Why Did The Universe Break Apart??

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
After the big bang the universe never collapse inward on itself, it kept
spreading out,but not in a smooth pattern Hmmmm It broke itself up
into huge chunks of mostly hydrogen gas. Logical thinking dictates one
big galaxy,and not a trillion galaxies separated by millions of light
years. This begs the question ( WHY? ) Bert PS My time lapse
theory gives the best answer so far


Or you could simply learn some physics. Suggest you look up something
called Jeans length - an object will grow from a density fluctuation
provided that the fluctuation extends over a distance taht exceeds the
Jeans length. This was discovered by James Jeans back in 1902 and is
consistent with the fluctuations seen in the background radiation a la
WMAP and COBE. No need for some (non)theory you think you have found
(of course we can get into the definition of theory from a science
standpoint but then that would simply prove how little you really know).

Scott you find fault with every thing I say. You do not know my latest
time lapse theory and you are already knocking it. I doubt very much if
you are a teacher. What school would want a person that has so little
respect for another person's original thinking. That guy Jeans did not
have accelerators,or Hubble space telescope back in 1902. Best you keep
that in mind. Oops I forgot you have no mind of your own. You are a
parrot. Reality is its the parrot brains that attack me personally,and
can only find fault with every one of my theories. Shame on you all
Reality is some of my theories have been discussed in schools in many
countries,and words like "fascinating",challenging" and have you
published have been used Go figure Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott you find fault with every thing I say. You do not know my latest
time lapse theory and you are already knocking it. I doubt very much if
you are a teacher. What school would want a person that has so little
respect for another person's original thinking. That guy Jeans did not
have accelerators,or Hubble space telescope back in 1902. Best you keep
that in mind. Oops I forgot you have no mind of your own. You are a
parrot. Reality is its the parrot brains that attack me personally,and
can only find fault with every one of my theories. Shame on you all
Reality is some of my theories have been discussed in schools in many
countries,and words like "fascinating",challenging" and have you
published have been used Go figure Bert


There you go again - reality smacks you in the face and you ignore it.
Talk about lack of an open mind. You have been given a resource. Go
look it up. If you can prove it wrong, then I might consider your
drivel (likely best used for lining a bird's cage but I digress...).

So, to repeat, again - you have no theories. You lack even cognizant
thoughts. You attack what you don't understand, which is typical of
lower life forms. You waste just about everyone's time correcting you
over and over and over again, and attack them when they point out your
shortcomings.

So, when you can clearly demonstrate the errors in the status quo,
please feel free to elaborate. Likely it will be a humorous effort,
demonstrating your lack of knowledge in this field. But go ahead and
knock yourself out.

Scott Reality is My theories come out of good science thinking. They
answer hard questions. they make people think.I have proven my
"Time lapse inertia theory" I have been emailed that my "spin is in
theory" is facinating. Your personal attacts only prove you are a low
life. A person not fit to be a teacher. A kind of teacher Einstein
warned us about. A kind of witless teacher who would throw away a paper
might have scribbled on it E=Mc^2 right into the trash can. Your
thinking can only parrot the thoughts of others,and if not for people
like me that can speculate,and bring new ideas to light we would still
be in the dark ages. People like me that think ahead of the times were
burned at the stake,and it was people like you that lite the flame
Your posts knocking my thinking every chance you get proves this Get
lost Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott Reality is My theories come out of good science thinking. They
answer hard questions. they make people think.I have proven my
"Time lapse inertia theory" I have been emailed that my "spin is in
theory" is facinating. Your personal attacts only prove you are a low
life. A person not fit to be a teacher. A kind of teacher Einstein
warned us about. A kind of witless teacher who would throw away a paper
might have scribbled on it E=Mc^2 right into the trash can. Your
thinking can only parrot the thoughts of others,and if not for people
like me that can speculate,and bring new ideas to light we would still
be in the dark ages. People like me that think ahead of the times were
burned at the stake,and it was people like you that lite the flame
Your posts knocking my thinking every chance you get proves this Get
lost Bert


Witless one - a good teacher points out the errors of his/her student.
To whit, you have not demonstrated a need in current physics based on
shortcomings in those theories. You simply are babbling in a void.
Until you can demonstate where current theories fail and how your ideas
fill those gaps, you are blowing in the wind.

So, getting back to the point at hand - clearly demonstrate the errors
in Jeans' analysis. Then demonstrate how your current ideas fill those
errors with new science that can be tested. Einstein did no less so
surely you are up to the task.

Scott You left out a good teacher will encourage a student to be curios.
Will encourage when he,or she recognizes a person that can present new
ideas. A good teacher teaches respect for this type of student. I am
such a free thinker,and your attacks on my posts are personal.(kill the
messenger) rather than discuss the science being conveyed. You are
a parrot,and your thinking will not respect the thinking of others. As I
posted Einstein had low fifes like you that he had to deal with as a
youth. He did not let them stop him. He got a Nobel. I will post my
original thoughts no matter what you say. I'm told that some of my
theories are very interesting,and are being discussed in many
universities throughout the world,such as Belgium,Canada ,Russia and
many other countries. I like that In our county MIT finds me
interesting Have not heard from Harvard Go figure
Bert

Scott Miller wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
After the big bang the universe never collapse inward on itself, it kept
spreading out,but not in a smooth pattern Hmmmm It broke itself up
into huge chunks of mostly hydrogen gas. Logical thinking dictates one
big galaxy,and not a trillion galaxies separated by millions of light
years. This begs the question ( WHY? ) Bert PS My time lapse
theory gives the best answer so far


Or you could simply learn some physics. Suggest you look up something
called Jeans length - an object will grow from a density fluctuation
provided that the fluctuation extends over a distance taht exceeds the
Jeans length. This was discovered by James Jeans back in 1902 and is
consistent with the fluctuations seen in the background radiation a la
WMAP and COBE. No need for some (non)theory you think you have found
(of course we can get into the definition of theory from a science
standpoint but then that would simply prove how little you really know).


I read a book by Sir James Jeans in my adolescence, "The Growth of
Physical Science". He was a good writer as well as a scientist.

Double-A