Loop Gravity and the Bouncing Universe

You're a nice man ( or Lady ) Painius,
but you have many mis-understandings about λ-CDM.

Science ends at the horizon, 45 giga light years away,
but, surely, nature does not.
Actually, for many of us, science ends at the navel.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Oct 23, 9:21 pm, "Painius" wrote:
wrote,
reposting "oldcoot":

The sitting paradigm maintains that there is 'no medium', that space
is functionally, for all practical purposes, 'no-thing', a void.

As usual, you are misinformed. The two prevailing motifs of physics
are general relativity and quantum field theory, and in neither of
these is the vacuum "no thing". In both of them, the vacuum plays a
very active role in events.

This is a frequent ploy by the 'no medium' crowd to indicate they
don't 'really' hold space to be pure void but rather that it is
"something" however tenuous and tentative that "something" may be.
They'll trot out "quintessence", 'quantum foam' (a foam of 'What'?),
string theory (strings of 'What'?), 'virtual particles' popping into
and out of existance (into and out of 'What'?), '4-D fields',
geometry, metrics, "space-time" and its 'curvature', and so on.. to
show they acknowledge space is "something" rather than 'no-thing'.
But present them with the proposition that space is
not only "something" but that it profoundly _demonstrates itself_ with
an abundance of prima facie evidence, to be the Primary Reality of the
universe with a dusting of Matter as a secondary, low grade effect,
and they'll flip out as this guy has done.

"Out" seems to be the operative word. Who *was*
that masked man? g And *where* was Tonto?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "It does not matter how slowly you go so
long as you do not stop."
Confucius

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

Try that last Kookle (?) Entry link again, Paine. Looks like it's
gone.

Saul Levy


On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:35:25 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Oct 23, 9:21 pm, "Painius" wrote:

Welcome back, Mother Goose!

I was just gonna say, this "shay" character sure sounds like
puddleduck reincarnated 'cep for the tourettes-like "BWAHAHA......"
outbursts. Could be the goose too. :-)

Puddles actually was the first to jump to mind for me,
too. But then i thought, what the hay, it's probably
another honkensock of our favorite buddy, Dart Echo.

He's been good about not xposting this time, so far.
As for the guffaws, give 'im time. True colors always
bleed through eventually.

Remember Mother's favorite astronomy FAQ?...

http://www.screedbomb.info/alt.astronomy/

...and check out that very last link on the page, the
"Kookle Entry". Appears that netcabal.com's for sale.
(Oh! and exercise some care because my spyware
alarms went off when i clicked on that Kookle Entry
link.)

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

Wow, you ARE a WACKO, BEERTbrain! lmao!

Shining a light through your head goes MUCH SLOWER! Lots of DENSE
ROCKS in there!

REFRACT, you BUM!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:00:17 -0400, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Painius My Spin is in theory has to have photons always moving at
186,242 mps Not just that speed between the stars. Saying that light
goes through glass slower is just plain crazy. I hate bring this up all
the time,but Spin is in is one of my 5 best theories. Oh ya Photons do
not bounce. TreBert Ps Do not throw refraction at me ether

How many experiments have you actually done in a lab, BEERTbrain?
lmao!

Ummm, that's what I thought! VERY FEW.

Saul Levy


On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:15:08 -0400, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Painius Right you are Stopping (at rest creates a time laps) I have an
experiment that proves this. Space energy creates inertia. Its the
energy of space that makes objects immersed in it round. Reason for this
good thinking is inertia and gravity are two sides to the same coin.
Best to always keep in mind matter weights more in motion,and
accelerated motion creates weight,and gravity creates weight. That an
electron going at 99.999999999 of c weighs 70,000 times its rest mass.
All this fits Fact is Darla space ship uses very heavy electrons to
reach great speeds. Using very heavy positrons and electrons is the wave
of future space ship propulsion. TreBert

On Oct 23, 1:03*pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Oct 23, 10:29*am, wrote:

the entire "quote" is bogus. Einstein never wrote or uttered those words.
If indeed that is the case...

If? *Do you dispute that your "quote" is bogus? *If so, please provide
a reference. *Is the quote supposed to have been written or spoken?
If written, the "gentlemen" is clearly bogus, but if spoken, the
parenthetical at the end is clearly bogus. Can't you just agree that
it's a bogus quote?

Hokay big guy. Apparently you are correct. I must plead guilty to
having picked up the quote and used it without first researching its
authenticity. Guily as charged.


Apparently the quote comes from one of Ernest Wittke's (aka H. E.
Retic of "The Einstein Hoax") essays, "The Error in Relativistic
Physics", which he has been so kind as to just repost in
alt.sci.physics.new-theories. He gives no citation for the source. I
also checked his online text for "The Einstein Hoax" but could not
find the quote. Without a source citation, he is a dubious source.

Double-A

Are you sure that science doesn't end on BradBoi's computer, Jeff?
lmao!

Saul Levy


On 24 Oct 2008 17:17:49 GMT, Jeff?Relf
wrote:

You're a nice man ( or Lady ) Painius,
but you have many mis-understandings about ?-CDM.

Science ends at the horizon, 45 giga light years away,
but, surely, nature does not.
Actually, for many of us, science ends at the navel.

On Oct 23, 11:58*pm, "Painius" wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message...

...





On Oct 23, 11:16 am, "Painius" wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
....
On Oct 22, 3:28 am, "Painius" wrote:
"Painius" wrote in message...
news "Double-A" wrote in message...
...

If space is itself expanding, then you would expect the CMBR rest
frame near distant galaxies to be moving away from us. But if only
matter is expanding out into space, then maybe not.

According to my impediment of imagination, AA, if
"space" is expanding, if it is truly expanding, then
we would be unable to sense it. If we could make
out a 12" ruler that happened to be 13 light years
away, what do you think it would look like?

I meant to say -- If we could make out a 12" ruler
that happened to be 13 *billion* light years away,
what do you think it would look like?

I think it would look like a 12" ruler. The thing is that if space
itself is expanding, then a 13 billion light year ruler might
eventually look like a 14 billion light year ruler. It would be
getting bigger along with space.

Okay, now how would we sense this increase in size?
If the divisions of the ruler are still seen in the usual
separations, how would we sense that the ruler had
gotten bigger?

Perhaps my examle wasn't so good. *There is a question of whether
material objects would expand along with space, and the usual answer I
have heard is no. *So giant material ruler might not expand. *But
according to the theory which is now prevalent, if you have a ruler
consisting of a series of galaxies marking of the gradiations for 13
billion lightyears, then after waiting a length of time for expansion,
you could lay you 12" rulers end to end along the way and measure that
the lengths of the gradiations have increased to more than q billion
lightyears each, and the total length is now over 13 billion light
years.

Double-A

As i "see" it, either way from the point-of-view we
have on or near the Earth, there would be no way
for us to actually see the increase you describe.
This is why i maintain that if the Universe were
expanding, there would be no way to sense that it
is expanding.



The red shift of distant galaxies is the only evidence we have. And
that doesn't really prove that space is espanding.


I have a lot of trouble with Friedmann's equations
and the conclusion drawn by Lemaître. *Here was
a thoroughly devout Roman Catholic priest, one
Georges Lemaître, who was also a physicist. *Can
you picture it? *He probably thought a lot about
those equations, perhaps even prayed about them.

And in a moment of insight, Lemaître concluded
that those equations depicted an expansion of the
Universe! In another particularly insightful moment
he performed a thought experiment, reversing time
and in his mind's eye watching as the Universe
contracted. *Everything came closer and closer to
each other until at some point in time, things could
get no closer.

All things were compacted into a microscopic point,
and surrounded by what? *Hmm, let's see now, all
the matter and energy has compacted into a... oh!
space too! and time! It's all shrunk into a point, a
single point the size of an atom! *I can call it a
"primeval atom" -- no, "THE primeval atom"! *Yes!
That's it! *The Universe, the entire Universe, and to
include both space and time, as well as matter and
energy, was at some time, long, long ago, just a
single-point "primeval atom"! *And this one, single
primeval atom _all of a sudden_ began to expand
violently into the Universe we observe today!

eeeeYeah!

There really has to be another, better, rendition of
cosmological, physical reality than that of a devout
Roman Catholic priest/physicist. *How could the
scientists of that day even entertain such drivel? 'N
how and why do the scientists of today *continue*
to believe this absolute, unconscionable nonsense?

happy days and...
* *starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth


Don't you suppose that Lemaître as a priest had a bias to find a
theory that fit closest to the Genesis creation account? Everything
started at once from a set time

I think Fred Hoyle's Stedy State Theory deserves a second and third
look. It recognizes that the universe is expanding, but says that
things are replenished by matter materializing out of the energy of
space. I guess the inability to find any evidence of this dampened
support for the theory.

Double-A

On Oct 24, 11:49*am, Double-A wrote:

I think Fred Hoyle's Steady State Theory deserves a second and third
look. *It recognizes that the universe is expanding, but says that
things are replenished by matter materializing out of the energy of
space. *I guess the inability to find any evidence of this dampened
support for the theory.

The beauty of the CBB model, though not backed by empirical proof, is
that it depicts a steady state Process which embraces the Expansion,
Contraction and Implosion phases, each running perpetually at its
respective station on the cycle. It validates Einstein's original SS
idea (his "biggest blunder"), but in a much bigger way than he
envisioned.

Cactus Saul You are a 100% parrot. You can never relate to an opposite
view of thought. Sad but true. Your low wit has to fight back with name
calling. I am a BUM That shows this to be true. If you can not think
be nice TreBert