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 .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

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

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."

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 .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

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 .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

On Oct 31, 8:02Â*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. Â*LOL

--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube..com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo.. �亮http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

The big bang has no center core. TeBet

On Dec 15, 7:07Â*pm, herbert glazier wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:02Â*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. Â*LOL

--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo.. �亮http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

The big bang has no center core. Â*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.

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!!!!!!!

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 .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg