Aether Foreshortning at c

On 2/22/2012 1:00 PM, Painius wrote:


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.

Yes, I read that dark energy must be postulated to account for the
accelerated expansion of the Universe. But if the Universe is not
expanding, then there is no need to postulate a dark energy.

Prove that the Universe is expanding, Harlow. Show me one study that
has been made here in local space that shows that space is expanding.

I'll wait right here.


How about EVERY study pointing to the reality that
the universe is expanding and a grand total of zero
that says it's not?




--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On 2012-Feb-22 10:00, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:03:25 -0500, wrote:
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.

Yes, I read that dark energy must be postulated to account for the
accelerated expansion of the Universe. But if the Universe is not
expanding, then there is no need to postulate a dark energy.

That's absurd. (Have you been huffing bug spray? It seems to be a past
time around here with some folks.)

Prove that the Universe is expanding, Harlow. Show me one study that
has been made here in local space that shows that space is expanding.

I'll wait right here.

Two words: Red shift

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"... My world view changes as new facts come to light, [therefore] my
world view is based on reality."
-- David Fritzinger (February 14, 2012)

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:56:59 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/22/2012 9:54 AM, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:57:33 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:


. . .


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

That's not what I said, Daniel San. A black hole is not a
singularity. It is the singularity at the center of a black hole that
has infinite density and zero volume.

You said "yet each black hole's singularity has infinite density and
zero volume". I say that's not true.

In actuality, I agree that it's not true. The laws of physics break
down at a singularity, and that should tell science something. For
one thing, if a singularity is an impossibility, and the Universe is
supposed to have begun with a singularity that expanded,...

then . . .

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?

The quantum state is just a small, tiny portion of the macro state. If
gravity is present in the macro state, then it must also be present in
all the quantum states that comprise that macro state.

This is one area where quantum mechanics goes largely misunderstood.
Scientists seem to do all they can to keep the small separate from the
large. The reality is that the small comprises the large. A large is
made up of many smalls. Realize this, and reality may follow.

Not really. Physics goes out the window at such smallness.

No, physics does *not* "go out the window", Daniel San. It is our
understanding of the physics that goes out the window. In the case of
singularities, physicists, to include astrophysicists, seem perfectly
happy with an entity wherein the laws of physics break down. They
appear to believe that if they could only understand it, then the
breakdown of the laws of physics would go away. So they keep the
singularity along with its weakness. It's like keeping a violent dog
who has bitten you several times, but you keep it anyway. It's time
for scientists to traverse more realistic avenues. They've been
trying to understand the singularity for a long time, now. It's
become yet another unreasonable, illogical paradigm.

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.

Good! Then we disagree. No fault in that.


Yep. I see facts and evidence, you disagree with that. But I do see a
fault in that.

No, you see no "facts" regarding the Big Bang, because there are no
facts. And the evidence you see that supports the Big Bang is
evidence that was made to "fit the theory". It is evidence that could
also support other hypotheses of predictive value.

If you see fault in those who disagree with you, then you will develop
the tendency to drift away from reality, which is what science has
also done. Scientists see a great deal of fault in any disagreement
with their beloved paradigms, however unreasonable and illogical they
may be. Rather than spending your time finding fault, spend it trying
to refute what I've written. Who knows? Maybe we'll *both* learn
something new!

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

On 2012-Feb-22 08:13, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:23:54 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist 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?

The Big Bang was not violent, for there was a lack of emotion. You seem
to be having trouble with science in general.

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!"

What justification do you have for placing a time-constraint of 80 years
on science for an explanation? Why not 42 years (which seems far more
plausible given the DNA factor), which would also be arbitrary?

The claims of the Catholic priest that you reference serve as yet
another demonstration of Creationists trying to force a dodecahegron
through a hole shaped like a tessellation with a single vertex and one
360 degree arc.

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.

Your claim that "... there has not been much light" contradicts your
next claim that "There has been only darkness ..." thus your statement
is illogical.

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.

I suspect you need to go back to school to complete grade 7, and then
after that you should stay in school to complete grade 12.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"As long as you are a credulous fool, your opinion will betray you."
-- Free Lunch (February 12, 2012)

On 2012-Feb-22 10:29, HVAC wrote:
On 2/22/2012 1:10 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:

When dealing with impossible things, one must come up with further
impossibilities. Just read Alan Guth. Nothing could be more
impossible and implausible than a singularity expanding by a factor of
10^78 in volume in a tiny fraction of a second. There is only one
power in the Universe that could do this. And it certainly wasn't any
"negative-pressure vacuum energy density" unless that VED is named
"God". But scientists generally don't accept the existence of a being
who can circumvent the laws of physics with the "flick of his (or her)
finger". So they make up scientific names for her (or him).

Only one power in the universe can do this? That seems arbitrary,
especially considering that "everything" hasn't been discovered yet.

He always comes back to the god answer.

One could say he's practitioner of fallacio.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Everything said in the context of a god being real is mere nonsense."
-- Darwin Bedford, Ambassador of Reason

On 2/22/2012 1:39 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:


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

Yes, I read that dark energy must be postulated to account for the
accelerated expansion of the Universe. But if the Universe is not
expanding, then there is no need to postulate a dark energy.

That's absurd. (Have you been huffing bug spray? It seems to be a past
time around here with some folks.)

Prove that the Universe is expanding, Harlow. Show me one study that
has been made here in local space that shows that space is expanding.

I'll wait right here.

Two words: Red shift


Painus doesn't believe in red shift... Thinks it's an 'illusion'.

And to think of all the wasted efforts by so many astronomers!

He starts with a ridiculous premise and then wonders why he keeps
getting ridiculous answers.




--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On 2/22/2012 2:00 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:


Only one power in the universe can do this? That seems arbitrary,
especially considering that "everything" hasn't been discovered yet.

He always comes back to the god answer.

One could say he's practitioner of fallacio.


And he's always trying to shove the answers down your throat!











--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On 2/22/2012 1:51 PM, Painius wrote:


Yep. I see facts and evidence, you disagree with that. But I do see a
fault in that.

No, you see no "facts" regarding the Big Bang, because there are no
facts. And the evidence you see that supports the Big Bang is
evidence that was made to "fit the theory". It is evidence that could
also support other hypotheses of predictive value.

If you see fault in those who disagree with you, then you will develop
the tendency to drift away from reality, which is what science has
also done. Scientists see a great deal of fault in any disagreement
with their beloved paradigms, however unreasonable and illogical they
may be. Rather than spending your time finding fault, spend it trying
to refute what I've written. Who knows? Maybe we'll *both* learn
something new!


I say **** it... Let's re-visit *everything*.
Starting with this crazy notion that the Earth isn't flat.

Hey! Maybe we'll BOTH learn something new!




--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:39:09 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

On 2012-Feb-22 10:00, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:03:25 -0500, wrote:
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.

Yes, I read that dark energy must be postulated to account for the
accelerated expansion of the Universe. But if the Universe is not
expanding, then there is no need to postulate a dark energy.

That's absurd. (Have you been huffing bug spray? It seems to be a past
time around here with some folks.)

Prove that the Universe is expanding, Harlow. Show me one study that
has been made here in local space that shows that space is expanding.

I'll wait right here.

Two words: Red shift

You fail to read my words, and you think *I've* been inhaling bug
spray? I wrote "here in local space", Fidem. There is absolutely no
evidence locally that the Universe is expanding. The expansion cannot
be measured. Science will tell us that its because the actual amount
of expansion here at the local level is too small to be measured.

Cop out. That's a cop out. If space were expanding at an accelerated
rate, then there should be some scientific method of testing that here
in local space.

Instead, they rely upon redshifts and cosmic microwave background
radiation and a myriad of other pieces of evidence that could also be
both caused by something else besides an expanding Universe and be
evidence of other plausible hypotheses.

You brought up the redshift of faraway galaxies, then please explain
the following:

"Using standard candles with known intrinsic brightness, the
acceleration in the expansion of the universe has been measured using
redshift as Ho = 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. For every million parsecs of
distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about
74 kilometers per second."

Ref.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space


Let me give you my interpretation, and then, if you like, you can give
me your interpretation.

A parsec is a measure of distance equal to about 3.26 light years. A
million parsecs, then, is about 3.26 million light years. Now lets
look at a simple scale...

0_____1_____2_____3_____4

Let us say that an observer on Earth is at ZERO on this scale, and the
numbers ONE thru FOUR represent an increasing distance from ZERO in
Megaparsecs (Mp or a million parsecs).

Science says that at ONE, or 1 Megaparsec from the observer, the rate
of expansion is about 74 km/s higher than at ZERO. Also, at TWO, the
rate of expansion is about 74 km/s higher than at ONE, at THREE, the
rate of expansion is about 74 km/s higher than at TWO, and so forth.

