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

Groups > alt.astronomy > #278953 > unrolled thread

INFINITY

Back to article view | Back to alt.astronomy

Contents

  INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-10 23:55 -0800
    Re: INFINITY HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-11 19:57 +1100
      Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 08:46 -0600
        Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 11:55 -0800
          Re: INFINITY David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-11-11 14:19 -0600
            Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 13:12 -0800
              Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-11 16:29 -0700
    Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 08:43 -0600
    Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 13:16 -0800
      Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-11 16:28 -0700
      Re: INFINITY gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-11 21:21 -0600
        Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 19:40 -0800
        Re: INFINITY je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-11-12 02:02 -0800
          Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 09:39 -0800
            Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:47 -0600
              Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 23:25 -0800
                Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 09:09 -0600
                  Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 15:52 -0500
                    Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 15:07 -0600
                    Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 15:11 -0600
                      Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 16:39 -0500
                        Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 16:11 -0600
                          Re: INFINITY Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-13 23:44 +0100
                          Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 19:39 -0500
                            Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 18:50 -0600
                              Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 04:39 -0500
                                Re: INFINITY Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 11:19 -0800
                                  Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-14 13:21 -0700
                        Re: INFINITY Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 14:48 -0800
                      Re: INFINITY Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 16:59 -0800
                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-13 15:59 -0800
                  Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-13 18:08 -0700
                  Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-14 11:46 -0800
                    Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-14 12:04 -0800
                      Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-14 13:15 -0700
                      Re: INFINITY palsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 11:34 -0800
                        Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 14:27 -0800
                          Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 15:07 -0800
                            Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 16:23 -0800
                              Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 21:56 -0800
                                Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-16 08:31 -0700
                                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-16 11:16 -0800
                                  Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:29 -0600
                                  Re: INFINITY dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-16 15:50 -0500
                                    Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-16 13:48 -0800
                                      Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-16 14:45 -0800
                                        Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-17 14:48 -0700
                                  Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-17 14:47 -0700
                    Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-14 13:17 -0700
                      Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 14:57 -0800
                        Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-16 11:39 -0700
            Re: INFINITY benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 14:06 -0500
              Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 11:42 -0800
          Re: INFINITY benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 13:15 -0500
            Re: INFINITY Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 10:26 -0800
      Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 19:37 -0800
    Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 18:25 -0800
      Re: INFINITY David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-11-12 13:04 -0600
        Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 11:54 -0800
          Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 22:51 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#279034

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:11:08 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/13/15 2:52 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> There seems to be a problem with everything being hot and the
>> universe infinite in size, that leaves no place for heat to radiate
>> to, and no place for the universe to expand into.
>
>   No -- the expanding universe cools. After about 380,000 hears of
>   expansion the thermal energy is free to roam.  We detect it today
>   with q black-body radiation temperature on the order of 2.7 Kelvin.

         There is a problem with the dynamics 
of that concept, and a problem with the
idea that a hot plasma or whatever that
is everywhere expanding.
        Expansion requires differences in
pressure, with some rational physics,
just saying "expansion" provides no
rational physics.

        The galaxies are receding, the
spectral line shifts do show expansion,
but the described premise of past
history leaves a lot to be explained.

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

#279041

On 11/13/15 3:39 PM, kefischer wrote:
> There is a problem with the dynamics of that concept, and a problem
> with the idea that a hot plasma or whatever that is everywhere
> expanding


Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
 > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html

 > The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important
 > observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate
 > pages:


 > The expansion of the universe
 > Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding
 > from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be
 > right.

 > The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
 > The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have
 > been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after
 > the Big Bang.

 > The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
 > The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave
 > background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.



 > These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that
 > the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just
 > as the Big Bang model predicts.




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#279043

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:qNOdnQl18rWE_dvLnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

> Tests of Big Bang Cosmology

Usual: wawing arms and yelling "Support!!!!Support!!!!"
Well, maybe not as obvious nonsenses, as usual.

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

#279052

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:11:37 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/13/15 3:39 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> There is a problem with the dynamics of that concept, and a problem
>> with the idea that a hot plasma or whatever that is everywhere
>> expanding
>
>
>Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html
>
> > The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important
> > observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate
> > pages:

         I would urge that everyone consider the
possibility that light can be captured by gases
or light element molecules half a visible 
universe from where it was emitted.

