Aether Foreshortning at c

On 2/22/2012 6:37 PM, Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess wrote:

You fail to read my words, and you think *I've* been inhaling bug

No, I didn't make any such conclusion, I merely asked if this was
something you did. Interestingly, you didn't answer this question,
and at this point I think it would be best if Zacharias Mulletstein,
alt.atheism's local resident expert in bug spray huffing (he has a lot
of first-hand experience in this area), could provide some perspective
on this since I'm truly out of my element concerning this topic.


But I'd bet he has no insect infestations...












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

On 2/23/2012 12:01 AM, Painius wrote:



Sorry, Ray, but saying it is not proving it.

So prove that the Universe is accelerating its expansion.

But first, prove that it's expanding.


Painus is a 'steady state' sort of guy. The universe
always was and always will be. (until Jesus comes)

Amen.









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

On 2/22/2012 9:23 PM, Painius wrote:


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

You are the "believer" around here, Harlow. You faithfully believe
that there is no deity, despite the fact that there is no hard
evidence to support your faith-based belief, or "disbelief" if you
prefer. Atheism is just as faith-based as theism.


You seem upset... Did you get some sand in your vag?












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

On 2/22/2012 8:41 PM, Painius wrote:


You could be right. 80 years may have not been enough time for
countless scientists and others with heads on their shoulders who have
attempted to figure out where the singularity came from and what
caused it to begin to expand. In fact, I know you're right, because
after all those attempts, it *still* hasn't happened. How long do YOU
think we should wait? Never mind. I just read further down, and I'm
totally finished with you.


L O ****ing L

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.

That made no sense at all. The "claims" of the Jesuit priest, Georges
Lemaître, led to the wide acceptance of the Big Bang as the way the
Universe came into existence. If you really believe what you wrote
above, then we are on the same page, which I truly doubt.


So I guess you *weren't* quite totally finished with her?





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.

Learn to read, Fidem. The "next claim" used "only" to describe
"darkness and violence and the sheepish following of unreasonable and
illogical paradigms". "Only" did not just refer to darkness. Oy.

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.

I think that's enough enlightening discourse from you. You may talk
to yourself for awhile.

Thank you for playing.



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

On Feb 23, 6:57*am, HVAC wrote:
On 2/23/2012 12:01 AM, Painius wrote:



Sorry, Ray, but saying it is not proving it.

So prove that the Universe is accelerating its expansion.

But first, prove that it's expanding.

Painus is a 'steady state' sort of guy. The universe
always was and always will be. (until Jesus comes)

Amen.

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

Reality is if the universe was always there Gods would not be needed.
(Hawkings) TreBert

On Feb 22, 7:09*pm, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:45:20 -0500, HVAC wrote:
On 2/22/2012 12:14 PM, Painius wrote:

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.

Gravity didn't exist at that point.

I'll hold my breath while I wait for you to prove that.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Shall you dream? or just keep sleeping."

Guth inflation theory explains what took place the first trillionth of
a second of the big bang. Without it all that is would never be.
Instantly the universe became huge.In an instant the forces
seperated.. Kicker is it became perfectly suited for the creation of
stars,galaxies,and other complex systems. How we got here is a
mystery. Reality is,just where is exactly "here"is. TreBert

On Feb 23, 12:01*am, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:29:35 -0800 (PST), Raymond Yohros





wrote:
On Feb 22, 1:00*pm, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:03:25 -0500, HVAC 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.

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.

Is not only expanding but doing it at an axelerated rate.
some people have even theorize about "the big ripp"
A moment when all becomes ripped off because of
the extreme speed but most people don't believe that will
be the case.

Sorry, Ray, but saying it is not proving it.

So prove that the Universe is accelerating its expansion.

But first, prove that it's expanding.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Shall you dream? or just keep sleeping."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Reality is big bang has more going for it than hocus pocus Gods
TreBert

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:25:01 -0500, HVAC wrote:

On 2/22/2012 7:09 PM, Painius wrote:
Harlow exerted:
Painius asked and supposed:

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.

Gravity didn't exist at that point.

I'll hold my breath while I wait for you to prove that.

When the big bang began the four forces, gravity, electromagnetism,
along with the strong and weak nuclear forces, were combined into
one 'superforce'. It wasn't until approx 10 -36 seconds after that
when these forces separated.

Hmm - 10^-36 seconds is about when the cosmological inflation began,
so the Universe was still quite small at that time. That inflation is
postulated to have lasted until about 10^-33 or 10^-32 seconds, at
which time the Universe would have rapidly increased in volume by a
factor of at least 10^78.

But since, as you say, gravitation separated from the other forces
before cosmological inflation began, then that gravitation would have
contained the as yet small Universe and not allowed cosmological
inflation to have taken place.

So, you have shown evidence to support the existence of a
gravitational field generated by the initial singularity itself at
about 10^-36 seconds into expansion. That would render Alan Guth's
inflation theory--and our entire Universe--impossible.

Thank you, Harlow, for once again proving a very crucial point and
showing that the Big Bang is an impossibility! You da BOMB!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Shall you dream? or just keep sleeping."

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:34:52 -0500, HVAC wrote:

On 2/22/2012 7:21 PM, Painius wrote:

Harlow, if you have a question for me, then you should ask me, and not
tell lies about me to others. There is no "Painius' god", and you
know it.

Oftentimes it is necessary to tell a friend that he has bad breath.

Sorry, I don't have that, either.

I am neither a theist nor an atheist.

There is no middle ground. If you're not with me, you're my enemy.

Well, now, THERE'S a surprise!

All of them practice a form of faith.

Does it take 'faith' to not believe in leprechauns?

Your logic is flawed.

My logic is sound. Anytime you don't have proof or at least some hard
evidence about absolutely *anything*, absolutely *any belief*, then
you are the faithful, sheepish puppet of that belief (or disbelief).

Do you have proof or hard evidence that God does or does not exist?

No?

Then whatever "side" you are on, whether or not you believe in God,
you practice that belief or DISBELIEF out of FAITH, and *not* out of
REASON nor LOGIC.

Atheism can also be seen as quite the "rebellion" against God and the
Church. That's what most atheists like about being an atheist. And
yet there is not one among them, no not one, who is absolutely certain
that there is no God. How could you be? You cannot produce one
single micro-shred of evidence to support such certainty.

faith in a deity with absolutely no hard evidence that a deity exists.
The atheist has faith that there is no deity with absolutely no hard
evidence that a deity does not exist.

LOL! See above.

Laughter... the Best Medicine.

Laughter during any kind of debate is also a sign of nervousness.

You are in denial, and you would *never* admit it, but it's obvious
that I've hit a nerve.

You're welcome.

There are three possible answers to the question, "Does God exist?"

The only legitimate, logical and reasonable answer to that question:
I D O N ' T K N O W

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Shall you dream? or just keep sleeping."

On 2/23/2012 7:30 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:


Painus is a 'steady state' sort of guy. The universe
always was and always will be. (until Jesus comes)

Amen.

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

Reality is if the universe was always there Gods would not be needed.
(Hawkings)


Who is Hawkings?









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