Point ONE on the scale lies about 3.26 million light years from ZERO
and from TWO. If a light source were to exist at ONE, then it would
take 3.26 million years for its light to reach the observer at ZERO.
This must mean that point ONE represents a point in space that we can
only observe to be 3.26 million years in the _past_. It follows that
point TWO is about 6.52 million years in the past, point THREE is 9.78
million years in the past and point FOUR is 13.04 million years in the
past.

So science says that 3.26 million years ago, the Universe's rate of
expansion *was* 74 km/s higher than now. Also, 6.52 million years
ago, the expansion rate was 74 km/s faster than 3.26 million years
ago, 9.78 million years ago, the Universe expanded 74 km/s faster than
it did 6.52 million years ago, and 13.04 million years ago, the
expansion rate was faster by 74 km/s than it was 9.78 million years
ago. It seems the farther away we observe (and the longer in the past
we see) the faster the Universe was expanding.

Let's now proceed back to the observer from point FOUR. At FOUR, the
Universe was expanding faster than at THREE, which was expanding
faster than it was at TWO, which was faster than at ONE, which was
faster than here in the present time. Since there is no observable,
testable evidence here and now in local space that the Universe is
expanding, then it would seem that over the years, that is, the nearer
we get to the point of observation here in the present, the SLOWER the
Universe expanded. And now, it doesn't seem to be expanding at all.

It might even be contracting.

Perhaps our observations here from the specks of dust of our Solar
system and planet veil the realities of the Universe?

Fidem, how can it be right to judge what the Universe is doing right
now by our observation of what it did millions of years ago in the
past? How can it be correct to look out into the Cosmos and say with
any surety that we know that it is expanding? that we know what it is
doing RIGHT NOW?

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

On 2/22/2012 10:51 AM, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:56:59 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/22/2012 9:54 AM, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:57:33 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:


. . .


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

That's not what I said, Daniel San. A black hole is not a
singularity. It is the singularity at the center of a black hole that
has infinite density and zero volume.

You said "yet each black hole's singularity has infinite density and
zero volume". I say that's not true.

In actuality, I agree that it's not true. The laws of physics break
down at a singularity, and that should tell science something. For
one thing, if a singularity is an impossibility, and the Universe is
supposed to have begun with a singularity that expanded,...

then . . .

"...if a singularity is an impossibility..."

Mighty big if you got there.


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?

The quantum state is just a small, tiny portion of the macro state. If
gravity is present in the macro state, then it must also be present in
all the quantum states that comprise that macro state.

This is one area where quantum mechanics goes largely misunderstood.
Scientists seem to do all they can to keep the small separate from the
large. The reality is that the small comprises the large. A large is
made up of many smalls. Realize this, and reality may follow.

Not really. Physics goes out the window at such smallness.

No, physics does *not* "go out the window", Daniel San. It is our
understanding of the physics that goes out the window.

Sheesh, fine. Physics as we know it goes out the window.

In the case of
singularities, physicists, to include astrophysicists, seem perfectly
happy with an entity wherein the laws of physics break down.

You're right. They are perfectly happy with something they don't know
about. You do realize, of course, that simply not knowing something
isn't a bad thing, right? And did you know that inserting something
into that "I don't know" that has absolutely no evidence whatsoever is a
bad thing?

They
appear to believe that if they could only understand it, then the
breakdown of the laws of physics would go away. So they keep the
singularity along with its weakness. It's like keeping a violent dog
who has bitten you several times, but you keep it anyway. It's time
for scientists to traverse more realistic avenues. They've been
trying to understand the singularity for a long time, now. It's
become yet another unreasonable, illogical paradigm.

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.

Good! Then we disagree. No fault in that.


Yep. I see facts and evidence, you disagree with that. But I do see a
fault in that.

No, you see no "facts" regarding the Big Bang, because there are no
facts.

Absolutely false.

And the evidence you see that supports the Big Bang is
evidence that was made to "fit the theory".

Still false.

It is evidence that could
also support other hypotheses of predictive value.

Still false.

If you see fault in those who disagree with you,

It's not about disagreeing with me, it's about disagreeing with the
evidence. If you have another theory for the evidence, provide it and
back it up.

then you will develop
the tendency to drift away from reality, which is what science has
also done. Scientists see a great deal of fault in any disagreement
with their beloved paradigms, however unreasonable and illogical they
may be.

Baloney.

Rather than spending your time finding fault, spend it trying
to refute what I've written.

What have you written?

Who knows? Maybe we'll *both* learn
something new!

Perhaps. Show what you've written (I must have missed it) in the
whitespace below: