Decided to join the kooks (temporarily)...

Note for humor impared: The following is for entertainment only.
Those who take it seriously need serious help.

Here is my theory of the cosmos, devised to show that one does not
need to be a nutcase to come up with bizzare ideas:

The Earth does not move. The whole universe revolves around the earth
once a day. now the obvious question is "Why doesn't the universe fly
forcibly apart?"

The answer is that space is not really empty. There really is an
"either" out there that holds everything together. It is a superclear
(almost totally radiation-transparent), zero-mass material that has a
varying viscosity.

The viscocity of the "either" near earth is almost zero - so close to
zero that we can't detect it at all with things like satellites. But
it is enough to keep the solar system in place as it orbits the earth.

Of course, as one moves away from the earth, the centripital forces
trying to drive the universe apart become stronger, since the angular
rotation is essentially the same, but the distance is much greater.
This is where the viscocity comes in to play. As one moves away from
the earth, the "either" becomes more and more viscous. By the time
one reaches the edges of our own galaxy (which actually takes up about
1/3 of the volume of the universe) the "either" is about as viscous as
grape jelly - almost a solid (but a solid that is not matter - the
"either" has no mass). By the time one reaches the limits of what
has, in the past, been called "the observable universe," the either is
many orders harder than diamonds and with a tensile strength that is
beyond description.

The thing that causes this difference in viscosity is the life force
radiating out from earth. The life force causes a freeing of the
"either" to it's lowest possible viscocity. This also explains why
spacecraft like Pioneers 9 & 10 and Voyagers 1 & 2 can continue into
space even though they are travelling far from earth. They were made
by man, using materials from earth, and so therefore they carry some
of the life force with them, creating a local pocket of extremely low
viscocity.

Earth is not the only place where the viscocity is low; at the
beginning of the universe, the life force was scattered throughout the
universe. But being a life force, it is and was drawn to itself. The
majority of the life force (we think about 68%, but some evidence
shows it could be as high as 81%) has settled here on earth. When it
did, it triggered the beginnings of life on earth. This same life
force is behind the "directed evolution" of life on earth. This
directed evolution is less specific than the so-called Intelligent
Design, but far less random than just random natural-selection based
evolution.

The life force did not all congregate here on earth. There are
collections of life-force in other places, such as the center of other
galaxies (all of which are on the order of several magnitudes smaller
than our own galaxy). Those places end up with small areas of lower
viscocity, and may even have spaces that approach zero viscocity,
though the size of those areas is much smaller than the one around
earth.

This is the reason we are driven to explore; all of the life-force
wants to be brought together, and the will (the life force does not
ahve a mind, but it does have a will) of the life-force is to unite
all of the life-force in one place. Through us, the life-force on
earth is reaching out to those other collections, trying to create
some path that will draw the whole life-force together.

But I digress.

In the outermost reaches of the universe, despite the incredible
hardness and strength of the either, the centripital forces caused by
the daily rotation is enough to force objects to move out through the
either, but at a much lower rate than the redshift would imply. That
is because, although the either is almost transparent, it is not
totally so. But instead of slowing tyhe light, it stretches it,
giving it a longer wavelength the more either it passes through.
There is no drop in energy, only a change in wavelength.

But why are things so much dimmer at great distances, if the distances
are not so great? The answer is, the objects themselves are smaller.
One does not need the same mass for a supernova in a distant galaxy,
for example, because the either applies it's own forces to the star,
causing it to collapse.

In true pseudoscince fashion, I will argue nits, but will ridicule
those who point out glaring problems.

Disclaimer: If this upsets you, go read the first paragraph again.

Austin

AustinMN wrote:
Here is my theory of the cosmos, devised to show that one does not
need to be a nutcase to come up with bizzare ideas:

Of course not. You only have to be a nutcase in order to believe the
bizarre ideas.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

On Feb 20, 12:29 pm, (Brian Tung) wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
Here is my theory of the cosmos, devised to show that one does not
need to be a nutcase to come up with bizzare ideas:

Of course not. You only have to be a nutcase in order to believe the
bizarre ideas.

You don't honestly think the moon landing hoaxers actually believe
that stuff, do you? Somehow, even I don't think even they *believe*
what they post.

Austin

Of course not. You only have to be a
nutcase in order to believe the bizarre
ideas.
--
Brian Tung

Brian, maybe if you could just help him express all this in mathematical
equations...
Marty

On Feb 20, 7:57 pm, (Marty) wrote:
Of course not. You only have to be a
nutcase in order to believe the bizarre
ideas.
--
Brian Tung

Brian, maybe if you could just help him express all this in mathematical
equations...
Marty

But first he had better add some stuff about how electrons, protons
and neutrons are fixed in place and don't move, that Einstein didn't
get his math right and that he left out some terms in his equations,
the earth is really flat, and the universe rotates about the earth.
You also missed some mixed references to General and Special
relativity. If you are going to have a consistent theory of everything
you have to include these parts

AustinMN wrote:
Note for humor impared: The following is for entertainment only.
Those who take it seriously need serious help.

