|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about inflation (no kooks or cranks need reply)
On Jul 8, 1:28 pm, Faye Kane wrote:
Most of the responses I got to my previous question were from crazy or sarcastic people. That's why I don't post here and barely read here anymore. Every crackpot and his brother contradict facts already known as well as each other, and they're all so =rude= about it. What are these facts that are contradicting each other? Who are rude? Please don’t consider the reflection of rudeness as so. shrug I never posted the method I used in my own observation (that an H-zero of 71.4 can be obtained in a way no one seems to have noticed before) specifically because I didn't want to be associated with all the nuts and their aether and their religious stuff. Cosmology is a discipline of study with lots of lots of unknowns. How can you pin-point Hubble’s constant to 3 significant digits? With no error bars given, that means 0.1% accuracy. What justifies for you to proclaim Hubble’s constant with accuracy down to 3 significant digits? Do you really think you are a god? shrug Why do you think support of the Aether is a religion? The null results of the MMX support transformations that falsify the principle of relativity. These transformations say the absolute frame of reference and thus the Aether MUST EXIST. All these so-called experiments compiled by Tom Roberts do not falsify any of these infinite numbers of transforms that say the Aether must exist. So, eliminating the Aether is just stupid, misleading, and very unprofessional on the parts of these self-styled physicists. shrug The knowledge of these infinite numbers of transforms was first discovered by Lorentz himself. Over the years, the self-styled physicists have conveniently forgotten about them attempting to brush dirt under the carpet. That is until Koobee Wublee brought them up to their very attentions, and they are since silent about it. shrug (BTW, my model isn't "new" at all, it just points out that H can be computed in a different way. But since it involves 4-dimensional geometry and claims to be new, that's already enough to place it in "probable kook" territory on this forum). 4-dimensional geometry? You don’t mean time as a dimension, correct? If so, any mentioning of 3+ dimensions is a kook. Oh, yeah, there is the question asking “how do you know a spatial dimension does not curve back to itself and thus unobservable?” What a bunch of kooks and swindlers. shrug I assumed my value was just an interesting coincidence (though to me, very interesting). But after David Smith pointed out that it also has to match the known profile of H over time, I had a way to double-check it. I discovered that while this model doesn't match very well (hey, that's science for you), it does predict nonlinear expansion that is *extremely* rapid near the beginning, and falls off very, very quickly. David Smith is one of the most vile personality in these newsgroups. You probably got a private email from him downloading fabricated lies about someone behind that someone’s back. There was this Mr. Wittke posting here a few years ago. Every time Mr. Wittke posted, David Smith would bully and intimidate Mr. Wittke to no end. Very sinister on David Smith’s part. Since that sounds like inflation, I need to check if the rate profile I get during inflation is the same as what we already know, because then my model would be interesting again. But I can't find information (that is, specific numbers). Everything is either aimed at high-school students or is hidden behind subscriptions to professional astronomy journals. No, inflation stuff is aimed at kooks and crackpots themselves. Hate it point it out since Andro himself is an Aether denier in bed with self-styled physicists, but he said it the best about inflation: “An expanding universe is as religious a concept as any other, you believe in it on faith alone, crackpot.” shrug 1) my main question is: do we know if the expansion was linear during inflation, and if not, does the rate of change fit a pattern (like exponentially decreasing), and do we know how long it took for expansion to decelerate when it ended? Duh! It is exactly the same as some preacher’s interpretation of what his supported religion is to him. shrug 7) suppose we discovered that various distant events are dimmer than we expect for some reason other than dark energy. Dark Energy is the same as negative mass density in vacuum. The concept is so fvcking absurd. Thus, anything cannot be construed as the existence of negative mass density in vacuum or Dark Energy. Even Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar knew that. Under Newtonian law of gravity, Poisson can easily attach a negative mass density term to the Poisson equation as well, and the effect is exactly the same as the Cosmological Constant in the field equations --- Dark Energy, but Poisson knew better not to do that. It is very laughable that self-styled physicists would try to label negative mass density in vacuum as Dark Energy in hoping to get away with bull****. How fvcking sad? shrug Even if the method to measure the brightness indeed corresponds to actual luminance, and Chandrasekhar limit is valid, a square-root law to Hubble’s expansion (instead of linear from eons to eons) would explain the expansion without invoking anti-gravity. If you know the math, a square-root function would appear to be linear in the near scale. Thus, Hubble could see up to 10M parsecs at the best. That could just be near field observations within a broader square-root function. It is anybody’s guess including yours. shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about inflation (no kooks or cranks need reply)
the whole point of the M&M results,
which were surprizingly non-null, although not "up" to their expectation of a rigid aether, now turns out to be that refraction "in the medium of free space" is an adequate hypothesis. Even if the method to measure the brightness indeed corresponds to actual luminance, and Chandrasekhar limit is valid, a square-root law to Hubble’s expansion (instead of linear from eons to eons) would explain the expansion without invoking anti-gravity. *If you know the math, a square-root function would appear to be linear in the near scale. *Thus, Hubble could see up to 10M parsecs at the best. *That could just be near field observations within a broader square-root function. *It is anybody’s guess including yours. *shrug |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cranks on the endangered species list | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | December 14th 08 02:22 PM |
Cranks on the endangered species list | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 8 | December 9th 08 08:42 PM |
TWO QUESTIONS: FROM WHICH ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES DO MOST AWARD WINNERS ON DRUM CORPS AND KOOKS COME FROM? | CArol T Flushing Fish | Misc | 2 | May 27th 06 10:42 PM |
Activist cranks oppose the mission | Rich | Amateur Astronomy | 8 | January 22nd 06 08:23 AM |
List of Cranks here | Double-A | Misc | 0 | March 21st 05 12:58 PM |