|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:44:55 -0800, "Mike Painter"
wrote: Painius wrote: Harlow soliloquied... To me, since observations end at the event horizon, this amounts to mental masturbation. An opinion you're entitled to, of course. Now please do tell... If gravity contains BH singularities from expanding, and since OUR initial singularity had to be dense enough to contain all that we see and... perhaps even more, then how did that initial singularity expand under the containment of what must have been a whole s___load of gravity? Perhaps for the same reason that a piece of straw broke the camels back. Interesting gravitational analogy, there, Mike. Raises questions such as, "What exactly served as the 'straw' in the case of the initial singularity (the camel)?" and, "How precisely did this allow the singularity to begin to expand instead of being even more thoroughly crushed (broken) than it had been (like the camel's back)?" So it would appear by this line of questioning that the Big Bang was impossible to pull off, wouldn't it? There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? They don't believe that the asteroids in the asteroid belt were the result of a fully formed planet blowing up, because there is no known way for a fully formed planet to explode. So if there is no known way for a singularity to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field, then wouldn't it be unreasonable to continue to support the Big Bang hypothesis? -- Indelibly yours, Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "The fool thinks himself wise; the wise man knows himself a fool." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Feb 20, 7:33*am, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:44:55 -0800, "Mike Painter" wrote: Painius wrote: Harlow soliloquied... To me, since observations end at the event horizon, this amounts to mental masturbation. An opinion you're entitled to, of course. *Now please do tell... If gravity contains BH singularities from expanding, and since OUR initial singularity had to be dense enough to contain all that we see and... perhaps even more, then how did that initial singularity expand under the containment of what must have been a whole s___load of gravity? Perhaps for the same reason that a piece of straw broke the camels back. Interesting gravitational analogy, there, Mike. Raises questions such as, "What exactly served as the 'straw' in the case of the initial singularity (the camel)?" and, "How precisely did this allow the singularity to begin to expand instead of being even more thoroughly crushed (broken) than it had been (like the camel's back)?" So it would appear by this line of questioning that the Big Bang was impossible to pull off, wouldn't it? There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. *So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? *They don't believe that the asteroids in the asteroid belt were the result of a fully formed planet blowing up, because there is no known way for a fully formed planet to explode. *So if there is no known way for a singularity to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field, then wouldn't it be unreasonable to continue to support the Big Bang hypothesis? -- Indelibly yours, Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "The fool thinks himself wise; the wise man knows himself a fool." Painius my critical mass density theory has the singularity formed at the exact time the critical mass density is reached. TreBert |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote:
There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. don't believe that the asteroids in the asteroid belt were the result of a fully formed planet blowing up, because there is no known way for a fully formed planet to explode. What does that have to do with the big bang? singularity to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field, then wouldn't it be unreasonable to continue to support the Big Bang hypothesis? If you were correct (you're not), then you'd be right. -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, HVAC wrote:
On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. The Big Bang was an impossibility. Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. -- Indelibly yours, Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "History is extremely kind to those who write it." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2/20/2012 11:49 AM, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. The Big Bang was an impossibility. Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. One can, if one has enough energy, achieve escape velocity. It's possible (again, this is all conjecture, at least, from me) that the Big Bang "exploded" with such force that it achieved its own escape velocity and the rate of "explosion" surpassed any recollapse....at least, for the time being. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:53:37 -0800, DanielSan
wrote: On 2/20/2012 11:49 AM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. The Big Bang was an impossibility. Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. One can, if one has enough energy, achieve escape velocity. It's possible (again, this is all conjecture, at least, from me) that the Big Bang "exploded" with such force that it achieved its own escape velocity and the rate of "explosion" surpassed any recollapse....at least, for the time being. I no see how, Daniel San. As soon as singularity is "there", its very own most powerful gravitational field is there to contain it. It would be like fart that no quite make it out of arse. BALANCE, Daniel San, BALANCE! g -- Indelibly yours, Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "History is extremely kind to those who write it." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2/20/2012 2:46 PM, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:53:37 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 11:49 AM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. The Big Bang was an impossibility. Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. One can, if one has enough energy, achieve escape velocity. It's possible (again, this is all conjecture, at least, from me) that the Big Bang "exploded" with such force that it achieved its own escape velocity and the rate of "explosion" surpassed any recollapse....at least, for the time being. I no see how, Daniel San. As soon as singularity is "there", its very own most powerful gravitational field is there to contain it. It would be like fart that no quite make it out of arse. BALANCE, Daniel San, BALANCE!g Again, this is all conjecture, but could the 'velocity' be sufficient to 'escape' the gravitational field? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:10:02 -0800, DanielSan