        This would result in the constant creation
of new star forming material, always, forever.
        It repairs the defect of light simply vanishing,
it satisfies the conditions needed for expansion
of the universe as inferred from the spectral
line shifts.
        Only considering the recession of galaxies
away from each other as an isolated physical
process requiring a beginning, is simplistic.
     
         If it were to have begun as a hot gas,
it seems to ignore the effects of gravity,
if gravity were a mutually attractive process,
hot gases provide a powerful counter to
the attraction.


> > The expansion of the universe
> > Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding
> > from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be
> > right.

          It only provides a strong suggestion that
the galaxies are all moving apart, receding
from each other, quite uniformly at large scales.

         No matter what original condition is
considered, it requires a "beginning" condition
of some kind, with no explanation of that original
condition.

        Recycled light removes that issue, making
the expansion part of a symmetrical process
that needs no beginning or end.


> > The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
> > The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have
> > been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after
> > the Big Bang.

         The same thing might be predicted in the
case of matter expanding, with compression
of atoms and molecules of hydrogen or even
any parts of matter in any configuration.
         Matter expanding from a net, close-range
repulsion, results in close range dynamics
that can become a complex physics that
looks just like classical physics, but with
gravity being a close range repulsion
instead of a long range attraction.

        The physics becomes more rational
with the expansion of matter creating the
inertia that is measured as mass.

         Stars and solid matter is one result,
but not having light energy accounted for
is a serious defect.


> > The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
> > The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave
> > background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.

      It is only one possibility.


> > These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that
> > the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just
> > as the Big Bang model predicts.

       Expanding matter, resulting in got gases in
the regions where there is considerable matter
results in hotter gases.

      In regions where these expanding hot gases
are surrounded by great quantities of cooler
gases, and the expanding gases are compressed
by the inertial resistance to acceleration of the
surrounding cooler gases, is a better description
of the conditions of star formation than attraction
of hot gases.

      It requires that gravity could not have any
other parameters than those of inertia.



       Expanding matter and recycled light,
together, forms a new rational physics of
a much higher level of rational science.

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

#279053

On 11/13/15 6:39 PM, kefischer wrote:
> I would urge that everyone consider the possibility that light can be
> captured by gases or light element molecules half a visible universe
> from where it was emitted.
>
> This would result in the constant creation of new star forming
> material, always, forever.

   No.

   The hydrogen and helium that stars form from was created in the
   first three minutes, not from light.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#279058

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:50:53 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/13/15 6:39 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> I would urge that everyone consider the possibility that light can be
>> captured by gases or light element molecules half a visible universe
>> from where it was emitted.
>>
>> This would result in the constant creation of new star forming
>> material, always, forever.
>
>   No.
>
>   The hydrogen and helium that stars form from was created in the
>   first three minutes, not from light.

          In a cosmology that presumes a "first three minutes".

         A better model would not require a beginning,
or an end, that makes recycled light a better model,
rest assured, the cosmologists will see a lot of
advantages in a model with no beginning or end,
and that does not ignore all propagated light
from all the stars (huge amounts of energy),
just vanishing at all wavelengths, including
high energy.

         Having galaxies with relative motion
greater than c would be difficult to explain,
recycled light avoids that problem, because
the relative velocity of galaxies arises as a
result of the speed of the propagated light.

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

#279065

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:39:21 AM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:50:53 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On 11/13/15 6:39 PM, kefischer wrote:
> >> I would urge that everyone consider the possibility that light can be
> >> captured by gases or light element molecules half a visible universe
> >> from where it was emitted.
> >>
> >> This would result in the constant creation of new star forming
> >> material, always, forever.
> >
> >   No.
> >
> >   The hydrogen and helium that stars form from was created in the
> >   first three minutes, not from light.
> 
>           In a cosmology that presumes a "first three minutes".
> 
>          A better model would not require a beginning,
> or an end, that makes recycled light a better model,
> rest assured, the cosmologists will see a lot of
> advantages in a model with no beginning or end,
> and that does not ignore all propagated light
> from all the stars (huge amounts of energy),
> just vanishing at all wavelengths, including
> high energy.
> 
>          Having galaxies with relative motion
> greater than c would be difficult to explain,
> recycled light avoids that problem, because
> the relative velocity of galaxies arises as a
> result of the speed of the propagated light.

how does 'c' move in a static universe? 'c' is constant only to the perceive, not a universal constant. my school won nobel prizes for altering 'c's constant.


Solley stay far away, you do not know this stuff. 

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

#279070

ANOTHER LYING FRAUD,  ARCieSHIT THE WONDER FAGGOTboi!

>>YOUR SCHOOL?<<
YOUR DEGREE IN BASKETWEAVING DESIGN SAYS OTHERWISE, ARCieFAGGOT!

Saul Levy


On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:19:24 -0800 (PST), Arc Michael
<abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:39:21 AM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:50:53 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >On 11/13/15 6:39 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> >> I would urge that everyone consider the possibility that light can be
>> >> captured by gases or light element molecules half a visible universe
>> >> from where it was emitted.
>> >>
>> >> This would result in the constant creation of new star forming
>> >> material, always, forever.
>> >
>> >   No.
>> >
>> >   The hydrogen and helium that stars form from was created in the
>> >   first three minutes, not from light.
>> 
>>           In a cosmology that presumes a "first three minutes".
>> 
>>          A better model would not require a beginning,
>> or an end, that makes recycled light a better model,
>> rest assured, the cosmologists will see a lot of
>> advantages in a model with no beginning or end,
>> and that does not ignore all propagated light
>> from all the stars (huge amounts of energy),
>> just vanishing at all wavelengths, including
>> high energy.
>> 
>>          Having galaxies with relative motion
>> greater than c would be difficult to explain,
>> recycled light avoids that problem, because
>> the relative velocity of galaxies arises as a
>> result of the speed of the propagated light.
>
>how does 'c' move in a static universe? 'c' is constant only to the perceive, not a universal constant. my school won nobel prizes for altering 'c's constant.
>
>
>Solley stay far away, you do not know this stuff.

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

#279045

In article <kplc4bduf0g0t9ft8av3qrg40s5dbrd9b7@4ax.com>,
 kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:

>          There is a problem with the dynamics 
> of that concept, and a problem with the
> idea that a hot plasma or whatever that
> is everywhere expanding.

It wasn't plasma, and it wasn't expanding. It was too hot to be plasma. And the 
space was expanding, dragging the matter-energy along with it.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists since we
cannot prove the consistency.  ~~ Morris Kline

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

#279054

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:11:09 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/13/15 2:52 PM, kefischer wrote:
> > There seems to be a problem with everything being hot and the
> > universe infinite in size, that leaves no place for heat to radiate
> > to, and no place for the universe to expand into.
> 
>    No -- the expanding universe cools. After about 380,000 hears of
>    expansion the thermal energy is free to roam.  We detect it today
>    with q black-body radiation temperature on the order of 2.7 Kelvin.
> 

then a SUPER MONSTER dimensional black Hole opens up and spews energy into the Cold and heats that sucker back up? 
> 

Did not see that one coming, eh? 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#279051

