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 » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 2nd 04, 02:15 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

S.S,Shasty When an event horizon has formed a singularity is formed
at the blackhole's core. As the mass density of the blackhole
increases over billions and billions of years,and the blackhole spin
also increases proportionally to its mass,and visa versa. Then comes a
spacetime where the blackhole's interior can't hold back its event
horizon and it collapses into the exact center of its core. This causes
a devastating space rupture,as the singularity is exposed to spacetime.
This event I call a mini-bang and created all there is including us. The
original colossal big bang was created almost(not quite) the same way it
took place trillions of LY ago. Bert PS Much of this comes
out of my "Spin is in theory" Einstien could live with these thoughts

Ads
  #22  
Old April 2nd 04, 02:23 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From OG:

You are failing to give a convincing
reason for adopting their (Lindner,
Warren et als') model...... I wonder why
IF you keep insisting its 'true' you aren't
at all interested in providing testable
proof.


Testable proof ??!! The mechanism is self-evident and self-explanatory.

By its behavior and bountiful effects, the mechanism *appears* to be an
accelerating, pressure driven flow toward a center of mass, in an
omnidirectional 'reverse starburst' pattern. Unless you are utterly
inculcated with the 'no medium' premise, what's more pragmatic than
simply accepting the mechanism for what it appears to be and behaves as?
It frees you from the need for abstractions like 'curvature of space'
which carries its own conundrum of "if there is no medium, how can it
curve?".
Then there's the 'roach motel' objection of "where does
the 'stuff' go once ingested?" Well, where did the BB 'come from'? You
readily accept the imponderability of the pre-BB state, do you not? oc

  #23  
Old April 2nd 04, 07:14 PM
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From OG:

You are failing to give a convincing
reason for adopting their (Lindner,
Warren et als') model...... I wonder why
IF you keep insisting its 'true' you aren't
at all interested in providing testable
proof.


Testable proof ??!! The mechanism is self-evident and self-explanatory.
By its behavior and bountiful effects, the mechanism *appears* to be an
accelerating, pressure driven flow toward a center of mass, in an
omnidirectional 'reverse starburst' pattern. Unless you are utterly
inculcated with the 'no medium' premise, what's more pragmatic than
simply accepting the mechanism for what it appears to be and behaves as?
It frees you from the need for abstractions like 'curvature of space'
which carries its own conundrum of "if there is no medium, how can it
curve?".
Then there's the 'roach motel' objection of "where does
the 'stuff' go once ingested?" Well, where did the BB 'come from'? You
readily accept the imponderability of the pre-BB state, do you not? oc


So you reject the scientific model. Fine, your choice. Go back to your
radios.


  #24  
Old April 2nd 04, 07:16 PM
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
OG, i've no doubt your Dad's a fine chap, but did he ever tell you your
preoccupation with minutiae, details and particulars is preventing you
from simply kicking back and seeing the overview, the big picture? Sorta
like focusing in on the just the rivets and girders of the Eiffel Tower
without ever backing off and seeing the Tower.
Tried the same analogy with Zinni and the Statue of
Liberty, with null result.g oc


Science _is_ rigourous - your delusions simply don't stand up to inspection.
Goodnight.


  #25  
Old April 2nd 04, 07:48 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To OG:
G'night 'ol chap.

  #26  
Old April 3rd 04, 07:02 AM
Painius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

From Painius:

The nuclear "strong force" is believed to
exist solely to bond together all those
positively charged protons, thereby
overcoming the effects of the electrical
repulsion of these charges. Moreover,
scientists at present believe that the
strong force has absolutely no influence
out beyond the confines of the atomic
nucleus.


The key term is "_believed_ not to exist outside the nucleus". Yet what
is magnetism if not the spatial inflow into the _poles_ of the proton..
into the seat of the strong nuclear force within? Seems sorta like a no
brainer. Magnetism's 'sign', i.e., its 'N' and 'S' polarity, is
determined by spin direction of the inflow.


I agree wholeheartedly with this. My disagreement lies with gravity
*also* being associated with the strong force. Neither you nor Wolter
seem to go along with the quantum need for the Weak Nuclear Force.
It is needed for several reasons, and because of this, scientists are
convinced that there indeed *is* a weak nuclear force.

And for me the no-brainer has always been that electromagnetic force
is associated with the strong nuclear force and that gravity is connected
with the weak nuclear force.

Since science does not consider the strong nuclear force as being an
inverse square force, science of course does not accept these
associations.

. . .
And it would seem to be a simple matter
to show this connection using
mathematics.


And what if we were operating under the Roman numeral system? Would we
be forever barred and banned from understanding unification? Seems more
like the 'primacy of math' fixation is barring understanding.


And yet, we are *not* operating under the Roman numeral system. You
are not operating under *any* system of mathematics, and that's the rub.

To make sure we understand each other, i want you to know that after
many months of studying Wolter's ideas, i happen to see a lot of good
in them.

I am *not* talking about using math to understand your ideas. Yes, there
have been times when math was the path to understanding. We all seem
to remember a time when, under Newton, there were two separate laws
of conservation for mass and for energy. Then along came the old man
and, using math, was able to show the equivalency of mass and energy.
So this is a classic case where math was instrumental in understanding a
new idea.

