar, I thought (and hoped) you has taken my advice to retire to the countryside to paint flowers. General Relativity predicts that the universe will not be static... and the data does confirm that it is expanding from many many corners of astronomy and physics. Nonsense. General relativity provided field equations, utilizing Bojay Janos' curved space descriptions. It turned out to be a correct (close) description of the increased density collisions, caused by the numerous collisions inside a massive object, like a consequence of trajectory changes. There is no such idiotic predictions of "expansions"... or any non-static Universe... Also, you should know better: by not providing any of the alleged data from any corners of astronomy nor physics you just provided a proof of my point: The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... BS deleted with joy... Cheers! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com
|
|
#9
April 13th 04, 04:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nonsense leading to idotic notions
Aladar wrote:
The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements' of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons... The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes... The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter... Nice going, Academia! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com We only "know" anything about the world on the basis of various assumptions. If our assumptions turn out to be wrong, our "knowledge" may turn out to be wrong too. Even worse, our favorite concepts may turn out to be meaningless, or meaningful only under some restrictions. So, when we talk about what happened, say, in the first microsecond after the Big Bang, we're not claiming absolute certainty. Instead, we're using various widely accepted assumptions about physics to guess what happened. Given these assumptions, the concept of "the first microsecond after the Big Bang" makes perfect sense. But if these assumptions are wrong, the whole question could dissolve into meaninglessness. That's just a risk we have to run. What are these assumptions, exactly? They include: 1. Einstein's GTR 2. the Standard Model of particle physics supplemented by 3. some form form are dark energy, in other words a nonzero cosmological constant, lambda, the same lambda that Albert Einstein inserted in his equation and later considered it to be his biggest blunder. If Einstein were alive today, he would have been thrilled to find that his cosmological constant appears to be a necessary ingredient in the way the universe works. And Einstein's "biggest blunder" has instantly become the greatest mystery in science. 4. some form of "cold dark matter", unseen matter whose gravitational effects are observed in the motions galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Assumptions 3 and 4 are the ones most people like to worry about, because our only evidence for them comes from cosmological observations, and if they're true, they probably require some sort of modification of the Standard Model. But if we don't make these assumptions, our model of cosmology just doesn't work... while if we *do*, it seems to work quite well as is shown with the WMAP data! What is the evidence for the Big Bang? http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence The Big Bang http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node7.html General Relativity Tutorial http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html Searched pages from www.aip.org for "big bang" evidence update http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bi...p.or g+update
|
|
#10
April 28th 04, 01:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nonsense leading to idotic notions
Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
Aladar wrote: The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe, and big bang... The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements' of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons... The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes... The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter... Nice going, Academia! Aladar http://stolmarphysics.com We only "know" anything about the world on the basis of various assumptions. If our assumptions turn out to be wrong, our "knowledge" may turn out to be wrong too. Even worse, our favorite concepts may turn out to be meaningless, or meaningful only under some restrictions. It would be nice to mention here Ockham's rasor... Contrary to the many misreresentations it really a good measure of what to accept as a valid starting point, assumption. If there is only one assumption, and not many "various" assumptions - it should be considered superior. Yes, I have only one single assumption: "I'm"... So, when we talk about what happened, say, in the first microsecond after the Big Bang, we're not claiming absolute certainty. You really should... At this point you are certainly an idiot... Instead, we're using various widely accepted assumptions about physics to guess what happened. Given these assumptions, the concept of "the first microsecond after the Big Bang" makes perfect sense. But if these assumptions are wrong, the whole question could dissolve into meaninglessness. That's just a risk we have to run. There is no more risk, it is a certainty: meaningless... What are these assumptions, exactly? They include: 1. Einstein's GTR Einstein never claim that... His GTR was, still is a good tool to describe the effect of masses on space and time, or the gravitational effects. Where is the assumption here? It is just a not so clever attempt of idiots to hide behind the accepted names... The assumption is that Einstein's GTR had something to do with big bang - actually a lie! 2. the Standard Model of particle physics Which is...??? Because it is easy to - again - hide behind big words, likle there is something solid knowledge, "Standard Model" of particle physics, when in fact there are only the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons... supplemented by 3. some form form are dark energy, in other words a nonzero cosmological constant, lambda, the same lambda that Albert Einstein inserted in his equation and later considered it to be his biggest blunder. If Einstein were alive today, he would have been thrilled to find that his cosmological constant appears to be a necessary ingredient in the way the universe works. And Einstein's "biggest blunder" has instantly become the greatest mystery in science. This must be something for kindergarten... 4. some form of "cold dark matter", unseen matter whose gravitational effects are observed in the motions galaxies and clusters of galaxies. See the GTR, which indeed explains the motions of stars in the galaxies, if properly accounted for... So another idiotic notion, just to supplement... Assumptions 3 and 4 are the ones most people like to worry about, because our only evidence for them comes from cosmological observations, and if they're true, they probably require some sort of modification of the Standard Model. So, first you, the idiots assume the validity of standard model, then some more assumptions, which makes the first assumption obviously invalid... Where were we? Do you really just want to stay idiot?! But if we don't make these assumptions, our model of cosmology just doesn't work... while if we *do*, it seems to work quite well as is shown with the WMAP data! The nice thing about WMAP - and more and more finer and finer observations - that they really fit to my predictions, as you may recall the FIRAS... BS deleted with joy... Try instead: http://stolmarphysics.com Cheers! Aladar
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Cavity behind the RCC leading edge | Zoltan Szakaly | Space Shuttle | 51 | November 7th 03 06:28 PM |
| Cavity behind the RCC leading edge | Ian Stirling | Technology | 0 | September 3rd 03 12:58 AM |
| Protecting the leading edge | Doug Whitehall | Space Shuttle | 4 | August 1st 03 01:29 PM |
Hybrid Mode