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:47:05 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > On 11/12/15 11:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Where do you think the universe came from?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
> > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle
> > >    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8FTr2qMutA
> > >
> > >    Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that it is
> > >    impossible to simultaneously measure the position and
> > >    momentum of a particle with arbitrary precision. In our
> > >    everyday lives we virtually never come up against this
> > >    limit, hence why it seems peculiar. In this experiment a
> > >    laser is shone through a narrow slit onto a screen. As the
> > >    slit is made narrower, the spot on the screen also becomes
> > >    narrower. But at a certain point, the spot starts becoming
> > >    wider. This is because the photons of light have been so
> > >    localised at the slit that their horizontal momentum must
> > >    become less well defined in order to satisfy Heisenberg's
> > >    uncertainty principle.
> > >
> > > Quantum vacuum fluctuation (or Quantum Fluctuation for short)
> > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
> > >
> > > Quoting from the above Wikipedia page:
> > >
> > >    "In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or
> > >    quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary
> > >    change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising
> > >    from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
> > >
> > >    "According to one formulation of the principle, energy and
> > >    time can be related by the relation
> > >
> > >        ∆E · ∆t ≥ h/4π
> > >
> > >    "That means that conservation of energy can appear to be
> > >    violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation
> > >    of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The
> > >    effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in
> > >    the effective charge of the electron, different from its
> > >    "naked" charge.
> > >
> > >    "In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the
> > >    eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not
> > >    the same as (i.e., the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the
> > >    particle number operators.
> > >
> > >    "Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the
> > >    origin of the structure of the universe: according to the
> > >    model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation
> > >    began were amplified and formed the seed of all current
> > >    observed structure."
> > >
> > > Quoting from A USENET Posting by Steve Carlip (UC Davis):
> > >
> > >    "CMB fluctuations give evidence for (though not proof of)
> > >    inflation.
> > >
> > >    "So far, I haven't said anything about where the initial
> > >    density variations of the pre-recombination plasma came
> > >    from. There are many possibilities. We know, at least, that
> > >    they must be there -- even if we try to start with a
> > >    perfectly smooth, unvarying plasma, the Heisenberg
> > >    uncertainty principle tells us that there must be a minimum
> > >    level of quantum fluctuations.
> > >
> > >         ∆E · ∆t ≥  h/4π
> > >
> > >    "Inflationary" models propose that the very early Universe
> > >    -- before the time of primordial nucleosynthesis --
> > >    underwent a very rapid expansion. Such an expansion would
> > >    smooth out/dilute any earlier inhomogeneities, leaving only
> > >    the quantum fluctuations, which would be "stretched" in size
> > >    by the rapidly expanding space.
> > >
> > >    "Such models predict a special pattern of fluctuations. In
> > >    particular, although any particular fluctuation is random,
> > >    the average number at any particular scale is predictable.
> > >    This pattern on initial variations, in turn, should show up
> > >    in the details of the CMB variations. So far, observations
> > >    match the predictions of inflation very well. Most people in
> > >    the field don't consider this conclusive -- one can imagine
> > >    other ways of getting a similar pattern of initial
> > >    perturbations -- but it is suggestive."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> > > community, and physics-related social issues.
> >
> > How did the inflationary period attenuate?
> 
> You talk about "inflationary" as if is real...it's just a  fudge factor.
> 
> It's used to add fudge to 'the big bang'.
> 
> What i find strange is...
> 
> that the majority of the
> 'scientific community'
> talk as
> believe that
> think that
> say that
> 'the big bang' happen.
> 
> It's not even a Fact.
> 
> The Big Bang is not a fact.
> 
> That aside...
> 
> I have a photograph
> that shows you what the big bang looked like
> a few seconds after it happen.
> 
> You will see the big bang
> in a color photograph...
> and at the same time you
> can see what existed at the
> time of the big bang...
> what I call the stable stars...the green stars.
> 
> The big bang stars are red shifted because
> you can see the big bang stars shooting in all
> directions at once...while the green stars remain stable
> because they existed before the big bang.
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> The Starmaker


So..looking at my photo of before and after the big bang...i figured out what caused the big bang.

What caused the big bang was the acculmulation
of green stable stars.

In other words, the green stars
simply gave birth to more green stars,
and more green stars, and more green stars, 
and more green stars, and more green stars,
till there were so many green stars that
there was no more room.

Can you imagine how hot it got?

The green stars were so stable they didn't die...there was
an over-population of green stars.

This photo of during the big bang...was differcult to produce..

but i do have the photo of the crowded green stars...i just didn't know why it was so crowded.

I'll have to find time to produce that one of the crowded green stars.

I'm sure you all like to see photographs of what caused the big bang.


