A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 26th 04, 12:36 AM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

Hi Nightbat The search for the truth is what science is all about.Best
to leave out words like "facts" Beast to think in every direction,as
long as it makes good science. The BB theory answers more questions than
the steady state theory. Gamow theorized that if there was a BB its
temperature would now be 3K Many years later the universe's temperature
was measured at 2.73K(see what I mean.) Nightbat a better theory would
answer more questions. The BB is the best theory man has come up with.
It has lots of good physics in its favor. It fits with GR,QM,and the
string theory. It fits in with my density of the universe theory.(had
for years) I theorize the smallest gravity can squeeze the mass
of our known universe is the size of a Planck length,and that is in all
of its spatial dimensions. That thinking fits well with the string
theory as to the dimension of a singularity. Bert

  #2  
Old March 26th 04, 03:54 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hey Night
Don't write off ol' Dr. Jai just yet. He's drawing from the
ancient Vedic (pre-Hindu) mythologies which had some pretty high level
intuition behind them. The 'eternal return' format is implied in the
'Life and Death of Brahma' (later amended to the 'In-breath and
out-breath of Brahma') which corresponds to the modern Big Bang/ Big
Crunch concept. Each cycle is marked by a period known as a 'Kalpa',
overseen by the gods Brahma (the creator) and Shiva (the destroyer). At
present, we would be somewhere in the expansion phase of our great
'Kalpa'.
Beyond this cyclic level of 'Kalpas' is the overarching
domain of Vishnu (the Sustainer) which would correspond to the CBB
(continuous BB) or the freon cycle in Zinni's fridge.
These two referance frames comprize the Vedic trinity of
Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva.
Also those ancient dudes fully understood the material
universe as a secondary phenomenon, which they called maya or
'illusion', which corresponds to Wolter's tagalong 'dustbunny'. They
would get quite a chuckle out of the modern void-space paradigm(VSP).
oc

  #3  
Old March 30th 04, 05:28 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From S.S.Shastry:

Most important is to know the existence
of an eternal innermost self around
which everything 'seems' to be cyclic.


As a late great friend and mentor of mine once said, IF there is a such
a central, perpetually running 'Engine' from which Creation proceeds and
is eventually re-ingested, such an 'Engine', if it had voice and could
speak, could rightly proclaim, "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning
and the end."

If this astonishing knowledge which is
central to scriptures is not understood
then hardly anything substantial is
served by them.


My friend, being reared as a Mormon, got kicked out of the Mormon church
for the heresy of stating that God can be perceived directly, without
need of an intermediary (meaning the church elders).
Even in physics, singularity is that
eternal innermost self around which
everything 'seems' to be cyclic.


"Singularity" as a noun can refer to that dimensionless point of
infinite density and zero volume at the core of a black hole. There can
also be the _State_ of Singularity. My friend saw this as the natural
extension of quantum nonlocality (already proven in the lab BTW), and
called it 'non-pluralty' or the Law of One. It would correspond to David
Bohm's 'Implicate Order', the Primary Reality underlying the material
universe.

And so, while singularity is the truth the
universe has to be understood as it is,
illusory and not untruth.


Yeah, although the material universe is 'maya' or illusion, it is a very
REAL illusion (the tagalong 'dustbunny' as my friend called it).

OK Zinni, let's hear your retort now. BTW, we're still awaiting your
treatise on why c is constant under the 'no medium' premise.

oc

  #4  
Old March 30th 04, 05:53 PM
John Zinni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

As a late great friend and mentor of mine once said, IF there is a such
a central, perpetually running 'Engine' from which Creation proceeds and
is eventually re-ingested, such an 'Engine', if it had voice and could
speak, could rightly proclaim, "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning
and the end."


And IF this perpetually running 'Engine' had big black ears, a round black
nose and four fingers on each hand, it could rightly proclaim, "I am Mickey
Mouse."

  #5  
Old March 30th 04, 08:49 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From JohnZ:

"...I am Mickey Mouse."

Hey that's a cool mantra. And about your speed too. C'mon, why is the
speed of light fixed if there is 'no medium'? oc

  #6  
Old March 31st 04, 05:26 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From Nightbat:

...truth is verifiable frame, measurable,
observable, directly or indirectly, and
hasn't been falsified to date. Illusion is
fantasy including sci fi unless someone
manages to make the unreal, real.


