A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

Aether Foreshortning at c



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 21st 12, 01:04 PM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.astro
HVAC[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,114
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On 2/20/2012 2:49 PM, Painius wrote:



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.



No... I mean, how many times do I have to tell you this?
The big bang is the name we give when the singularity
expanded into what would become our universe.


Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible
argument. Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup?
NaHHHHHHHHhhhh !



Correct!


Gravitation is an instant phenomenon



That propagates at c.


as shown by what would happen to
the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant
phenomenon.



What the **** does THIS mean?


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.



Certainly each and every one of us is an 'impossibility'.

Yet here WE are. Deal with it. Accept the fact that some
things are not only unknown, but possibly unknowable.


Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility.



Request denied.







--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
Ads
  #12  
Old February 21st 12, 01:13 PM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.astro
HVAC[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,114
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On 2/20/2012 10:57 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:


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.



No offense, Ray, but you appear to be a retard.



Have a nice day!







--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
  #13  
Old February 21st 12, 05:23 PM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.astro
Raymond Yohros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 129
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On Feb 21, 8:13*am, HVAC wrote:
On 2/20/2012 10:57 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:



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.


No offense, Ray, but you appear to be a retard.


maybe I am for thinking that someone like you
who is trapped in a boring, ordinary and noisy
world of violence could understand higher matters

  #14  
Old February 21st 12, 06:23 PM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.astro
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On 2012-Feb-21 09:23, Raymond Yohros wrote:
On Feb 21, 8:13 am, wrote:
On 2/20/2012 10:57 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:

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.


No offense, Ray, but you appear to be a retard.


maybe I am for thinking that someone like you
who is trapped in a boring, ordinary and noisy
world of violence could understand higher matters


Where does violence fit into any of that? Or are you somehow implying
that The Big Bang is a violent theory?

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down
and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or
some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time ... the
universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything
outside itself; it would neither be created nor destroyed, it would just
be ... what place, then, for a creator?"
-- Dr. Stephen W. Hawking (1994)
  #15  
Old February 22nd 12, 04:06 AM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.astro
G=EMC^2[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,655
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On Feb 20, 2:49*pm, Painius wrote:
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."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


96% of the universe is missing. Universes at humankinds time (Now)
are impossible . Might as well go with the hocus pocus of Gods. LET
THERE BE LIGHT TreBert
  #16  
Old February 22nd 12, 04:15 AM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.astro
G=EMC^2[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,655
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On Feb 20, 5:46*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

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"History is extremely kind to those who write it."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


How about my space convex curve kicking in at that time. No reason why
space can't be flexable. Think rubber sheet. It can curve up and down.
How does a gluon get stronger with distance.? When you think of a
singularity being smalled than a proton you are in the quantum realm.
Get the picture TreBert
  #17  
Old February 22nd 12, 04:21 AM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.astro
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On 2012-Feb-21 20:06, G=EMC^2 wrote:
On Feb 20, 2:49 pm, 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.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"History is extremely kind to those who write it."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


96% of the universe is missing. Universes at humankinds time (Now)
are impossible . Might as well go with the hocus pocus of Gods. LET
THERE BE LIGHT TreBert


96% is an arrogant number considering that the human species hasn't
discovered very much of the universe yet.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Only two things in life are infinite; the Universe, and human stupidity
(and I'm not so sure about the Universe)."
-- Dr. Albert Einstein
  #18  
Old February 22nd 12, 04:21 AM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.astro
G=EMC^2[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,655
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On Feb 20, 10:10*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

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"History is extremely kind to those who write it."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Asteroids and Jupiter are big stuff(macro) Singularity like you
posted are tiny stuff(micro) Best read what Feynman had to say about
large and tiny on how they relate TreBert
  #19  
Old February 22nd 12, 03:40 PM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.astro
Painius[_1_] Painius[_1_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,659
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:04:55 -0500, HVAC wrote:

On 2/20/2012 2:49 PM, Painius wrote:
Harlow homed in:

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.


No... I mean, how many times do I have to tell you this?
The big bang is the name we give when the singularity
expanded into what would become our universe. . . .


. . .
Gravitation is an instant phenomenon



That propagates at c.

as shown by what would happen to
the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant
phenomenon.


What the **** does THIS mean?


It means that if gravity propagated at c, then the orbits of all the
planets in the Solar system would decay, very quickly in fact. This
was worked out long ago.

It's the old, "What would happen if the Sun just disappeared?" idea.
If the Sun's gravity were to completely and instantly disappear,
Newton has it that everything in the Solar system would immediately
head out on a tangential straight line from their Solar orbits.
Einstein, on the other hand, proposed that Newton was wrong, and that
gravitation propagated at c. So, for example, since Earth is about 8
light minutes from the Sun, then Earth would, if the Sun disappeared,
continue orbiting for 8 minutes, and only then would it head out on a
straight line out of the Solar system. Einstein was wrong in this
case, because gravitation does not "propagate". Gravitation is an
instant phenomenon. Newton, in this case, appears to have been
correct.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"History is extremely kind to those who write it."
  #20  
Old February 22nd 12, 03:48 PM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.astro
Painius[_1_] Painius[_1_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,659
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:06:14 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

On Feb 20, 2:49*pm, Painius wrote:
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.


96% of the universe is missing. Universes at humankinds time (Now)
are impossible . Might as well go with the hocus pocus of Gods. LET
THERE BE LIGHT TreBert


That's close enough, Bert. The figures are 4.5% known matter, and
95.5% space. The present model figures that the 95.5% is made up of
"dark matter" and "dark energy". It is much more likely that there is
no need to postulate dark energy, and dark matter is just space
itself. There is a lot of matter in space, matter that comes from
stars and other celestial bodies. Matter that is pretty much all free
particles, so since these free particles are rather small, "dark
matter" cannot be observed. In addition, there are the so-called
"virtual particles" that pop in and pop out of existence. The quantum
foamy-like structure of space makes up for the amount of matter that
stellar winds and such cannot account for. Spacetime = dark matter.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"History is extremely kind to those who write it."
 




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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.