Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Guest

On 30 Jul, 20:01, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]*Hypothesis*. You produce no numbers, and you require that curvature
be more intense than what is seen with neutron stars.
[/quote]
You care too much about numbers, that is why you complained that it
should be the matter plus the antimatter instead of just the matter.
Only poor people cares too much about insignificant details regarding
numbers. What does it matter if it is one billion or two billion times
more photons? Can>t you see that it is many orders of magnitude out of
proportion anyhow?

dlzc · Guest

Dear zanthius.d...:

On Jul 30, 11:19 am, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On 30 Jul, 20:01,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:

You cannot explain Universal expansion. The matter
(and "no" antimatter) clearly exists back to the
"visual singularity" of the CMBR. So you also have
a Big Bang.

A "Big Bang" certainly doesn>t explain any
accelerating expansion.
[/quote]
Neither does it prevent it.

[quote]A singular "Big Bang" event can only cause
decelerating expansion.
[/quote]
No. Clearly you know nothing about the Standard Model.

[quote]Unfortunately we are observing accelerating
expansion, not decelerating expansion. Too
bad for the big bang hypothesis.
[/quote]
Actually too bad for your cartoon version of it.

[quote]I don>t think the cosmic microwave background
is from a singular event, I think it has always
just been there.
[/quote]
"Always". Quite a pun. It is a "curtain" that no light could have
survived passing through specularly.

[quote]When the universe expands the wavelength of
the cosmic microwave background gets longer.
[/quote]
... or our clocks just get faster, and the light is unaffected.

[quote]When the universe contracts the wavelength
of the cosmic microwave background gets shorter.
[/quote]
... and light emitted now become blueshifted... to become gamma
radiation, and lots of it.

[quote]You push it all into a hole! What kind of
"explanation" is that?

Well, if you cannot observe any large amounts
of antimatter, then it must be hiding somewhere.
What is a better place to hide than inside of a
black hole?
[/quote]
Why does it have to exist at all? Maybe "spontaneous pair creation"
is not how the Universe was formed?

[quote]Not from what I have read, it is not far out.

Well, it is not the standard interpretation of
black holes, that is for sure.
[/quote]
NOT sure.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html
... ask yourself what the room with the curtain represents.

That others make cartoons of black holes, does not mean that everyone
does.

David A. Smith

dlzc · Guest

Dear zanthius.d...:

On Jul 30, 12:16 pm, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On 30 Jul, 20:01,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:

*Hypothesis*. You produce no numbers, and you
require that curvature be more intense than what
is seen with neutron stars.

You care too much about numbers, that is why
you complained that it should be the matter plus
the antimatter instead of just the matter.
[/quote]
See the name of the newsgroups? They are about science. Science
requires quantification and falsifiability.

[quote]Only poor people cares too much about
insignificant details regarding numbers. What
does it matter if it is one billion or two billion
times more photons? Can>t you see that it is
many orders of magnitude out of proportion
anyhow?
[/quote]
Right,. It does not work, and you don>t care, because details are
unimportant. How nice for you.

David A. Smith

D. Ismay · Guest

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote on 27-Jul-08 12:09 :
[quote]Dear D. Ismay:

"D. Ismay" <!@a.com> wrote in message
news:h-2dnXzPOf1uKBHVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@earthlink.com...
Hagar wrote:
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f255e27-c606-46b9-adba-92aa55a01ead@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 26 Jul, 20:08, Timberwoof
timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
You seem to be saying that scientists are
lying about the Big Bang.

Yes, I don>t there is sufficient evidence
supporting the hypothesis that the universe
once was a point/singularity.
Except for one pesky little fact: the Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation, also known
as CMBR, is proof enough for real scientists
(as opposed to you, the hack) to conclude
that its origin came from one single event,
appr. 13.5B years ago.

That event was a self-excited hydrogen plasma, that filled all of
space, and had a mean free path of 3.5 parsecs (give or take).
NOT a singularity.

No, it is not. "Noise" does not carry a
signature.

This "noise" does.

The most that one can say is that a given
noise power spectrum follows an envelope
or shape that is similar to a noise spectrum
emitted by some other, well-characterized
event. "Similarity" alone is not sufficient
proof of origin.

It is not "proof" of anything<slap
[/quote]
....and how is that different from what I wrote, fuckchop?

Painius · Guest

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote...
in message news:15877-48904FB1-4@storefull-3336.bay.webtv.net...
[quote]
To ya All Maybe the word bang needs to be changed to fluctuation. Bang
gives the idea of a great explosion,and could be taking our thinking in
the wrong direction?? How about these terms for the beginning of the
universe. A break in the very strongly coupled space energies. A
space transition(symmetry breaking if you will) Gravity creating
evolving space energy into heat energy giving the start for subparticles
to evolve. Gravity creating rips or tears that change the topology of
space. How about space before the beginning had the structure of a
torus(donut) and gravities compression force squeezed it into the hole
(center) and thus adding another dimension,for to have a universe it
needs 3 dimensions plus time. Best to keep in mind good thinking has to
tell you at the very start the universe was ultramicroscopic,and that
means length shorter than a Planck length and time shorter than a Planck
time. Here I can end this with the use of a singularity and again that
tells you the fabric of space(spacetime) suffered a devastating
rupture,and out of this fabric the universe is fashioned. After this
rupture Guth inflating space kicked in. I left out so much I even left
ot my Spin is in theory(shame on me) I just hope you all got my point.
Bert PS a Torus only has two dimensions
[/quote]
Big "Bang" has always been called an "unfortunate"
choice of words by scientists, but it certainly has
caught on in the popular sense. Almost every young
novice comes on board envisioning the Big Bang as
an "explosion" of matter and energy in an otherwise
empty space.

And the Big Bang was never meant to be understood
that way...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part9/

Fred Hoyle, the man who coined the term, "Big Bang",
meant it as an insult, a cut, because he did not believe
the theory and thought it was pretty much a "Big Joke".

Little did old Fred know how his unfortunate choice of
words would "catch on".

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

D. Ismay · Guest

Timberwoof wrote on 27-Jul-08 13:31 :
[quote]In article <h-2dnXzPOf1uKBHVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"D. Ismay" <!@a.com> wrote:

Hagar wrote:
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f255e27-c606-46b9-adba-92aa55a01ead@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 26 Jul, 20:08, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
You seem to be saying that scientists are lying about the Big Bang.
Yes, I don>t there is sufficient evidence supporting the hypothesis
that the universe once was a point/singularity.
Except for one pesky little fact: the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation, also known as CMBR, is proof enough for real scientists (as
opposed to you, the hack) to conclude that its origin came from one single
event, appr. 13.5B years ago.
No, it is not. "Noise" does not carry a signature.

Yes, it does. Its frequency distribution, for instance, can be measured.
[/quote]
And where did I say that it could not be measured?

[quote]The most that one
can say is that a given noise power spectrum follows an envelope or
shape that is similar to a noise spectrum emitted by some other,
well-characterized event.

That>s actually quite a lot for not having a signature.
[/quote]
Doesn>t alter the fact that you can only say they are similar. That it
happens to fit nicely with some cherished explanation for origin of the
universe is convenient for all the True Believers(usenet tm), but by
itself it is not conclusive evidence.

Absent better or more complete evidence, the 'origin' assertion does
nothing to alter the fact that it is -still- known as the 'big bang
Theory'. And it isn>t as if this would be the first time that
Astronomers/Cosmologists got it all wrong, now is it?

BradGuth · Guest

On Jul 30, 3:52 am, herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
[quote]Brad Nicely posted. Humankind uses Earth times and distances to
measure our universe. I relate that with our relating the Earth
with Planck time and distance. Reality is they are just not relative.
That is why GR does not fit in the micro realm. Universe figures do not
lie but man can figure. Bert
[/quote]
We need a cosmic or at least galactic version of GPS (perhaps using
gamma).

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

BradGuth · Guest

On Jul 30, 10:44 am, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On 30 Jul, 16:23, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DM
... maybe.

David A. Smith

If my theory is correct, and all the antimatter is inside of the black
holes, then the matter of the universe doesn>t originate from the big
bang nucleosynthesis, but from hawking radiation.

When considering how many orders of magnitude the standard
interpretation of the big bang nucleosynthesis is out of proportion if
the matter/antimatter asymmetry is 1 to a billion, don>t you think my
theory is a little more likely?

At least my theory explains the antimatter problem a lot better than
the standard interpretation of the big bang nucleosynthesis. Your
interpretation might deal with the antimatter problem a little better,
but you interpretation of black holes being independent universes is a
little far out.
[/quote]
I too would agree with your antimatter analogy, as one that I>d
proposed years ago pertaining to the antimatter cores of black holes.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) · Guest

X-No-Archive: Yes

Dear D. Ismay:

"D. Ismay" <!@a.com> wrote in message
news:Hsednd6hM8mDUw3VnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
[quote]Timberwoof wrote on 27-Jul-08 13:31 :
In article <h-2dnXzPOf1uKBHVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"D. Ismay" <!@a.com> wrote:
....
No, it is not. "Noise" does not carry a signature.

Yes, it does. Its frequency distribution, for
instance, can be measured.

And where did I say that it could not be measured?
[/quote]
And where is signature not identified by measurement? And when
no local source makes as clear a black body signature?

[quote]The most that one can say is that a given noise power
spectrum
follows an envelope or shape that is similar to
a noise spectrum emitted by some other, well-characterized
event.

That>s actually quite a lot for not having a signature.

Doesn>t alter the fact that you can only say they
are similar.
[/quote]
You don>t understand. We don>t have any other sources that are
as perfectly black body as the CMBR. Everything else only
approximates a black body.

[quote]That it happens to fit nicely with some cherished
explanation for origin of the universe is convenient
for all the True Believers(usenet tm), but by itself it is not
conclusive evidence.
[/quote]
It is not even a feature of Big Bang theory, but is not excluded
by it.

[quote]Absent better or more complete evidence, the
'origin' assertion does nothing to alter the fact
that it is -still- known as the 'big bang Theory'.
[/quote]
This name is an unfortunate hangover from Science>s need to
prevent religious persecution, and you know it.

[quote]And it isn>t as if this would be the first time that
Astronomers/Cosmologists got it all wrong, now
is it?
[/quote]
You however are never wrong, and are perfectly proud to shout
about it at every chance. It is really easy to snipe, isn>t it?

David A. Smith

Guest

On 31 Jul, 03:00, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com $dlzc$" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]This name is an unfortunate hangover from Science>s need to
prevent religious persecution, and you know it.
[/quote]
Maybe the name "The expanding bubble theory" would fit better with the
current observations, than the name" The big bang theory"?

Guest

On 30 Jul, 22:31, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]No. Clearly you know nothing about the Standard Model.
[/quote]
Well, actually a big bang can only cause uniform expansion.
Deceleration would have to be caused by gravity, while acceleration
would have to be caused by something like the cosmological constant or
dark energy.

Decelerating expansion fits well with the big bang theory, as you
would need some kind of momentum to decelerate from. Accelerating
expansion doesn>t need any previous momentum to accelerate from. It
could just have started to accelerate from zero momentum.

Guest

On 30 Jul, 22:31, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]Why does it have to exist at all? Maybe "spontaneous pair creation"
is not how the Universe was formed?
[/quote]
Maybe "spontaneous pair creation" sounds a little more reasonable than
creating matter without antimatter?

Timberwoof · Guest

In article
<a95d7a7e-bde3-487f-9fa9-9461c9062982@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 30, 3:52 am, herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Brad Nicely posted. Humankind uses Earth times and distances to
measure our universe. I relate that with our relating the Earth
with Planck time and distance. Reality is they are just not relative.
That is why GR does not fit in the micro realm. Universe figures do not
lie but man can figure. Bert

We need a cosmic or at least galactic version of GPS (perhaps using
gamma).
[/quote]
Already exists: the relative positions and timings of pulsars places you
uniquely in spacetime. Pioneer 11>s plaque locates the Earth this way:
it includes a map that shows, from Earth, the directions, frequencies,
and intensities of about a dozen pulsars. That information would provide
anyone within the galaxy a fairly accurate fix on when and where the
space craft came from.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Timberwoof · Guest

In article <Y78kk.7236$KZ.3343@newsfe03.iad>,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com $dlzc$" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote:

[quote]X-No-Archive: Yes

Dear D. Ismay:

"D. Ismay" <!@a.com> wrote in message
news:Hsednd6hM8mDUw3VnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
Timberwoof wrote on 27-Jul-08 13:31 :
In article <h-2dnXzPOf1uKBHVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"D. Ismay" <!@a.com> wrote:
...
No, it is not. "Noise" does not carry a signature.

Yes, it does. Its frequency distribution, for
instance, can be measured.

And where did I say that it could not be measured?
[/quote]
When you wrote '"Noise" does not carry a signature.' Noise does carry a
"signature". The "signature" is revealed by measuring its spectrum. Your
claim that noise has no signature is equivalent to saying it cannot be
measured.

[quote]And where is signature not identified by measurement? And when
no local source makes as clear a black body signature?

The most that one can say is that a given noise power
spectrum
follows an envelope or shape that is similar to
a noise spectrum emitted by some other, well-characterized
event.

That>s actually quite a lot for not having a signature.

Doesn>t alter the fact that you can only say they
are similar.

You don>t understand. We don>t have any other sources that are
as perfectly black body as the CMBR. Everything else only
approximates a black body.

That it happens to fit nicely with some cherished
explanation for origin of the universe is convenient
for all the True Believers(usenet tm), but by itself it is not
conclusive evidence.
[/quote]
Cherished? No, not really. It>s just the theory that best fits the
facts, which you seem to be only dimly aware of.

[quote]It is not even a feature of Big Bang theory, but is not excluded
by it.
[/quote]
It>s not? The CMBR was taken as confirmation of that theory; Penzias and
Wilson received the Nobel Prize for their work.

[quote]Absent better or more complete evidence, the
'origin' assertion does nothing to alter the fact
that it is -still- known as the 'big bang Theory'.
[/quote]
Oh, I see! You don>t understand the meaning of the word "Theory". You
must be new around here. You seem to be laboring under the mistaken
belief that "Theory" means "crazy wild-assed guess". Please read at
least the introduction to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

[quote]This name is an unfortunate hangover from Science>s need to
prevent religious persecution, and you know it.
[/quote]
Hunh? The name was given the theory by steady-state proponent Fred Hoyle
as a sort of jab, but the astronomers who backed the theory liked the
name and adopted it.

[quote]And it isn>t as if this would be the first time that
Astronomers/Cosmologists got it all wrong, now
is it?
[/quote]
Well, if you know something they don>t, then please present your
measurements and hypotheses. Cosmologists and astronomers would be very
interested to know they>ve been wrong all along.

You>re also laboring under the silly notion that scientists are always
exactly right. Science is different from revealed religion in that
people are always adding new facts to the tapestry, revealing new
knowledge. Yes, scientists make mistakes ... and other scientists are
quick to show them to everyone else! You should really try to learn more
about how science actually works before you say foolish things that make
you look ignorant.

[quote]You however are never wrong, and are perfectly proud to shout
about it at every chance. It is really easy to snipe, isn>t it?

David A. Smith
[/quote]
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

dlzc · Guest

Dear zanthius.d...:

On Jul 31, 3:29 am, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On 30 Jul, 22:31,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:

No. Clearly you know nothing about the Standard
Model.

Well, actually a big bang can only cause uniform
expansion.
[/quote]
As I said, clearly you know nothing about the Standard Model.

[quote]Deceleration would have to be caused by gravity,
while acceleration would have to be caused by
something like the cosmological constant or
dark energy.
[/quote]
Lets assume the Universe is very small, with roughly uniform mass
distribution. What is going to "pull" on you from the left, that is
not going to "pull" on you equally from the right? Gravitation will
do nothing like what you imagine.

Now recall in the Standard Model that gravitation is no sort of pull,
inflation and expansion are creation of space between bits of matter.
How is an effect such as gravitation, going to change its own cause?

[quote]Decelerating expansion fits well with the big
bang theory, as you would need some kind
of momentum to decelerate from.
[/quote]
Again, you have no idea what Big Bang Theory is. How about a link so
you can learn what you are arguing against?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

... adding in your following post:
[quote]Why does it have to exist at all? Maybe
"spontaneous pair creation" is not how the
Universe was formed?

Maybe "spontaneous pair creation" sounds a
little more reasonable than creating matter
without antimatter?
[/quote]
We only know of matter-antimatter creation, because energetic photons
decay against a seed particle, and create matter and possibly charge
where none existed before, and the only way to balance the various
laws that we *know* apply today, is to produce mater / antimatter,
charge / opposite-charge.

If the rules require spacetime, and there was no spacetime yet, then
the rules don>t apply in ways we>d recognize. If energy were confined
to a space where matter and antimatter would automatically exactly
annihilate, then the wheels on the slot machine would simply continue
to spin until both wheels show "Jackpot!" Only conservation of energy
need be observed.

David A. Smith


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Astrology - Amateur Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 5 of 7