Night, as the late great Johnny Cash once asked, "What is Truth?". Take
the analogy (again) of the fish in the deep ocean; he's heard this
recurring theory about something called the "ocean" which supposedly is
all-pervading, life-giving, and has enormous hydrostatic pressure. Yet
he has no sensory perception of it, and therefore concludes the "ocean"
is fantasy, nonsense, and 'nothing'. That is his Truth, his reality.
There is no 'ocean', period.
Similarly, we are sensorially 'blind' to the "ocean" of
the spatial medium, and conclude it is functionally void and 'nothing'.
That is our truth, our reality. There is 'no medium'.

Yet a simple bathroom scale gives a direct analog readout of
*something*. And the 'something', by its observable effects, appears to
be an accelerating _flow_ and the readout matter's *resistance* to this
flow. Thus it fulfills your requirement for "a verifiable frame,
measurable, observable, directly or indirectly, and hasn't been
falsified to date." What's more, this 'something' is substantial enough
to crush massive stars into BHs.

And untruth is no matter how you fudge
the results most other scientist's can see through the BS.


And 'What If', after cutting thru all the BS, gravity IS exactly what it
appears to be and behaves as????? OK Zinni now have at it. oc

  #7  
Old April 1st 04, 12:44 AM
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

Yet a simple bathroom scale gives a direct analog readout of
*something*. And the 'something', by its observable effects, appears to
be an accelerating _flow_ and the readout matter's *resistance* to this
flow.


Stand on a bathroom scales & measure your weight.

Stand on same scales in a cave & measure your weight again.

Observe how the infalling space gets captured by the rock above your head
and reduces the weight shown on the scale.

Care to provide calculations for this Bill?

You have 3 days 'coz I'm off on vacation soon.


  #8  
Old April 1st 04, 01:22 AM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From OG:

Stand on a bathroom scales & measure
your weight.

Stand on same scales in a cave &
measure your weight again.

Observe how the infalling space gets
captured by the rock above your head
and reduces the weight shown on the
scale.


You're absolutely right OG. Very perceptual of you. The instant the
inflow goes below surface (or datum line), there is now gravitating mass
*behind* (i.e., above) the flow.
Just for purpose of illustration (this was done in
discussions with Painius prior to your and Zinni's appearance on the
NG), take a column of spatial flow 12" in diameter. It's flowing
vertically into the surface, accelerating to 11.2 km/sec, (Earth's
escape velocity) at the instant it hits surface datum. As soon as it
goes below datum, there is gravitating mass behind and _to the sides_ of
the column, causing it to begin decelertaing and to diverge laterally.
And as you correctly observe, your 'weight' is going to be less below
surface than at surface, and for the reason you stated.
As the column descends deeper and deeper, the more mass
lies behind and to the sides, the more the column diverges and
decelerates, showing less and less directional preferance. Finally at
Eartth center, all directional preferance is lost; 'weight' is zero
while hydrostatic pressure is maximum from all the 'weight' pressing in
from above.
The flow itself is into the seat of the strong force in
the nuclei of all the Earth's constituent atoms. Herein lies the
unification of gravity and the strong force in Wolter's 'Unified Field
of Spatial Flows'. oc

  #9  
Old April 1st 04, 11:45 AM
Painius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

From OG:

Stand on a bathroom scales & measure
your weight.

Stand on same scales in a cave &
measure your weight again.

Observe how the infalling space gets
captured by the rock above your head
and reduces the weight shown on the
scale.


You're absolutely right OG. Very perceptual of you. The instant the
inflow goes below surface (or datum line), there is now gravitating mass
*behind* (i.e., above) the flow.
Just for purpose of illustration (this was done in
discussions with Painius prior to your and Zinni's appearance on the
NG), take a column of spatial flow 12" in diameter. It's flowing
vertically into the surface, accelerating to 11.2 km/sec, (Earth's
escape velocity) at the instant it hits surface datum. As soon as it
goes below datum, there is gravitating mass behind and _to the sides_ of
the column, causing it to begin decelertaing and to diverge laterally.
And as you correctly observe, your 'weight' is going to be less below
surface than at surface, and for the reason you stated.
As the column descends deeper and deeper, the more mass
lies behind and to the sides, the more the column diverges and
decelerates, showing less and less directional preferance. Finally at
Eartth center, all directional preferance is lost; 'weight' is zero
while hydrostatic pressure is maximum from all the 'weight' pressing in
from above.
The flow itself is into the seat of the strong force in
the nuclei of all the Earth's constituent atoms. Herein lies the
unification of gravity and the strong force in Wolter's 'Unified Field
of Spatial Flows'. oc


'Lo Bill --

The nuclear "strong force" is believed to exist solely to bond together
all those positively charged protons, thereby overcoming the effects
of the electrical repulsion of these charges. Moreover, scientists at
present believe that the strong force has absolutely no influence out
beyond the confines of the atomic nucleus.

You seem to be saying that the strong force is responsible for the
effects of gravity that we observe? How did Wolter come to this
conclusion? What train of thought led him to connect the strong
nuclear force with gravity?

And it would seem to be a simple matter to show this connection
using mathematics. If the connection is so obvious, then why hasn't
some mathematician somewhere already verified it?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
"Oh give me please the Universe keys
That unlock all those mysteries!"
You pay your fees, you find some keys,
That keeps you always groping.

"Oh give me please the Happiness keys
That ease the pain of biting fleas!"
Today you seize you need no keys,
That door is always open.

Paine Ellsworth


  #10  
Old April 1st 04, 04:13 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From Painius:

The nuclear "strong force" is believed to
exist solely to bond together all those
positively charged protons, thereby
overcoming the effects of the electrical
repulsion of these charges. Moreover,
scientists at present believe that the
strong force has absolutely no influence
out beyond the confines of the atomic
nucleus.


The key term is "_believed_ not to exist outside the nucleus". Yet what
is magnetism if not the spatial inflow into the _poles_ of the proton..
into the seat of the strong nuclear force within? Seems sorta like a no
brainer. Magnetism's 'sign', i.e., its 'N' and 'S' polarity, is
determined by spin direction of the inflow.

You seem to be saying that the strong
force is responsible for the effects of
gravity that we observe? How did Wolter come to this conclusion?


'Local' gravity, the kind we're familiar with, is the collective
'influence at a distance' of the the strong force, minus the spin
component of magnetism. Thus gravity is monopolar. In the foregoing you
also have the unification of magnetism in the Unified Field of Spatial
Flows.

What train of thought led him to connect
the strong nuclear force with gravity?


See above. Exactly the same conclusion was reached years later by
Lindner, Warren et al.

And it would seem to be a simple matter
to show this connection using
mathematics.


And what if we were operating under the Roman numeral system? Would we
be forever barred and banned from understanding unification? Seems more
like the 'primacy of math' fixation is barring understanding.

BTW, Wolter's 'train of thought' regarding the the proton's magnetic
bipolarity began with _gravitic bipolarity_ of every (spinning) black
hole, which again seems like a no brainer. The spin direction of the
'bathtub drain' inflows into the _poles_ of a BH will dictate its 'N'
and 'S' gravitic polarity or 'sign'.. making the BH a true _gravitic
dipole_ in space. Wolter saw the proton as the microscale BH analog, its
magnetic bipolarity the analog of the BH's gravitic bipolarity.
(Remember that old basketball illustration; hold the ball up and rotate
it so the 'N' pole is turning cw viewed face-on, and simultaneously the
'S' pole is turning ccw viewed face-on, yet the whole ensemble rotates
in a unitary direction.)
This bipolarity of BHs and protons is rudimentary to
unification under the CBB model. And it don't take no steenkin' mathg
to grasp the concept.
At signifigant distance from the BH, its bipolarity
drops below resolution and it appears as a monopolar point source.
And meanwhile our familiar monopolar gravity, operating
across astronomical distances and mediating Keplerian and Newtonian
laws, has its genesis in the seat of the strong nuclear force.
Now let's hear Zinni's esteemed rebuttal. oc

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Big Bang busted? Bob Wallum Astronomy Misc 8 March 16th 04 02:44 AM
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 27th 03 02:32 PM
NASA Celebrates Educational Benefits of Earth Science Week Ron Baalke Science 0 October 10th 03 04:14 PM
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth Ron Baalke Space Station 1 July 30th 03 12:01 AM
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth Ron Baalke Science 0 July 29th 03 04:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.