wrote: On 2/20/2012 2:46 PM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:53:37 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 11:49 AM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. The Big Bang was an impossibility. Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. One can, if one has enough energy, achieve escape velocity. It's possible (again, this is all conjecture, at least, from me) that the Big Bang "exploded" with such force that it achieved its own escape velocity and the rate of "explosion" surpassed any recollapse....at least, for the time being. I no see how, Daniel San. As soon as singularity is "there", its very own most powerful gravitational field is there to contain it. It would be like fart that no quite make it out of arse. BALANCE, Daniel San, BALANCE!g Again, this is all conjecture, but could the 'velocity' be sufficient to 'escape' the gravitational field? Perhaps, unlike some 'round here, you'll be able to grasp the validity of this analogy: Many years ago, when scientists were contemplating the origin of the asteroid belt, one hypothesis was that a fully formed planet had traversed that Solar orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Then for some reason, that planet broke up, exploded, and wound up as a bunch of loose rocks - the asteroids. Now, try as they might, not those scientists, nor none since, have been able to come up with a viable or reasonable way or mechanism for a fully formed planet to break up like that, to explode like that. No way. So the conclusion was that the asteroids had never had the chance to form into a planet due mainly to the influence of planet Jupiter. Jupiter's gravitational field just wouldn't allow a bunch of rocks that near to it to accrete into a larger body. Now, picture in your mind a black hole. At its center is believed to be a singularity. The density of a singularity is said to be infinite and the volume is said to be zero. And it was just such a singularity that, about 13.7 billion years ago, is believed to have somehow popped into existence and began to expand into the Universe we see today. That was the moment of the so-called "Big Bang". Now, just like the mechanism that would result in an exploding planet, scientists are unable to come up with any mechanism that would result in the singularity of a black hole to begin to expand. There is no known way for this to happen. And yet scientists readily accept that it happened "back in the beginning". In the beginning, a singularity began to expand into the Universe we see today. The origin of that singularity is still unknown, and the reason it began to expand is still unknown, and yet there it was, and off it went. As that singularity began to expand, it would have instantly generated a gravitational field the likes of which are hardly imaginable, certainly nothing like we see today, even among the quasars. That field would have been like billions and trillions of Solar masses strong. That singularity, from a reasonable standpoint, would have collapsed "under its own weight" almost as quickly as it had begun to expand. So "reasonably", the Big Bang was and is an impossibility. Just as there is no known way for a planet to explode under the weight of its own gravitational field, just as there is no known way for the singularity of a black hole to expand under the weight of its own gravitational field, there can be no known way for the Big Bang to have happened. It did not happen. It was a contrived hypothesis set forth by a God-fearing Catholic priest... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre ....who in his mind turned back the hands of time. He took a Universe that appeared to be expanding, stopped time, and then watched as in his mind the Universe began to contract as he went backward in time. For some reason, scientists even today accept that it was okay to do this. It was okay for the Universe to just keep on contracting as we went farther back in time. There was never really any reason to believe that, if the Universe actually were expanding, it had *always* been in that state of expansion. And yet, there it was, laid down by a religious man. The Universe kept contracting and contracting until it was this tiny point. All the matter, all the energy, all the space and time neatly rolled up in what he called a "primeval atom". The God-fearing priest was very careful when he proposed his idea to science not to mention the "Let there be light" part. He gave no explanation at all as to how the primeval atom got there nor what caused it to begin to expand. To this day, over eighty years later, and the contemplations of countless scientists and others with heads on their shoulders, there is still no reasonable explanation for these two crucial points. No not one. A hundred years from now, or hopefully much sooner, these times will be looked back upon and called "The Age of Absurd Astronomy", or "A Case for Colossally Comedic Cosmology". It is, I sincerely believe, the Baddest and Blindest of Big Bang Bummer Beliefs we, as human beings, must share until scientists come 'round to their senses. They are blinded by this cosmology paradigm so much so, that every single piece of evidence that could support any number of different hypotheses is "worked in" to support the present paradigm. Even the mighty concept of the redshifts of faraway galaxies and their "obvious" meaning that the Universe is expanding can be crushed under the clarity of reason. But when *you* are *crushed* under the magnificent weight of the existing paradigm, then you become blind to facts, and thereby, blind to reality. This post has become long, too long for even me. Einstein told us many great things. Among the greatest was his light warning to always question, to never stop with the questions. Question all of it, question everything. And never stop. When the questioning stops, the thinking stops also. There is no reason to think further on the Big Bang, there is no reason to question it. Scientists have made their choice about it, they have made their decision about it, and when a decision is made, thinking stops. Only our youth continue to think, continue to question. Only they follow the good advice of Einstein. Well, they and a very few of us old farts. g -- Indelibly yours, Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "History is extremely kind to those who write it." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2/20/2012 7:10 PM, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:10:02 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 2:46 PM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:53:37 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 11:49 AM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. The Big Bang was an impossibility. Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. One can, if one has enough energy, achieve escape velocity. It's possible (again, this is all conjecture, at least, from me) that the Big Bang "exploded" with such force that it achieved its own escape velocity and the rate of "explosion" surpassed any recollapse....at least, for the time being. I no see how, Daniel San. As soon as singularity is "there", its very own most powerful gravitational field is there to contain it. It would be like fart that no quite make it out of arse. BALANCE, Daniel San, BALANCE!g Again, this is all conjecture, but could the 'velocity' be sufficient to 'escape' the gravitational field? Perhaps, unlike some 'round here, you'll be able to grasp the validity of this analogy: Many years ago, when scientists were contemplating the origin of the asteroid belt, one hypothesis was that a fully formed planet had traversed that Solar orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Then for some reason, that planet broke up, exploded, and wound up as a bunch of loose rocks - the asteroids. Now, try as they might, not those scientists, nor none since, have been able to come up with a viable or reasonable way or mechanism for a fully formed planet to break up like that, to explode like that. No way. So the conclusion was that the asteroids had never had the chance to form into a planet due mainly to the influence of planet Jupiter. Jupiter's gravitational field just wouldn't allow a bunch of rocks that near to it to accrete into a larger body. Now, picture in your mind a black hole. At its center is believed to be a singularity. The density of a singularity is said to be infinite and the volume is said to be zero. And it was just such a singularity that, about 13.7 billion years ago, is believed to have somehow popped into existence and began to expand into the Universe we see today. That was the moment of the so-called "Big Bang". Now, just like the mechanism that would result in an exploding planet, scientists are unable to come up with any mechanism that would result in the singularity of a black hole to begin to expand. There is no known way for this to happen. And yet scientists readily accept that it happened "back in the beginning". In the beginning, a singularity began to expand into the Universe we see today. The origin of that singularity is still unknown, and the reason it began to expand is still unknown, and yet there it was, and off it went. As that singularity began to expand, it would have instantly generated a gravitational field the likes of which are hardly imaginable, certainly nothing like we see today, even among the quasars. That field would have been like billions and trillions of Solar masses strong. That singularity, from a reasonable standpoint, would have collapsed "under its own weight" almost as quickly as it had begun to expand. So "reasonably", the Big Bang was and is an impossibility. Just as there is no known way for a planet to explode under the weight of its own gravitational field, just as there is no known way for the singularity of a black hole to expand under the weight of its own gravitational field, there can be no known way for the Big Bang to have happened. It did not happen. It was a contrived hypothesis set forth by a God-fearing Catholic priest... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre ...who in his mind turned back the hands of time. He took a Universe that appeared to be expanding, stopped time, and then watched as in his mind the Universe began to contract as he went backward in time. For some reason, scientists even today accept that it was okay to do this. It was okay for the Universe to just keep on contracting as we went farther back in time. There was never really any reason to believe that, if the Universe actually were expanding, it had *always* been in that state of expansion. And yet, there it was, laid down by a religious man. The Universe kept contracting and contracting until it was this tiny point. All the matter, all the energy, all the space and time neatly rolled up in what he called a "primeval atom". The God-fearing priest was very careful when he proposed his idea to science not to mention the "Let there be light" part. He gave no explanation at all as to how the primeval atom got there nor what caused it to begin to expand. To this day, over eighty years later, and the contemplations of countless scientists and others with heads on their shoulders, there is still no reasonable explanation for these two crucial points. No not one. A hundred years from now, or hopefully much sooner, these times will be looked back upon and called "The Age of Absurd Astronomy", or "A Case for Colossally Comedic Cosmology". It is, I sincerely believe, the Baddest and Blindest of Big Bang Bummer Beliefs we, as human beings, must share until scientists come 'round to their senses. They are blinded by this cosmology paradigm so much so, that every single piece of evidence that could support any number of different hypotheses is "worked in" to support the present paradigm. Even the mighty concept of the redshifts of faraway galaxies and their "obvious" meaning that the Universe is expanding can be crushed under the clarity of reason. But when *you* are *crushed* under the magnificent weight of the existing paradigm, then you become blind to facts, and thereby, blind to reality. This post has become long, too long for even me. Einstein told us many great things. Among the greatest was his light warning to always question, to never stop with the questions. Question all of it, question everything. And never stop. When the questioning stops, the thinking stops also. There is no reason to think further on the Big Bang, there is no reason to question it. Scientists have made their choice about it, they have made their decision about it, and when a decision is made, thinking stops. Only our youth continue to think, continue to question. Only they follow the good advice of Einstein. Well, they and a very few of us old farts.g I think the biggest problem here is that there is evidence for the Big Bang and the Big Bang fits all the available evidence. You bring up black holes which is a decent analogy, but not a great one. A black hole would not contain all the energy/matter of the universe. Nor would two black holes. Or a dozen. Or a thousand. Or a million. The singularity proposed in the Big Bang was apparently different from a mere black hole. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Feb 20, 8:14*am, HVAC wrote:
Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. this 20 century idea violates conservation laws. our observational perspective dont let us see anything before the bb but that doesn't mean It came from nothing just as it makes no sense to say a BH is nothing because you can't see it. the 'before' was the cause of the bb aftermath just as we can understand what a BH is by observing it's effects on space-time. r.y |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aether Foreshortning at c | G=EMC^2[_2_] | Misc | 3 | March 1st 12 07:51 AM |
Aether | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 22 | July 17th 11 02:21 AM |
Aether | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 4 | July 11th 11 01:57 AM |
Aether or whatever | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 17th 06 05:17 AM |