Many other times in the history of science, the understanding of an idea
came *before* the math, such as in your case. Ptolemy, for example
was certain that everything in the sky revolved around the Earth. He
*understood* this "fact" first, and then used math to "confirm" the idea.

And Ptolemy's math stood up to scientific scrutiny for a long, long time.

All too often this has been the case. We understand something, and
then use math to prove that what we understand is true. And all too
often, as in the case of Ptolemy, later students use math to refute the
earlier understanding and to bring the world to a better understanding
of how the universe works.

So hopefully you can see why others may be turned off by the idea of
understanding something without the aid of the scientifically universal
usage of math to confirm or refute the understanding. I forget whether
it was John or OG who implied it, but your dedication to undermining
the need for math smacks of your fear that Wolter's ideas would be
refuted if math were applied to them. Though i believe that many of
Wolter's ideas would be confirmed if math were to be applied to them.

You may call it the "primacy of math" and shun it if you wish, but math,
primal or not, is the Universal Scientific Language or tool used *not*
just to understand an idea, but also to confirm or deny it. Without
math, you and Wolter's ideas will never go any farther than this. The
only other possibility would be that someone else will apply the math
and take credit for Wolter's confirmed ideas. This seems to be what
you want to happen.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Everytime you listen to a song,
When you hear a voice who likes to sing
How your lovin' eyes are everything,
Think of me just singin' right along.

Close your eyes and listen carefully,
Hear me sing my love forever true,
Every word of my love meant for you,
Every song a sing-a-long from me.

Paine Ellsworth


  #27  
Old April 3rd 04, 05:06 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

'Lo Paine
Appreciate the feedback. As was emphasized to you
previously on the 'primacy of math fixation', the argument is not with
the application of math, but with the application of math _to a flawed
premise_. The flawed premise in this case is the void-space
paradigm(VSP), the axiom that space is functionally void-- which
automatically precludes the existance of a medium amenable to expansion,
compression, and flow.

OG stipulates that science be "rigourous". Well Uncle Albert rigourously
applied math for his last 30 years to the unification of gravity. And he
came up zip. Why? Because his math, perfect as it was, was predicated on
the VSP, which prohibits a dynamic flowing medium.

As far as Wolter's connecting gravity and the strong force, exactly the
same thing was echoed years later by Lindner and Warren, with Lindner
calling it the 'hadronic flow' at the level where the flow enters the
nucleus.
Wolter saw electroweak as operating entirely within the
nucleus, and not participating _directly_ in spatial flows 'out here' in
the spacetime domain. Thus EW was not included in his Unified Field of
Spatial Flows. EW is certainly real as you point out, and we have clear
evidence of it in radioactive decay ejecta from 'down in the hole'
(sorta like fulmanating Drano ejectag).

Since science does not consider the
strong nuclear force as being an inverse
square force, science of course does not
accept these associations.


Science does not accept the existance of a flowing spatial medoum.
That's the rub.

...i believe that many of Wolter's ideas
would be confirmed if math were to be
applied to them.


Wolter stated that the math is already in place in the equations of SR
and GR and that no further math is needed. Once the reality of the
expansible/ compressible/ flowing medium is recognized, the math will
extrapolate directly to it. And G.U. will follow as the unsolicited,
fortuitous spinoff.

The only other possibility would be that
someone else will apply the math and
take credit for Wolter's confirmed ideas.
This seems to be what you want to
happen.


'Twon't never happen under the VSP. As exemplified by OG, Zinni, Scott
and crew, the 'no medium' doctrine is here to stay for the forseeable
future. And that's fine. That is their truth, their reality. As Wolter
would say, it's their referance frame which is to be respected as long
as they are happy with it. oc

  #28  
Old April 3rd 04, 07:32 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Painius Thinking about the strong nuclear force that holds protons
together even though they would like to push apart by their like
charges,this strong force could obey the inverse square law,by pulling
harder as particles move further away from each other. It seems to fit
with my convex,concave theory that Einstien thinking would go with
Bert

  #29  
Old April 3rd 04, 08:37 PM
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi Painius Thinking about the strong nuclear force that holds protons
together even though they would like to push apart by their like
charges,this strong force could obey the inverse square law,by pulling
harder as particles move further away from each other. It seems to fit
with my convex,concave theory that Einstien thinking would go with
Bert


Bert,
do you have any clue why it's called an 'inverse square' law?


  #30  
Old April 3rd 04, 10:55 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

OG Yes I do know how the inverse square law works. Have a post right
here in our news group. Sorry if you don't know how it works so read,ask
David or go to Google. You would never believe me(YES) Bert

 




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
Big Bang busted? Bob Wallum Astronomy Misc 8 March 16th 04 01:44 AM
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 27th 03 01:32 PM
NASA Celebrates Educational Benefits of Earth Science Week Ron Baalke Science 0 October 10th 03 04:14 PM
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth Ron Baalke Space Station 1 July 30th 03 12:01 AM
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth Ron Baalke Science 0 July 29th 03 04:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:12 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.