|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2/20/2012 2:49 PM, Painius wrote:
I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. No... I mean, how many times do I have to tell you this? The big bang is the name we give when the singularity expanded into what would become our universe. Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! Correct! Gravitation is an instant phenomenon That propagates at c. as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. What the **** does THIS mean? So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. The Big Bang was an impossibility. Certainly each and every one of us is an 'impossibility'. Yet here WE are. Deal with it. Accept the fact that some things are not only unknown, but possibly unknowable. Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. Request denied. -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2/20/2012 10:57 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
this 20 century idea violates conservation laws. our observational perspective dont let us see anything before the bb but that doesn't mean It came from nothing just as it makes no sense to say a BH is nothing because you can't see it. the 'before' was the cause of the bb aftermath just as we can understand what a BH is by observing it's effects on space-time. No offense, Ray, but you appear to be a retard. Have a nice day! -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Feb 21, 8:13*am, HVAC wrote:
On 2/20/2012 10:57 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote: this 20 century idea violates conservation laws. our observational perspective dont let us see anything before the bb but that doesn't mean It came from nothing just as it makes no sense to say a BH is nothing because you can't see it. the 'before' was the cause of the bb aftermath just as we can understand what a BH is by observing it's effects on space-time. No offense, Ray, but you appear to be a retard. maybe I am for thinking that someone like you who is trapped in a boring, ordinary and noisy world of violence could understand higher matters |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2012-Feb-21 09:23, Raymond Yohros wrote:
On Feb 21, 8:13 am, wrote: On 2/20/2012 10:57 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote: this 20 century idea violates conservation laws. our observational perspective dont let us see anything before the bb but that doesn't mean It came from nothing just as it makes no sense to say a BH is nothing because you can't see it. the 'before' was the cause of the bb aftermath just as we can understand what a BH is by observing it's effects on space-time. No offense, Ray, but you appear to be a retard. maybe I am for thinking that someone like you who is trapped in a boring, ordinary and noisy world of violence could understand higher matters Where does violence fit into any of that? Or are you somehow implying that The Big Bang is a violent theory? -- Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess "There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time ... the universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself; it would neither be created nor destroyed, it would just be ... what place, then, for a creator?" -- Dr. Stephen W. Hawking (1994) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Feb 20, 2:49*pm, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, HVAC wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. *So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. *So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. *Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. *So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. *The Big Bang was an impossibility. *Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. -- Indelibly yours, Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "History is extremely kind to those who write it."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 96% of the universe is missing. Universes at humankinds time (Now) are impossible . Might as well go with the hocus pocus of Gods. LET THERE BE LIGHT TreBert |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Feb 20, 5:46*pm, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:53:37 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 11:49 AM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, *wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. *So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. *So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. *Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. *So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. *The Big Bang was an impossibility. *Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. One can, if one has enough energy, achieve escape velocity. *It's possible (again, this is all conjecture, at least, from me) that the Big Bang "exploded" with such force that it achieved its own escape velocity and the rate of "explosion" surpassed any recollapse....at least, for the time being. * I no see how, Daniel San. *As soon as singularity is "there", its very own most powerful gravitational field is there to contain it. *It would be like fart that no quite make it out of arse. BALANCE, Daniel San, BALANCE! *g -- Indelibly yours, Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "History is extremely kind to those who write it."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - How about my space convex curve kicking in at that time. No reason why space can't be flexable. Think rubber sheet. It can curve up and down. How does a gluon get stronger with distance.? When you think of a singularity being smalled than a proton you are in the quantum realm. Get the picture TreBert |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2012-Feb-21 20:06, G=EMC^2 wrote:
On Feb 20, 2:49 pm, wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. The Big Bang was an impossibility. Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. -- Indelibly yours, Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "History is extremely kind to those who write it."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 96% of the universe is missing. Universes at humankinds time (Now) are impossible . Might as well go with the hocus pocus of Gods. LET THERE BE LIGHT TreBert 96% is an arrogant number considering that the human species hasn't discovered very much of the universe yet. -- Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess "Only two things in life are infinite; the Universe, and human stupidity (and I'm not so sure about the Universe)." -- Dr. Albert Einstein |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Feb 20, 10:10*pm, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:10:02 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 2:46 PM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:53:37 -0800, DanielSan *wrote: On 2/20/2012 11:49 AM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, * wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. *So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. *So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. *Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. *So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. *The Big Bang was an impossibility. *Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. One can, if one has enough energy, achieve escape velocity. *It's possible (again, this is all conjecture, at least, from me) that the Big Bang "exploded" with such force that it achieved its own escape velocity and the rate of "explosion" surpassed any recollapse....at least, for the time being. * I no see how, Daniel San. *As soon as singularity is "there", its very own most powerful gravitational field is there to contain it. *It would be like fart that no quite make it out of arse. BALANCE, Daniel San, BALANCE!g Again, this is all conjecture, but could the 'velocity' be sufficient to 'escape' the gravitational field? Perhaps, unlike some 'round here, you'll be able to grasp the validity of this analogy: Many years ago, when scientists were contemplating the origin of the asteroid belt, one hypothesis was that a fully formed planet had traversed that Solar orbit between Mars and Jupiter. *Then for some reason, that planet broke up, exploded, and wound up as a bunch of loose rocks - the asteroids. Now, try as they might, not those scientists, nor none since, have been able to come up with a viable or reasonable way or mechanism for a fully formed planet to break up like that, to explode like that. *No way. *So the conclusion was that the asteroids had never had the chance to form into a planet due mainly to the influence of planet Jupiter. *Jupiter's gravitational field just wouldn't allow a bunch of rocks that near to it to accrete into a larger body. Now, picture in your mind a black hole. *At its center is believed to be a singularity. *The density of a singularity is said to be infinite and the volume is said to be zero. *And it was just such a singularity that, about 13.7 billion years ago, is believed to have somehow popped into existence and began to expand into the Universe we see today. That was the moment of the so-called "Big Bang". Now, just like the mechanism that would result in an exploding planet, scientists are unable to come up with any mechanism that would result in the singularity of a black hole to begin to expand. *There is no known way for this to happen. *And yet scientists readily accept that it happened "back in the beginning". *In the beginning, a singularity began to expand into the Universe we see today. *The origin of that singularity is still unknown, and the reason it began to expand is still unknown, and yet there it was, and off it went. As that singularity began to expand, it would have instantly generated a gravitational field the likes of which are hardly imaginable, certainly nothing like we see today, even among the quasars. *That field would have been like billions and trillions of Solar masses strong. *That singularity, from a reasonable standpoint, would have collapsed "under its own weight" almost as quickly as it had begun to expand. *So "reasonably", the Big Bang was and is an impossibility. Just as there is no known way for a planet to explode under the weight of its own gravitational field, just as there is no known way for the singularity of a black hole to expand under the weight of its own gravitational field, there can be no known way for the Big Bang to have happened. It did not happen. *It was a contrived hypothesis set forth by a God-fearing Catholic priest... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre ...who in his mind turned back the hands of time. *He took a Universe that appeared to be expanding, stopped time, and then watched as in his mind the Universe began to contract as he went backward in time. For some reason, scientists even today accept that it was okay to do this. *It was okay for the Universe to just keep on contracting as we went farther back in time. *There was never really any reason to believe that, if the Universe actually were expanding, it had *always* been in that state of expansion. *And yet, there it was, laid down by a religious man. *The Universe kept contracting and contracting until it was this tiny point. *All the matter, all the energy, all the space and time neatly rolled up in what he called a "primeval atom". The God-fearing priest was very careful when he proposed his idea to science not to mention the "Let there be light" part. *He gave no explanation at all as to how the primeval atom got there nor what caused it to begin to expand. *To this day, over eighty years later, and the contemplations of countless scientists and others with heads on their shoulders, there is still no reasonable explanation for these two crucial points. *No not one. A hundred years from now, or hopefully much sooner, these times will be looked back upon and called "The Age of Absurd Astronomy", or "A Case for Colossally Comedic Cosmology". *It is, I sincerely believe, the Baddest and Blindest of Big Bang Bummer Beliefs we, as human beings, must share until scientists come 'round to their senses. *They are blinded by this cosmology paradigm so much so, that every single piece of evidence that could support any number of different hypotheses is "worked in" to support the present paradigm. Even the mighty concept of the redshifts of faraway galaxies and their "obvious" meaning that the Universe is expanding can be crushed under the clarity of reason. *But when *you* are *crushed* under the magnificent weight of the existing paradigm, then you become blind to facts, and thereby, blind to reality. This post has become long, too long for even me. *Einstein told us many great things. *Among the greatest was his light warning to always question, to never stop with the questions. *Question all of it, question everything. *And never stop. *When the questioning stops, the thinking stops also. *There is no reason to think further on the Big Bang, there is no reason to question it. *Scientists have made their choice about it, they have made their decision about it, and when a decision is made, thinking stops. Only our youth continue to think, continue to question. *Only they follow the good advice of Einstein. *Well, they and a very few of us old farts. *g -- Indelibly yours, Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "History is extremely kind to those who write it."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Asteroids and Jupiter are big stuff(macro) Singularity like you posted are tiny stuff(micro) Best read what Feynman had to say about large and tiny on how they relate TreBert |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:04:55 -0500, HVAC wrote:
On 2/20/2012 2:49 PM, Painius wrote: Harlow homed in: I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. No... I mean, how many times do I have to tell you this? The big bang is the name we give when the singularity expanded into what would become our universe. . . . . . . Gravitation is an instant phenomenon That propagates at c. as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. What the **** does THIS mean? It means that if gravity propagated at c, then the orbits of all the planets in the Solar system would decay, very quickly in fact. This was worked out long ago. It's the old, "What would happen if the Sun just disappeared?" idea. If the Sun's gravity were to completely and instantly disappear, Newton has it that everything in the Solar system would immediately head out on a tangential straight line from their Solar orbits. Einstein, on the other hand, proposed that Newton was wrong, and that gravitation propagated at c. So, for example, since Earth is about 8 light minutes from the Sun, then Earth would, if the Sun disappeared, continue orbiting for 8 minutes, and only then would it head out on a straight line out of the Solar system. Einstein was wrong in this case, because gravitation does not "propagate". Gravitation is an instant phenomenon. Newton, in this case, appears to have been correct. -- Indelibly yours, Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "History is extremely kind to those who write it." |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:06:14 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
wrote: On Feb 20, 2:49*pm, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, HVAC wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. *So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. *So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. *Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. *So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. *The Big Bang was an impossibility. *Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. 96% of the universe is missing. Universes at humankinds time (Now) are impossible . Might as well go with the hocus pocus of Gods. LET THERE BE LIGHT TreBert That's close enough, Bert. The figures are 4.5% known matter, and 95.5% space. The present model figures that the 95.5% is made up of "dark matter" and "dark energy". It is much more likely that there is no need to postulate dark energy, and dark matter is just space itself. There is a lot of matter in space, matter that comes from stars and other celestial bodies. Matter that is pretty much all free particles, so since these free particles are rather small, "dark matter" cannot be observed. In addition, there are the so-called "virtual particles" that pop in and pop out of existence. The quantum foamy-like structure of space makes up for the amount of matter that stellar winds and such cannot account for. Spacetime = dark matter. -- Indelibly yours, Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "History is extremely kind to those who write it." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aether Foreshortning at c | G=EMC^2[_2_] | Misc | 3 | March 1st 12 07:51 AM |
Aether | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 22 | July 17th 11 02:21 AM |
Aether | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 4 | July 11th 11 01:57 AM |
Aether or whatever | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 17th 06 05:17 AM |