A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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
  #21  
Old February 22nd 12, 05:00 PM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.astro
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On Feb 22, 7:48*am, Painius wrote:
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."


Exactly, because space is chock full of rogue electrons, protons,
neutrons and perhaps 1e100 photons per atom. The universe is
supposedly worth 1e84 atoms, so that makes 1e184 photons thus far.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #22  
Old February 22nd 12, 05:13 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: 1,654
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:23:54 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

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?


Ah, Fidem, 'tis a violent world, a violent Universe, all supposedly
set forth by the violent expansion of a singularity. And what a
theory (actually still just a hypothesis) that violent Big Bang really
is, eh?

After more than 80 years since its proposal, one would think that
science would be able to tell us how the singularity got there and
what caused it to begin to expand. But alas, only the Catholic priest
who proposed the Big Bang fully knows the answer to those questions.
For at the precise moment that the singularity began to expand, the
Catholic priest will tell you that that moment coincides with the
precise moment that God said, "Let there be light!"

But ever since that moment, if there really *was* such a moment, there
has not been much light. There has been only darkness and violence
and the sheepish following of unreasonable and illogical paradigms.

The bright side is that if we continue to think, to question and to
try to reason things out, there may actually come a time when we can
correctly handle the darkness and the violence. That is why there is
a place for all of us. Each one of us can use our own personal
talents to reason it out. Some of us are dreamers, and some of us are
true scientists. It is the combination of imagination and scientific
method that may end the violence...

....end the darkness.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"History is extremely kind to those who write it."
  #23  
Old February 22nd 12, 05:52 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: 1,654
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:24:52 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

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.


Yes, and there are smaller black holes and larger black holes. The
larger ones, like those at the centers of galaxies, have larger
masses, and yet each black hole's singularity has infinite density and
zero volume. The black hole is the best analogy because of this.

When the very first singularity came to be (how? nobody knows! (except
perhaps religious people)), it would have been the mother of all
singularities in terms of the massiveness within. And yet it still
would have had infinite density and zero volume. And similar to a
black hole, it would have generated the mother of all gravitational
fields.

It is then believed that the initial singularity began to expand (what
made it begin to expand? nobody knows! (except perhaps religious
people)). However, surrounded by the mother of all gravitational
fields, what mechanism could possibly make the singularity begin to
expand? This is a reasonable impossibility. It is highly illogical
that such an event could have ever taken place.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"History is extremely kind to those who write it."
  #24  
Old February 22nd 12, 05:57 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 2/22/2012 10:40 AM, Painius wrote:


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.


LOL


It's the old, "What would happen if the Sun just disappeared?" idea.



And if monkeys flew out of your ass? What speed would THEY fly at?
These "what if" scenario are pointless.


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.



It only appears that way to the uninformed.



--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
  #25  
Old February 22nd 12, 05:57 PM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.astro
DanielSan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On 2/22/2012 8:52 AM, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:24:52 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

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.


Yes, and there are smaller black holes and larger black holes. The
larger ones, like those at the centers of galaxies, have larger
masses, and yet each black hole's singularity has infinite density and
zero volume.


Black holes do not have zero volume. Nor do they have infinite density.

The black hole is the best analogy because of this.

When the very first singularity came to be (how? nobody knows! (except
perhaps religious people)), it would have been the mother of all
singularities in terms of the massiveness within. And yet it still
would have had infinite density and zero volume. And similar to a
black hole, it would have generated the mother of all gravitational
fields.

It is then believed that the initial singularity began to expand (what
made it begin to expand? nobody knows! (except perhaps religious
people)). However, surrounded by the mother of all gravitational
fields, what mechanism could possibly make the singularity begin to
expand?


Does gravity exist at the quantum state?

This is a reasonable impossibility.


So, with all the energy of the universe, it couldn't expand at escape
speeds to escape the gravity of the singularity?

It is highly illogical
that such an event could have ever taken place.


Not really, no.
  #26  
Old February 22nd 12, 06:03 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 2/22/2012 10:48 AM, Painius wrote:




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



That's right, Bert...Don't listen to the entire scientific
community...Listen to Painus.

He once read something about dark energy and he didn't like it.

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.



And Painus has ascertained that no astronomers have given this a
moments thought.


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.



Spacetime = spacetime. Dark matter = Dark matter.



--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
  #27  
Old February 22nd 12, 06:13 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 2/22/2012 11:13 AM, Painius wrote:


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


Ah, Fidem, 'tis a violent world, a violent Universe, all supposedly
set forth by the violent expansion of a singularity. And what a
theory (actually still just a hypothesis) that violent Big Bang really
is, eh?