Here is my theory of the cosmos, devised to show that one does not
need to be a nutcase to come up with bizzare ideas:

The Earth does not move. The whole universe revolves around the earth
once a day. now the obvious question is "Why doesn't the universe fly
forcibly apart?"

The answer is that space is not really empty. There really is an
"either" out there that holds everything together. It is a superclear
(almost totally radiation-transparent), zero-mass material that has a
varying viscosity.

The viscocity of the "either" near earth is almost zero - so close to
zero that we can't detect it at all with things like satellites. But
it is enough to keep the solar system in place as it orbits the earth.

Of course, as one moves away from the earth, the centripital forces
trying to drive the universe apart become stronger, since the angular
rotation is essentially the same, but the distance is much greater.
This is where the viscocity comes in to play. As one moves away from
the earth, the "either" becomes more and more viscous. By the time
one reaches the edges of our own galaxy (which actually takes up about
1/3 of the volume of the universe) the "either" is about as viscous as
grape jelly - almost a solid (but a solid that is not matter - the
"either" has no mass). By the time one reaches the limits of what
has, in the past, been called "the observable universe," the either is
many orders harder than diamonds and with a tensile strength that is
beyond description.

The thing that causes this difference in viscosity is the life force
radiating out from earth. The life force causes a freeing of the
"either" to it's lowest possible viscocity. This also explains why
spacecraft like Pioneers 9 & 10 and Voyagers 1 & 2 can continue into
space even though they are travelling far from earth. They were made
by man, using materials from earth, and so therefore they carry some
of the life force with them, creating a local pocket of extremely low
viscocity.

Earth is not the only place where the viscocity is low; at the
beginning of the universe, the life force was scattered throughout the
universe. But being a life force, it is and was drawn to itself. The
majority of the life force (we think about 68%, but some evidence
shows it could be as high as 81%) has settled here on earth. When it
did, it triggered the beginnings of life on earth. This same life
force is behind the "directed evolution" of life on earth. This
directed evolution is less specific than the so-called Intelligent
Design, but far less random than just random natural-selection based
evolution.

The life force did not all congregate here on earth. There are
collections of life-force in other places, such as the center of other
galaxies (all of which are on the order of several magnitudes smaller
than our own galaxy). Those places end up with small areas of lower
viscocity, and may even have spaces that approach zero viscocity,
though the size of those areas is much smaller than the one around
earth.

This is the reason we are driven to explore; all of the life-force
wants to be brought together, and the will (the life force does not
ahve a mind, but it does have a will) of the life-force is to unite
all of the life-force in one place. Through us, the life-force on
earth is reaching out to those other collections, trying to create
some path that will draw the whole life-force together.

But I digress.

In the outermost reaches of the universe, despite the incredible
hardness and strength of the either, the centripital forces caused by
the daily rotation is enough to force objects to move out through the
either, but at a much lower rate than the redshift would imply. That
is because, although the either is almost transparent, it is not
totally so. But instead of slowing tyhe light, it stretches it,
giving it a longer wavelength the more either it passes through.
There is no drop in energy, only a change in wavelength.

But why are things so much dimmer at great distances, if the distances
are not so great? The answer is, the objects themselves are smaller.
One does not need the same mass for a supernova in a distant galaxy,
for example, because the either applies it's own forces to the star,
causing it to collapse.

In true pseudoscince fashion, I will argue nits, but will ridicule
those who point out glaring problems.

Disclaimer: If this upsets you, go read the first paragraph again.

Austin

Well, I don't think I can disprove it.

Stupot

On Feb 20, 10:01 pm, wrote:
On Feb 20, 7:57 pm, (Marty) wrote:

Of course not. You only have to be a
nutcase in order to believe the bizarre
ideas.
--
Brian Tung

Brian, maybe if you could just help him express all this in mathematical
equations...
Marty

But first he had better add some stuff about how electrons, protons
and neutrons are fixed in place and don't move, that Einstein didn't
get his math right and that he left out some terms in his equations,
the earth is really flat, and the universe rotates about the earth.
You also missed some mixed references to General and Special
relativity. If you are going to have a consistent theory of everything
you have to include these parts

Oh, no - this theory isn't about relativity, it's about
irelevantivity. Because those things are irelevant to the theory
(because I said so), they help support it if they are ignored.

Austin (still looney)

On Feb 21, 8:11 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
Note for humor impared: The following is for entertainment only.
Those who take it seriously need serious help.

Here is my theory of the cosmos, devised to show that one does not
need to be a nutcase to come up with bizzare ideas:

The Earth does not move. The whole universe revolves around the earth
once a day. now the obvious question is "Why doesn't the universe fly
forcibly apart?"

My reply is also for entertainment only! If we were the center of
the universe, with all the cosmos revolving around the Earth every
sidereal day, we might mistakenly think ourselves the purpose of
creation... we would be too stuffed with ourselves and spoil our
planet, causing our own extinction.

I have to divert into the less obvious parts of the theory. The will
of the life force created a sentient species (us) in order to assist
in uniting the entire life force universe-wide. We are not an end,
but a means to an end. If, in fact, we polute ourselves to death,
that is not what is important to the life force. It would sense the
loss and would simply re-start other life - quite possibly not even
biological life - in order to continue the quest. In that quest, we
are expendable. Remember, the life force doesn't actually know of our
existence - it has a will, but not a mind.

