Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #599442 > unrolled thread

The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 07:27 -0800
    Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-11 08:05 -0800
      Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 09:14 -0800
        Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-11 10:09 -0800
        Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-11 10:10 -0800
    Crank Richard Hertz branches into cosmology "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 08:07 -0800
      Re: Crank Richard Hertz branches into cosmology Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-11 08:17 -0800
    Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-01-11 10:27 -0800
    Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-11 11:33 -0800
    Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-01-12 11:39 +0200
      Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 04:25 -0800
        Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-12 20:33 -0800
          Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 22:49 -0800
    Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-13 13:12 +0100
      Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-13 07:58 -0800
        Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-13 09:29 -0800
      Re: The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago. Otto Fiscella <tfit@tiselelc.it> - 2023-01-13 16:23 +0000

#599442 — The primordial atom that exploded out of nowhere, 13.5 billion years ago.

It's difficult, for a rational person, to accept the theory of the Big Bang.

Suddenly, and following E = mc2, nearly 18 × 10^68 Joules of pure energy
were released from a single dot that went off.

With time, more than  10^25 stars, averaging the mass of the Sun, appeared and clustered in galaxies within the observable universe.

How is it possible that such theory gained ground and evolved into the modern
cosmology, where such stars form less than 5% of the baryonic mass and 
95% of DARK STUFF had to be created to sustain the narrative derived from GR?

Sick people, psychopaths, satanists spitting at the face of God, dangerous
people. That's what relativists, cosmologist and particle physics parasites
are. They should be eradicated from the face of the Earth. All of them.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#599443

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:27:17 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It's difficult, for a rational person, to accept the theory of the Big Bang. 
> 
> Suddenly, and following E = mc2, nearly 18 × 10^68 Joules of pure energy 
> were released from a single dot that went off. 
> 
> With time, more than 10^25 stars, averaging the mass of the Sun, appeared and clustered in galaxies within the observable universe. 
> 
> How is it possible that such theory gained ground and evolved into the modern 
> cosmology, where such stars form less than 5% of the baryonic mass and 
> 95% of DARK STUFF had to be created to sustain the narrative derived from GR? 
> 
> Sick people, psychopaths, satanists spitting at the face of God, dangerous 
> people. That's what relativists, cosmologist and particle physics parasites 
> are. They should be eradicated from the face of the Earth. All of them.
This may help:

https://idthefuture.com/1694/

A lot of relativists have a "god" problem, either expressed or latent, that has no place in science.  The astrophysicist tries to demonstrate the logical equivalence of the "singularity" used by big bangers, and "god".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599447

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:05:50 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:27:17 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > It's difficult, for a rational person, to accept the theory of the Big Bang. 
> > 
> > Suddenly, and following E = mc2, nearly 18 × 10^68 Joules of pure energy 
> > were released from a single dot that went off. 
> > 
> > With time, more than 10^25 stars, averaging the mass of the Sun, appeared and clustered in galaxies within the observable universe. 
> > 
> > How is it possible that such theory gained ground and evolved into the modern 
> > cosmology, where such stars form less than 5% of the baryonic mass and 
> > 95% of DARK STUFF had to be created to sustain the narrative derived from GR? 
> > 
> > Sick people, psychopaths, satanists spitting at the face of God, dangerous 
> > people. That's what relativists, cosmologist and particle physics parasites 
> > are. They should be eradicated from the face of the Earth. All of them.
> This may help: 
> 
> https://idthefuture.com/1694/ 
> 
> A lot of relativists have a "god" problem, either expressed or latent, that has no place in science. The astrophysicist tries to demonstrate the logical equivalence of the "singularity" used by big bangers, and "god".

I immediately liked this guy: 
FRANK J. TIPLER is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the author of The Physics of Immortality, about the ultimate limits of computers and the role computers will play in the universe; The Physics of Christianity; and (with John Barrow) The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, about fine tuning and the significance of intelligent life in the universe.

Excerpt:

"The equations are clear, says Tipler, as are their implications: among its many arresting features, the Big Bang singularity had an existence outside of space and time, was intrinsically infinite, and was not subject to any laws of physics. Atheists today still resist this conclusion, Tipler says, but only this conclusion has experimental support, and the negative implications for atheism are hard to miss."

I think that this degenerative line of thought started when calculus evolved into more complex mechanisms, like partial derivatives and,
later, when analytic geometry also evolved to form part of mathematical physics. The Riemann non Euclidean space movement was the
final nail in the coffin of believers, as they (delusional) thought that they were wiser than God (because an equation melted their brains
and soul). Relativity, an atheist and anarchist movement over the true nature of science, degenerated the moral values of five generations
and brought us here: a hedonist, materialistic, selfish, full of deceptions and godless world, which was embraced by each generation in
an increasing erosion of ANY kind of historic values. No honor, no moral compass, no pity, no mercy, me.me.me.., I deserve..., etc.

And, also, a preemptive movement by the elite to downgrade education AT ANY LEVEL. Knowledgeable people are dangerous.
And they are more, and more, and more, questioning even the hair color of angels and their gender.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599452

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 9:14:54 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:05:50 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:27:17 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > It's difficult, for a rational person, to accept the theory of the Big Bang. 
> > > 
> > > Suddenly, and following E = mc2, nearly 18 × 10^68 Joules of pure energy 
> > > were released from a single dot that went off. 
> > > 
> > > With time, more than 10^25 stars, averaging the mass of the Sun, appeared and clustered in galaxies within the observable universe. 
> > > 
> > > How is it possible that such theory gained ground and evolved into the modern 
> > > cosmology, where such stars form less than 5% of the baryonic mass and 
> > > 95% of DARK STUFF had to be created to sustain the narrative derived from GR? 
> > > 
> > > Sick people, psychopaths, satanists spitting at the face of God, dangerous 
> > > people. That's what relativists, cosmologist and particle physics parasites 
> > > are. They should be eradicated from the face of the Earth. All of them. 
> > This may help: 
> > 
> > https://idthefuture.com/1694/ 
> > 
> > A lot of relativists have a "god" problem, either expressed or latent, that has no place in science. The astrophysicist tries to demonstrate the logical equivalence of the "singularity" used by big bangers, and "god".
> I immediately liked this guy: 
> FRANK J. TIPLER is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the author of The Physics of Immortality, about the ultimate limits of computers and the role computers will play in the universe; The Physics of Christianity; and (with John Barrow) The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, about fine tuning and the significance of intelligent life in the universe. 
> 
> Excerpt: 
> 
> "The equations are clear, says Tipler, as are their implications: among its many arresting features, the Big Bang singularity had an existence outside of space and time, was intrinsically infinite, and was not subject to any laws of physics. Atheists today still resist this conclusion, Tipler says, but only this conclusion has experimental support, and the negative implications for atheism are hard to miss." 
> 
> I think that this degenerative line of thought started when calculus evolved into more complex mechanisms, like partial derivatives and, 
> later, when analytic geometry also evolved to form part of mathematical physics. The Riemann non Euclidean space movement was the 
> final nail in the coffin of believers, as they (delusional) thought that they were wiser than God (because an equation melted their brains 
> and soul). Relativity, an atheist and anarchist movement over the true nature of science, degenerated the moral values of five generations 
> and brought us here: a hedonist, materialistic, selfish, full of deceptions and godless world, which was embraced by each generation in 
> an increasing erosion of ANY kind of historic values. No honor, no moral compass, no pity, no mercy, me.me.me.., I deserve..., etc. 
> 
> And, also, a preemptive movement by the elite to downgrade education AT ANY LEVEL. Knowledgeable people are dangerous. 
> And they are more, and more, and more, questioning even the hair color of angels and their gender.
My thoughts exactly.  Richard, please submit an essay to the Discovery Institute along the lines of what you have limbed out above.  The Discovery Institute does not yet fully appreciate the moral implications of relativity.  They need to be brought forward.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599453

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 9:14:54 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:05:50 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:27:17 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > It's difficult, for a rational person, to accept the theory of the Big Bang. 
> > > 
> > > Suddenly, and following E = mc2, nearly 18 × 10^68 Joules of pure energy 
> > > were released from a single dot that went off. 
> > > 
> > > With time, more than 10^25 stars, averaging the mass of the Sun, appeared and clustered in galaxies within the observable universe. 
> > > 
> > > How is it possible that such theory gained ground and evolved into the modern 
> > > cosmology, where such stars form less than 5% of the baryonic mass and 
> > > 95% of DARK STUFF had to be created to sustain the narrative derived from GR? 
> > > 
> > > Sick people, psychopaths, satanists spitting at the face of God, dangerous 
> > > people. That's what relativists, cosmologist and particle physics parasites 
> > > are. They should be eradicated from the face of the Earth. All of them. 
> > This may help: 
> > 
> > https://idthefuture.com/1694/ 
> > 
> > A lot of relativists have a "god" problem, either expressed or latent, that has no place in science. The astrophysicist tries to demonstrate the logical equivalence of the "singularity" used by big bangers, and "god".
> I immediately liked this guy: 
> FRANK J. TIPLER is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the author of The Physics of Immortality, about the ultimate limits of computers and the role computers will play in the universe; The Physics of Christianity; and (with John Barrow) The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, about fine tuning and the significance of intelligent life in the universe. 
> 
> Excerpt: 
> 
> "The equations are clear, says Tipler, as are their implications: among its many arresting features, the Big Bang singularity had an existence outside of space and time, was intrinsically infinite, and was not subject to any laws of physics. Atheists today still resist this conclusion, Tipler says, but only this conclusion has experimental support, and the negative implications for atheism are hard to miss." 
> 
> I think that this degenerative line of thought started when calculus evolved into more complex mechanisms, like partial derivatives and, 
> later, when analytic geometry also evolved to form part of mathematical physics. The Riemann non Euclidean space movement was the 
> final nail in the coffin of believers, as they (delusional) thought that they were wiser than God (because an equation melted their brains 
> and soul). Relativity, an atheist and anarchist movement over the true nature of science, degenerated the moral values of five generations 
> and brought us here: a hedonist, materialistic, selfish, full of deceptions and godless world, which was embraced by each generation in 
> an increasing erosion of ANY kind of historic values. No honor, no moral compass, no pity, no mercy, me.me.me.., I deserve..., etc. 
> 
> And, also, a preemptive movement by the elite to downgrade education AT ANY LEVEL. Knowledgeable people are dangerous. 
> And they are more, and more, and more, questioning even the hair color of angels and their gender.
If we asked Tippler, I fear we'd find a relativist; at least a public one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599444 — Crank Richard Hertz branches into cosmology

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:27:17 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It's difficult, for a reductionist  imbecile like me to accept the theory of the Big Bang. 

As expected

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599445 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz branches into cosmology

On Wednesday, 11 January 2023 at 17:07:54 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:27:17 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > It's difficult, for a reductionist imbecile like me to accept the theory of the Big Bang. 
> 
> As expected

No, he didn't write it. Poor trash Dono is lying.
As expected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599455

El miércoles, 11 de enero de 2023 a las 12:27:17 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> It's difficult, for a rational person, to accept the theory of the Big Bang. 
> 
> Suddenly, and following E = mc2, nearly 18 × 10^68 Joules of pure energy 
> were released from a single dot that went off. 
> 
> With time, more than 10^25 stars, averaging the mass of the Sun, appeared and clustered in galaxies within the observable universe. 
> 
> How is it possible that such theory gained ground and evolved into the modern 
> cosmology, where such stars form less than 5% of the baryonic mass and 
> 95% of DARK STUFF had to be created to sustain the narrative derived from GR? 
> 
> Sick people, psychopaths, satanists spitting at the face of God, dangerous 
> people. That's what relativists, cosmologist and particle physics parasites 
> are. They should be eradicated from the face of the Earth. All of them.

Most people do not know or they do not care of any of this. Why you care is your own problem.

For sure, the fact that a gamma-ray burst in the Milky Way, pointing directly towards the Earth, could cause a mass extinction event could make all of us to worry. Such event could come from energy released during a supernova or superluminous supernova as a high-mass star implodes to form a neutron star or a black hole or from the merger of binary neutron stars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599460

Richard Hertz wrote:
> 
> It's difficult, for a rational person, to accept the theory of the Big Bang.
> 
> Suddenly, and following E = mc2, nearly 18 × 10^68 Joules of pure energy
> were released from a single dot that went off.
> 
> With time, more than  10^25 stars, averaging the mass of the Sun, appeared and clustered in galaxies within the observable universe.
> 
> How is it possible that such theory gained ground and evolved into the modern
> cosmology, where such stars form less than 5% of the baryonic mass and
> 95% of DARK STUFF had to be created to sustain the narrative derived from GR?
> 
> Sick people, psychopaths, satanists spitting at the face of God, dangerous
> people. That's what relativists, cosmologist and particle physics parasites
> are. They should be eradicated from the face of the Earth. All of them.


"...eradicated from the face of the Earth. All of them."


All seven million of them!


Let's start with the smartest people on top of the potem pole...


make sure they don't reproduce anymore of these genetic defects.


i just want dumb blonds on the earth.


Don't forget, the first woman on earth was a dumb blond.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599499

On 2023-01-11 15:27:15 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> It's difficult, for a rational person, to accept the theory of the Big Bang.
> 
> Suddenly, and following E = mc2, nearly 18 × 10^68 Joules of pure energy
> were released from a single dot that went off.
> 
> With time, more than  10^25 stars, averaging the mass of the Sun, 
> appeared and clustered in galaxies within the observable universe.
> 
> How is it possible that such theory gained ground and evolved into the modern
> cosmology, where such stars form less than 5% of the baryonic mass 
> and95% of DARK STUFF had to be created to sustain the narrative derived 
> from GR?

The main reason the Big Bang theory is accepted is that it describes the
universe as it is observed. A simple extrapolation backwards then gives
a finite age and zero initial size. As gravity is attractive it one would
expect that earlier the expansion was faster than now, so the universe
would be younger than a linear extrapolation would show. However, if the
expansion is accelerating, as it seems accroding to the latest observatons,
then the universe is older than what a linear extrapolation shows, possibly
infitely old. It does not look like the average density were negative but
another possibility is that the average pressure is negative as pressure
is also a source of gravity. No known field can give a negative density or
pressure to the universe but it is possible that some unknown field does.

As quantum gravity is not understood it is not possible to exclude the
possibility that in the conditions of the early universe the gravity
(and everything) just worked very differently.

Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599504

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:39:19 AM UTC-3, Mikko wrote:
> On 2023-01-11 15:27:15 +0000, Richard Hertz said: 

<snip>

> The main reason the Big Bang theory is accepted is that it describes the 
> universe as it is observed. A simple extrapolation backwards then gives 
> a finite age and zero initial size. As gravity is attractive it one would 
> expect that earlier the expansion was faster than now, so the universe 
> would be younger than a linear extrapolation would show. However, if the 
> expansion is accelerating, as it seems accroding to the latest observatons, 
> then the universe is older than what a linear extrapolation shows, possibly 
> infitely old. It does not look like the average density were negative but 
> another possibility is that the average pressure is negative as pressure 
> is also a source of gravity. No known field can give a negative density or 
> pressure to the universe but it is possible that some unknown field does. 
> 
> As quantum gravity is not understood it is not possible to exclude the 
> possibility that in the conditions of the early universe the gravity 
> (and everything) just worked very differently. 
> 
> Mikko

QUOTE: "Big Bang theory is accepted is that it describes the universe as it is OBSERVED."

 WRONG! Not OBSERVED but MODELED by INDIRECT CALCULATIONS and FORCED THEORIES LIKE:

1) That galaxies red-shifting obey a Doppler rule, now relativistic and originally a classic Doppler (90% of them). This information is
extracted from 2D photo plates (initially) and CCD 2D cameras captures since 1980, and is FORCED to fit the relativistic Doppler
theory after a few hundred of million light years far away.

2) That such Bang took place in JUST 10E-32 seconds (one billionth of one trillionth of one trillionth of a second), lapse in
which the Universe INFLATED 100 million times its previous size and then slowed its expansion at about 73 Km/sec/Mparsec.

3) That the COMPUTED rate of expansion CAN'T BE JUSTIFIED by the amount of "estimated" baryonic matter, as it requires
20 TIMES MORE such amount. Then, a fictional dark matter/energy was FORCED INTO CALCULATIONS, to fit the current model.

4) That remains of the primordial atom explosion appear as a cosmic background radiation, estimated by Dicke-Peebles-Wilkinson
and "measured on a single frequency" by Penzias-Wilson in 1964. Further "certified" as pure Planck's black body radiation by the
NASA COBE satellite in 1993, in what NASA called "the most exact set of measurements in the history of physics".

5) That, in order TO PREVENT the collapse of the narrative until year 2000, after the "discovery" that the expansion IS ACCELERATING,
a concept of ANTIGRAVITY DARK ENERGY on the outer boundaries of the expanding universe HAD TO be introduced. So, besides the
initial BB boost, unknown energy is PUSHING unknown dark matter and baryonic matter as if IT WAS AN ANTIGRATIVY ACTION.

6) That the radius of the "observable" universe is, DUE TO THE GR THEORY, 3.4 times more than the radius of the Hubble's "VISIBLE"
UNIVERSE, being 92 billion light years in diameter.

7) IGNORING that, due to the above, light that was originally emitted from one border of the "observable" universe HAS NOT HAD
enough time to reach the OPPOSITE BORDER, which heavily questions the validity of the planckian CMB radiation.

8) That the ANISOTROPY of temperatures in the flat 2D projection map of the 3D universe (WMAP and Planck satellites) is
INCONSISTENT with the expected even distribution of galaxies, existing GIANT PATCHES of nothing in many parts of the 2D map.

9) That the alleged dark matter exists as an INVISIBLE HALO that surrounds galaxies, and NOT filling intergalaxy vacuum.

10) That baryonic matter was created only after the BB initial energy started to cool off, seconds after the BB.

I could write another 10 points against the validity of the HYPOTHETICAL BBT.

I prefer a simple description of a pseudo-static, perennial and infinite universe, as Fred Hoyle described (and calculated it).
Much fewer UNCERTAINTIES, the hand of God present, no DARK STUFF, no BLACK HOLES, no GRAVITATIONAL WAVES, no GR,
no CRETINISM, no CBR (or CMR) - just noise reverberating through the entire volume of the Universe due to electromagnetic
and quantum interactions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599540

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 4:25:36 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:39:19 AM UTC-3, Mikko wrote: 
> > On 2023-01-11 15:27:15 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
> <snip>
> > The main reason the Big Bang theory is accepted is that it describes the 
> > universe as it is observed. A simple extrapolation backwards then gives 
> > a finite age and zero initial size. As gravity is attractive it one would 
> > expect that earlier the expansion was faster than now, so the universe 
> > would be younger than a linear extrapolation would show. However, if the 
> > expansion is accelerating, as it seems accroding to the latest observatons, 
> > then the universe is older than what a linear extrapolation shows, possibly 
> > infitely old. It does not look like the average density were negative but 
> > another possibility is that the average pressure is negative as pressure 
> > is also a source of gravity. No known field can give a negative density or 
> > pressure to the universe but it is possible that some unknown field does. 
> > 
> > As quantum gravity is not understood it is not possible to exclude the 
> > possibility that in the conditions of the early universe the gravity 
> > (and everything) just worked very differently. 
> > 
> > Mikko
> QUOTE: "Big Bang theory is accepted is that it describes the universe as it is OBSERVED." 
> 
> WRONG! Not OBSERVED but MODELED by INDIRECT CALCULATIONS and FORCED THEORIES LIKE: 
> 
> 1) That galaxies red-shifting obey a Doppler rule, now relativistic and originally a classic Doppler (90% of them). This information is 
> extracted from 2D photo plates (initially) and CCD 2D cameras captures since 1980, and is FORCED to fit the relativistic Doppler 
> theory after a few hundred of million light years far away. 
> 
> 2) That such Bang took place in JUST 10E-32 seconds (one billionth of one trillionth of one trillionth of a second), lapse in 
> which the Universe INFLATED 100 million times its previous size and then slowed its expansion at about 73 Km/sec/Mparsec. 
> 
> 3) That the COMPUTED rate of expansion CAN'T BE JUSTIFIED by the amount of "estimated" baryonic matter, as it requires 
> 20 TIMES MORE such amount. Then, a fictional dark matter/energy was FORCED INTO CALCULATIONS, to fit the current model. 
> 
> 4) That remains of the primordial atom explosion appear as a cosmic background radiation, estimated by Dicke-Peebles-Wilkinson 
> and "measured on a single frequency" by Penzias-Wilson in 1964. Further "certified" as pure Planck's black body radiation by the 
> NASA COBE satellite in 1993, in what NASA called "the most exact set of measurements in the history of physics". 
> 
> 5) That, in order TO PREVENT the collapse of the narrative until year 2000, after the "discovery" that the expansion IS ACCELERATING, 
> a concept of ANTIGRAVITY DARK ENERGY on the outer boundaries of the expanding universe HAD TO be introduced. So, besides the 
> initial BB boost, unknown energy is PUSHING unknown dark matter and baryonic matter as if IT WAS AN ANTIGRATIVY ACTION. 
> 
> 6) That the radius of the "observable" universe is, DUE TO THE GR THEORY, 3.4 times more than the radius of the Hubble's "VISIBLE" 
> UNIVERSE, being 92 billion light years in diameter. 
> 
> 7) IGNORING that, due to the above, light that was originally emitted from one border of the "observable" universe HAS NOT HAD 
> enough time to reach the OPPOSITE BORDER, which heavily questions the validity of the planckian CMB radiation. 
> 
> 8) That the ANISOTROPY of temperatures in the flat 2D projection map of the 3D universe (WMAP and Planck satellites) is 
> INCONSISTENT with the expected even distribution of galaxies, existing GIANT PATCHES of nothing in many parts of the 2D map. 
> 
> 9) That the alleged dark matter exists as an INVISIBLE HALO that surrounds galaxies, and NOT filling intergalaxy vacuum. 
> 
> 10) That baryonic matter was created only after the BB initial energy started to cool off, seconds after the BB. 
> 
> I could write another 10 points against the validity of the HYPOTHETICAL BBT. 
> 
> I prefer a simple description of a pseudo-static, perennial and infinite universe, as Fred Hoyle described (and calculated it). 
> Much fewer UNCERTAINTIES, the hand of God present, no DARK STUFF, no BLACK HOLES, no GRAVITATIONAL WAVES, no GR, 
> no CRETINISM, no CBR (or CMR) - just noise reverberating through the entire volume of the Universe due to electromagnetic 
> and quantum interactions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFpbngtvWD8

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599541

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:33:07 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFpbngtvWD8

Is this the same Frank Tipler who argues that the resurrection of Jesus occurred when the atoms in his body spontaneously decayed into neutrinos and antineutrinos, which later converted back into atoms to reconstitute him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

It seems to me that most of Dr. Tipler's peers are not very enthusiastic about his theories... did you have a point in bringing this outlier onto this forum?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599550

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's difficult, for a rational person, to accept the theory of the Big Bang.
> 
> Suddenly, and following E = mc2, nearly 18 ? 10^68 Joules of pure energy
> were released from a single dot that went off.

This is a standard mistake.
You are forgetting about the gravitational potential energy,
which is negative. It compensates for the positive energy.

All this is nonsense of course,
and you really need to look at it using GR.
That is a hairy problem, and hard to get right.
(so not for here)

The final answer stands however:
there is zero net energy in the universe,
so no miracle( (as required by creationists) is needed,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599557

On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 4:12:24 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> > It's difficult, for a rational person, to accept the theory of the Big Bang. 
> >
> > Suddenly, and following E = mc2, nearly 18 ? 10^68 Joules of pure energy
> > were released from a single dot that went off.
> This is a standard mistake. 
> You are forgetting about the gravitational potential energy, 
> which is negative. It compensates for the positive energy. 
> 
> All this is nonsense of course, 
> and you really need to look at it using GR. 
> That is a hairy problem, and hard to get right. 
> (so not for here) 
> 
> The final answer stands however: 
> there is zero net energy in the universe, 
> so no miracle( (as required by creationists) is needed, 
> 
> Jan
The insanity of these people, Richard.  Because the net energy of the Uni might be zero, everything is fine and explained.  Damn, blind fools.  What about all the information coded into the universe?  Fine tuned constants???  There is a fine tuning with dials somewhere outside of spacetime.  Did you not comprehend Tippler???

And speaking of GR Jan, please eventually respond to my eponymous dilemma.  You and eurohenry were it's first victims. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599565

On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 7:58:34 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 4:12:24 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > 
> > > It's difficult, for a rational person, to accept the theory of the Big Bang. 
> > > 
> > > Suddenly, and following E = mc2, nearly 18 ? 10^68 Joules of pure energy 
> > > were released from a single dot that went off. 
> > This is a standard mistake. 
> > You are forgetting about the gravitational potential energy, 
> > which is negative. It compensates for the positive energy. 
> > 
> > All this is nonsense of course, 
> > and you really need to look at it using GR. 
> > That is a hairy problem, and hard to get right. 
> > (so not for here) 
> > 
> > The final answer stands however: 
> > there is zero net energy in the universe, 
> > so no miracle( (as required by creationists) is needed, 
> > 
> > Jan
> The insanity of these people, Richard. Because the net energy of the Uni might be zero, everything is fine and explained. Damn, blind fools. What about all the information coded into the universe? Fine tuned constants??? There is a fine tuning with dials somewhere outside of spacetime. Did you not comprehend Tippler??? 
> 
> And speaking of GR Jan, please eventually respond to my eponymous dilemma. You and eurohenry were it's first victims.
I will add that before the singularity there was no "energy" to be zeroed.  There wasn't even a thing called zero.  Because there was no-thing.  This concept probably goes right over Jan's and the others heads. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599560

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> It's difficult, for a rational person, to accept the theory of the Big
>> Bang. Suddenly, and following E = mc2, nearly 18 ? 10^68 Joules of pure
>> energy were released from a single dot that went off.
> 
> This is a standard mistake.
> You are forgetting about the gravitational potential energy,
> which is negative. It compensates for the positive energy.

both wrong. That formula is a _macro_scale_, *_post_* big bang 
relationship. Not a priory. 

but here is the proof, the Putina is _a_traitor_ and a 
*_young_global_leader_*. He knew the america *_sank_two_ships_* in Black 
Sea. What he did in return, allowed *_food_and_grains_be_stolen_* from 
uKraine, in large ships, by the *_capitalist_west_*.

The WEF Young Global Leaders
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/fjU6xKknhgrk

12:36
Former Ukraine Update Jan 10-11, 2023 ： It is Quite Bloody This Time-Woke 
NATO is Getting Decimated
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/cW6o1s2jY3nY

hard to make *_justice_*, with a corrupt head of state.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web