|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
All Univeses are Rotating Faster and Faster
On 10/30/2012 3:09 PM, Painius wrote:
And how far must we be able to see before we believe our eyes? Good question. Perhaps 14 bly? But when that happens, and I "believe" it will happen soon, the mainstream will just find a way to "fit" that evidence to the prevailing creation myth called the "Big Bang". Why? Why would anyone want to support an incorrect idea? Wouldn't physicists be LINING UP to see who would win the Nobel for falsifying the big bang. All new physics would by necessity be required, this would be by far the greatest scientific discovery of this century. So why again do 99% of all theorists adhere to the big bang theory? -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮 http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
All Univeses are Rotating Faster and Faster
On Oct 30, 3:09*pm, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:38:32 -0400, HVAC wrote: On 10/30/2012 1:47 AM, Painius wrote: So you're saying that Bert is wrong? Neither you nor I have any objective evidence that Bert is right or wrong. *So all I'm saying is that our technology is not advanced enough, yet, to be able to provide objective evidence. And how far must we be able to see before we believe our eyes? Good question. *Perhaps 14 bly? But when that happens, and I "believe" it will happen soon, the mainstream will just find a way to "fit" that evidence to the prevailing creation myth called the "Big Bang". -- Indelibly yours, Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." Painius good point. I can have ideas on age of universe because we can't as yet seen its center core Also those that add up its spacetime say they ae only estermating. That goes for theories too. Reality is if 95% of the universe is missing my 22B is a better better figure. I would like to know how long it took for 90% of the hydrogen to form?And then all that helium Also uranium a big atom. All the water in the universe means a long time of molecule making. Time to make all those nebula. I see in my 22B half of that is used in the making of internal shockwaves,, Well the universe rotation is acceleating,and will expand forever,and going into a flat structue and this means a cold thined out to close to nothing. Painius gravity lost in the end. TreBert Seems Convex is stronger than concave |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
All Univeses are Rotating Faster and Faster
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:57:35 -0400, HVAC wrote:
On 10/30/2012 3:09 PM, Painius wrote: Harlow inquired... And how far must we be able to see before we believe our eyes? Good question. Perhaps 14 bly? But when that happens, and I "believe" it will happen soon, the mainstream will just find a way to "fit" that evidence to the prevailing creation myth called the "Big Bang". Why? Why would anyone want to support an incorrect idea? Wouldn't physicists be LINING UP to see who would win the Nobel for falsifying the big bang. All new physics would by necessity be required, this would be by far the greatest scientific discovery of this century. So why again do 99% of all theorists adhere to the big bang theory? I'm sure it's less than 99%. Can you back that up? "Most" astronomers adhere to the Big Bang "hypothesis". Yes, I do think this is an incorrect idea. It most definitely would *not* take "all new physics" to refute the Big Bang. All it would take is some young, newly papered scientist to show how all of the existing evidence can be used to support any of a number of viable models of the Universe - and some of those models *don't* include fairytale beginnings. If you were *really* a theoretical astrophysicist, then you would be one of those who are out there on the fringe, who wonder about how that first singularity got there and what made it begin to expand, who theorize about colliding Universe branes and wandering Universes that may have sparked the beginning of our Universe. But no - you're just here to try to "win us over" to the mainstream and to call us kooks. Some of us used to be on a kook list made by Art Deco, which he uploaded to the Internet, but it's been removed and can't be found anywhere anymore. As far as I know, none who post here has ever been distinguished by the Kookstone Kopp newsgroups with any of their cherished "awards", over which real kooks intensely salivate. So tell me why you can't seem to distinguish between "real" kooks and those of us who use our imaginations and who like to speculate about astronomy subjects? Why are we so much like these people... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_..._personalities ....or any of the other kooks listed in that article? Why are we so much like the "real" kooks that were kooky enough to be recognized so many times by netcops? -- Indelibly yours, Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "Habits are chains, too weak to be felt, too strong to be broken." |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
All Univeses are Rotating Faster and Faster
On 10/31/2012 4:00 AM, Painius wrote:
So why again do 99% of all theorists adhere to the big bang theory? I'm sure it's less than 99%. Can you back that up? Absolutely. "Most" astronomers adhere to the Big Bang "hypothesis". Yes, I do think this is an incorrect idea. It most definitely would *not* take "all new physics" to refute the Big Bang. All it would take is some young, newly papered scientist to show how all of the existing evidence can be used to support any of a number of viable models of the Universe - and some of those models *don't* include fairytale beginnings. So tell me again...Why do you NOT believe in the big bang? (Besides your gut feeling and desire to be 'cutting edge') If you were *really* a theoretical astrophysicist LOL then you would be one of those who are out there on the fringe, LOL who wonder about how that first singularity got there and what made it begin to expand, who theorize about colliding Universe branes and wandering Universes that may have sparked the beginning of our Universe. Trash. Thought up by those shilling for their next book and/or pop-sci TV show that you kooks love so much. But no - you're just here to try to "win us over" to the mainstream and to call us kooks. That's because I care about the truth. Some of us used to be on a kook list made by Art Deco, which he uploaded to the Internet, but it's been removed and can't be found anywhere anymore. This 'Art Deco' guys seems nice. I vaguely remember the name. I love how you still feel hurt by him listing you as a kook. As far as I know, none who post here has ever been distinguished by the Kookstone Kopp newsgroups with any of their cherished "awards", over which real kooks intensely salivate. So tell me why you can't seem to distinguish between "real" kooks and those of us who use our imaginations and who like to speculate about astronomy subjects? I say fine...Speculate all you want. Just don't get mad at ME for providing the counterweight to your foolishness. Sound good? -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮 http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
All Univeses are Rotating Faster and Faster
On 10/30/2012 7:07 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
Painius good point. I can have ideas on age of universe because we can't as yet seen its center core More proof that Painus has helped weaken Bert's 'mind' even further that it has already sunk. Bert's waiting until we see the center of the universe. LOL -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮 http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
All Univeses are Rotating Faster and Faster
On Oct 31, 8:02*am, HVAC wrote:
On 10/30/2012 7:07 PM,G=EMC^2wrote: Painius good point. I can have ideas on age of universe because we can't as yet seen its center core More proof that Painus has helped weaken Bert's 'mind' even further that it has already sunk. Bert's waiting until we see the center of the universe. *LOL -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube..com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo.. 变亮http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg The big bang has no center core. TeBet |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
All Univeses are Rotating Faster and Faster
On Dec 15, 7:07*pm, herbert glazier wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:02*am, HVAC wrote: On 10/30/2012 7:07 PM,G=EMC^2wrote: Painius good point. I can have ideas on age of universe because we can't as yet seen its center core More proof that Painus has helped weaken Bert's 'mind' even further that it has already sunk. Bert's waiting until we see the center of the universe. *LOL -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo.. 变亮http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg The big bang has no center core. *TeBet Perhaps that's only because we're nowhere near that empty core. If the universe were a balloon and the cosmic surface or thick skin of that balloon was 30 billion light years thick, means that our perceptible universe is but less than 0.0001% of the whole cosmic balloon. The mostly empty core of our cosmic aether filled balloon could easily be 1e12 light years away from us. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
All Univeses are Rotating Faster and Faster
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:07:57 -0800, herbert glazier wrote:
The big bang has no center core. TeBet Nonsense, Treeb. SPIN IS IN!!!!!!! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
All Univeses are Rotating Faster and Faster
On 12/15/2012 10:07 PM, herbert glazier wrote:
Painius good point. I can have ideas on age of universe because we can't as yet seen its center core The big bang has no center core. TeBet So which is it, Bert. Above you indicate that there IS a center core, yet below you say it doesn't exist. All are YOUR words. So which is it, you stupid cocksucker? -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮 http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
All Univeses are Rotating Faster and Faster | G=EMC^2[_2_] | Misc | 17 | October 31st 12 07:27 AM |
Faster than c | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | September 4th 08 06:47 AM |
Faster than LIGHT! | Mack Fan | Astronomy Misc | 7 | February 13th 08 10:26 PM |
USB 2 cables faster? | Chris.B | UK Astronomy | 6 | August 5th 05 08:17 AM |
Faster than 2,000 kph | Ed Cannon | Satellites | 6 | February 19th 04 04:14 PM |