Austin (contradictions are there to be ignored)

On Feb 20, 10:27 am, "AustinMN" wrote:
Note for humor impared: The following is for entertainment only.
Those who take it seriously need serious help.

Here is my theory of the cosmos, devised to show that one does not
need to be a nutcase to come up with bizzare ideas:

The Earth does not move. The whole universe revolves around the earth
once a day. now the obvious question is "Why doesn't the universe fly
forcibly apart?"

The answer is that space is not really empty. There really is an
"either" out there that holds everything together. It is a superclear
(almost totally radiation-transparent), zero-mass material that has a
varying viscosity.

The viscocity of the "either" near earth is almost zero - so close to
zero that we can't detect it at all with things like satellites. But
it is enough to keep the solar system in place as it orbits the earth.

Of course, as one moves away from the earth, the centripital forces
trying to drive the universe apart become stronger, since the angular
rotation is essentially the same, but the distance is much greater.
This is where the viscocity comes in to play. As one moves away from
the earth, the "either" becomes more and more viscous. By the time
one reaches the edges of our own galaxy (which actually takes up about
1/3 of the volume of the universe) the "either" is about as viscous as
grape jelly - almost a solid (but a solid that is not matter - the
"either" has no mass). By the time one reaches the limits of what
has, in the past, been called "the observable universe," the either is
many orders harder than diamonds and with a tensile strength that is
beyond description.

The thing that causes this difference in viscosity is the life force
radiating out from earth. The life force causes a freeing of the
"either" to it's lowest possible viscocity. This also explains why
spacecraft like Pioneers 9 & 10 and Voyagers 1 & 2 can continue into
space even though they are travelling far from earth. They were made
by man, using materials from earth, and so therefore they carry some
of the life force with them, creating a local pocket of extremely low
viscocity.

Earth is not the only place where the viscocity is low; at the
beginning of the universe, the life force was scattered throughout the
universe. But being a life force, it is and was drawn to itself. The
majority of the life force (we think about 68%, but some evidence
shows it could be as high as 81%) has settled here on earth. When it
did, it triggered the beginnings of life on earth. This same life
force is behind the "directed evolution" of life on earth. This
directed evolution is less specific than the so-called Intelligent
Design, but far less random than just random natural-selection based
evolution.

The life force did not all congregate here on earth. There are
collections of life-force in other places, such as the center of other
galaxies (all of which are on the order of several magnitudes smaller
than our own galaxy). Those places end up with small areas of lower
viscocity, and may even have spaces that approach zero viscocity,
though the size of those areas is much smaller than the one around
earth.

This is the reason we are driven to explore; all of the life-force
wants to be brought together, and the will (the life force does not
ahve a mind, but it does have a will) of the life-force is to unite
all of the life-force in one place. Through us, the life-force on
earth is reaching out to those other collections, trying to create
some path that will draw the whole life-force together.

But I digress.

In the outermost reaches of the universe, despite the incredible
hardness and strength of the either, the centripital forces caused by
the daily rotation is enough to force objects to move out through the
either, but at a much lower rate than the redshift would imply. That
is because, although the either is almost transparent, it is not
totally so. But instead of slowing tyhe light, it stretches it,
giving it a longer wavelength the more either it passes through.
There is no drop in energy, only a change in wavelength.

But why are things so much dimmer at great distances, if the distances
are not so great? The answer is, the objects themselves are smaller.
One does not need the same mass for a supernova in a distant galaxy,
for example, because the either applies it's own forces to the star,
causing it to collapse.

In true pseudoscince fashion, I will argue nits, but will ridicule
those who point out glaring problems.

Disclaimer: If this upsets you, go read the first paragraph again.

Austin

What everyone seems to have missed, and what is generally not
understood by most scientists and lay people, is that all a theory has
to do is explain observation. The model that we usually choose is
based on what is easiest for our senses to understand.

The model of the universe that is generally accepted, that of the
earth being at an unfashionable corner of the galaxy (Douglas Adams)
is one that we can relate to. It is perfectly possible (although for
us absurd) to adequately described the universe with the original
postulate that the earth is at its center.

Please visit my not too absurd web site at www.richardfisher.com

On 21 Feb 2007 07:23:56 -0800, "Helpful person"
wrote:

What everyone seems to have missed, and what is generally not
understood by most scientists and lay people, is that all a theory has
to do is explain observation.

Many lay people may make that mistake, but not most scientists. A theory
must also be testable, and it must be falsifiable. Something that simply
explains an observation without meeting these additional requirements is
not a theory at all.


The model that we usually choose is
based on what is easiest for our senses to understand.

Once upon a time, perhaps. But such narrow thinking seldom hinders our
understanding these days. Modern cosmology, relativity, quantum
mechanics, and many other areas deviate significantly from anything we
are capable of understanding based on our senses (something that
disturbs some people to no end.)

(I apologize if you are simply maintaining the parody here, but that
isn't clear, and I can't let something so important remain to be
misunderstood.)

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com