Of course, 'violence' is a human construct.
It has zero basis in reality.


After more than 80 years since its proposal, one would think that
science would be able to tell us how the singularity got there and
what caused it to begin to expand. But alas, only the Catholic priest
who proposed the Big Bang



First of all, Painus is a believer.
He hates the big bang because it has no room for his god.

Funny how he uses Lemaitre to scoff at the big bang, yet
I've never heard him bitch about Gregor Mendel and the laws
of heredity.


But ever since that moment, if there really *was* such a moment, there
has not been much light. There has been only darkness and violence
and the sheepish following of unreasonable and illogical paradigms.



Painus' universe is just lovely.
It's eternal, god's eternal....Forever and ever, amen.


Anything else just doesn't make sense to him.





--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
  #28  
Old February 22nd 12, 06:14 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: 1,654
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:47:24 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

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?


Painius my critical mass density theory has the singularity formed at
the exact time the critical mass density is reached. TreBert


So if the singularity is at critical mass the moment it is formed,
wouldn't this result in an explosion rather than an expansion? It
would have been an explosion of immense proportion, but then anything
of mass would have fallen back down to the point of origin because of
the immense gravitational field.

The Big Bang calls for an expansion, not for an explosion. According
to Alan Guth's Inflation theory, the super-quick inflationary
expansion lasted from 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime
between 10^-33 and 10^-32 seconds. The Universe grew quite huge in an
extremely short time. That inflation was supposedly driven by a
negative-pressure vacuum energy density. The value of the vacuum
energy in free space here in the present time is believed to be 10^113
Joules per cubic meter, and may have been much higher in the past.

However, even that magnificent value for the driving vacuum energy
density would not have been able to overcome the mother of all
gravitational fields, which would have been in place in the same
instant that the singularity, with its critical mass, came to be. It
would have been impossible for the singularity to even begin to
expand. And if it had instead exploded, then it would have not
continued to expand into a Universe, but instead the out-rushing parts
of the explosion would have risen to great level, slowed their ascent,
turned around and dropped back to the origin point.

No matter how you look at it, the Big Bang is unreasonable and
illogical. It is an impossibility and not a part of reality.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"History is extremely kind to those who write it."
  #29  
Old February 22nd 12, 06:15 PM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.astro
DanielSan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default Aether Foreshortning at c

On 2/22/2012 9:14 AM, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:47:24 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

On Feb 20, 7:33 am, 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?


Painius my critical mass density theory has the singularity formed at
the exact time the critical mass density is reached. TreBert


So if the singularity is at critical mass the moment it is formed,
wouldn't this result in an explosion rather than an expansion? It
would have been an explosion of immense proportion, but then anything
of mass would have fallen back down to the point of origin because of
the immense gravitational field.


Why would it have fallen back down to the point of origin?
  #30  
Old February 22nd 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-22 08:57, DanielSan wrote:
On 2/22/2012 8:52 AM, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:24:52 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:
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.


Yes, and there are smaller black holes and larger black holes. The
larger ones, like those at the centers of galaxies, have larger
masses, and yet each black hole's singularity has infinite density and
zero volume.


Black holes do not have zero volume. Nor do they have infinite density.


I agree.

The black hole is the best analogy because of this.

When the very first singularity came to be (how? nobody knows! (except
perhaps religious people)), it would have been the mother of all
singularities in terms of the massiveness within. And yet it still
would have had infinite density and zero volume. And similar to a
black hole, it would have generated the mother of all gravitational
fields.

It is then believed that the initial singularity began to expand (what
made it begin to expand? nobody knows! (except perhaps religious
people)). However, surrounded by the mother of all gravitational
fields, what mechanism could possibly make the singularity begin to
expand?


Does gravity exist at the quantum state?


Although I suspect it very likely does, research in the area of Quantum
Gravity (and particularly with regard to the complexities of Quantum
Chromodynamics and related forces) is still ongoing.

This is a reasonable impossibility.


So, with all the energy of the universe, it couldn't expand at escape
speeds to escape the gravity of the singularity?


The absolute nature of an answer that agrees with this idea is already
flawed if it is all-encompassing.

It is highly illogical
that such an event could have ever taken place.


Not really, no.


I agree.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"My calculations show that even if God dedicated all of his time meeting
the dead, you would only get to meet him for half of one second. There
are 56 million deaths occurring annually and only 32 million seconds in
a year."
-- Darwin Bedford, Ambassador of Reason ("The Pope is Humpty Dumpty")
 




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 08:51 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 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.