The Starmaker

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

#279055

THERE AREN'T ANY GREEN STARS, BOZO!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:59:57 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>So..looking at my photo of before and after the big bang...i figured out what caused the big bang.
>
>What caused the big bang was the acculmulation
>of green stable stars.
>
>In other words, the green stars
>simply gave birth to more green stars,
>and more green stars, and more green stars, 
>and more green stars, and more green stars,
>till there were so many green stars that
>there was no more room.
>
>Can you imagine how hot it got?
>
>The green stars were so stable they didn't die...there was
>an over-population of green stars.
>
>This photo of during the big bang...was differcult to produce..
>
>but i do have the photo of the crowded green stars...i just didn't know why it was so crowded.
>
>I'll have to find time to produce that one of the crowded green stars.
>
>I'm sure you all like to see photographs of what caused the big bang.
>
>
>The Starmaker

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

#279066

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:47:05 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > On 11/12/15 11:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Where do you think the universe came from?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
> > > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle
> > > >    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8FTr2qMutA
> > > >
> > > >    Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that it is
> > > >    impossible to simultaneously measure the position and
> > > >    momentum of a particle with arbitrary precision. In our
> > > >    everyday lives we virtually never come up against this
> > > >    limit, hence why it seems peculiar. In this experiment a
> > > >    laser is shone through a narrow slit onto a screen. As the
> > > >    slit is made narrower, the spot on the screen also becomes
> > > >    narrower. But at a certain point, the spot starts becoming
> > > >    wider. This is because the photons of light have been so
> > > >    localised at the slit that their horizontal momentum must
> > > >    become less well defined in order to satisfy Heisenberg's
> > > >    uncertainty principle.
> > > >
> > > > Quantum vacuum fluctuation (or Quantum Fluctuation for short)
> > > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
> > > >
> > > > Quoting from the above Wikipedia page:
> > > >
> > > >    "In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or
> > > >    quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary
> > > >    change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising
> > > >    from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
> > > >
> > > >    "According to one formulation of the principle, energy and
> > > >    time can be related by the relation
> > > >
> > > >        ∆E · ∆t ≥ h/4π
> > > >
> > > >    "That means that conservation of energy can appear to be
> > > >    violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation
> > > >    of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The
> > > >    effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in
> > > >    the effective charge of the electron, different from its
> > > >    "naked" charge.
> > > >
> > > >    "In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the
> > > >    eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not
> > > >    the same as (i.e., the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the
> > > >    particle number operators.
> > > >
> > > >    "Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the
> > > >    origin of the structure of the universe: according to the
> > > >    model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation
> > > >    began were amplified and formed the seed of all current
> > > >    observed structure."
> > > >
> > > > Quoting from A USENET Posting by Steve Carlip (UC Davis):
> > > >
> > > >    "CMB fluctuations give evidence for (though not proof of)
> > > >    inflation.
> > > >
> > > >    "So far, I haven't said anything about where the initial
> > > >    density variations of the pre-recombination plasma came
> > > >    from. There are many possibilities. We know, at least, that
> > > >    they must be there -- even if we try to start with a
> > > >    perfectly smooth, unvarying plasma, the Heisenberg
> > > >    uncertainty principle tells us that there must be a minimum
> > > >    level of quantum fluctuations.
> > > >
> > > >         ∆E · ∆t ≥  h/4π
> > > >
> > > >    "Inflationary" models propose that the very early Universe
> > > >    -- before the time of primordial nucleosynthesis --
> > > >    underwent a very rapid expansion. Such an expansion would
> > > >    smooth out/dilute any earlier inhomogeneities, leaving only
> > > >    the quantum fluctuations, which would be "stretched" in size
> > > >    by the rapidly expanding space.
> > > >
> > > >    "Such models predict a special pattern of fluctuations. In
> > > >    particular, although any particular fluctuation is random,
> > > >    the average number at any particular scale is predictable.
> > > >    This pattern on initial variations, in turn, should show up
> > > >    in the details of the CMB variations. So far, observations
> > > >    match the predictions of inflation very well. Most people in
> > > >    the field don't consider this conclusive -- one can imagine
> > > >    other ways of getting a similar pattern of initial
> > > >    perturbations -- but it is suggestive."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> > > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> > > > community, and physics-related social issues.
> > >
> > > How did the inflationary period attenuate?
> >
> > You talk about "inflationary" as if is real...it's just a  fudge factor.
> >
> > It's used to add fudge to 'the big bang'.
> >
> > What i find strange is...
> >
> > that the majority of the
> > 'scientific community'
> > talk as
> > believe that
> > think that
> > say that
> > 'the big bang' happen.
> >
> > It's not even a Fact.
> >
> > The Big Bang is not a fact.
> >
> > That aside...
> >
> > I have a photograph
> > that shows you what the big bang looked like
> > a few seconds after it happen.
> >
> > You will see the big bang
> > in a color photograph...
> > and at the same time you
> > can see what existed at the
> > time of the big bang...
> > what I call the stable stars...the green stars.
> >
> > The big bang stars are red shifted because
> > you can see the big bang stars shooting in all
> > directions at once...while the green stars remain stable
> > because they existed before the big bang.
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > The Starmaker
> 
> So..looking at my photo of before and after the big bang...i figured out what caused the big bang.
> 
> What caused the big bang was the acculmulation
> of green stable stars.
> 
> In other words, the green stars
> simply gave birth to more green stars,
> and more green stars, and more green stars,
> and more green stars, and more green stars,
> till there were so many green stars that
> there was no more room.
> 
> Can you imagine how hot it got?
> 
> The green stars were so stable they didn't die...there was
> an over-population of green stars.
> 
> This photo of during the big bang...was differcult to produce..
> 
> but i do have the photo of the crowded green stars...i just didn't know why it was so crowded.
> 
> I'll have to find time to produce that one of the crowded green stars.
> 
> I'm sure you all like to see photographs of what caused the big bang.
> 
> The Starmaker


In other words...
the green stars
created
...Space.

That is why you had the
explosion of Space.

Or, what yous call a big bang.

In the process
of this new space...
the green stars turned
blue.

Or, white as you see it.

I know that
this is a level
the 'scientific community'
has not reached yet...
so you won't find it in your
wiki books.

I give the
'scientific community'
another thousand years
to catch up to me.

The Starmaker

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

#279067

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:47:05 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > > On 11/12/15 11:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > Where do you think the universe came from?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
> > > > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle
> > > > >    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8FTr2qMutA
> > > > >
> > > > >    Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that it is
> > > > >    impossible to simultaneously measure the position and
> > > > >    momentum of a particle with arbitrary precision. In our
> > > > >    everyday lives we virtually never come up against this
> > > > >    limit, hence why it seems peculiar. In this experiment a
> > > > >    laser is shone through a narrow slit onto a screen. As the
> > > > >    slit is made narrower, the spot on the screen also becomes
> > > > >    narrower. But at a certain point, the spot starts becoming
> > > > >    wider. This is because the photons of light have been so
> > > > >    localised at the slit that their horizontal momentum must
> > > > >    become less well defined in order to satisfy Heisenberg's
> > > > >    uncertainty principle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Quantum vacuum fluctuation (or Quantum Fluctuation for short)
> > > > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
> > > > >
> > > > > Quoting from the above Wikipedia page:
> > > > >
> > > > >    "In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or
> > > > >    quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary
> > > > >    change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising
> > > > >    from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
> > > > >
> > > > >    "According to one formulation of the principle, energy and
> > > > >    time can be related by the relation
> > > > >
> > > > >        ∆E · ∆t ≥ h/4π
> > > > >
> > > > >    "That means that conservation of energy can appear to be
> > > > >    violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation
> > > > >    of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The
> > > > >    effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in
> > > > >    the effective charge of the electron, different from its
> > > > >    "naked" charge.
> > > > >
> > > > >    "In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the
> > > > >    eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not
> > > > >    the same as (i.e., the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the
> > > > >    particle number operators.
> > > > >
> > > > >    "Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the
> > > > >    origin of the structure of the universe: according to the
> > > > >    model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation
> > > > >    began were amplified and formed the seed of all current
> > > > >    observed structure."
> > > > >
> > > > > Quoting from A USENET Posting by Steve Carlip (UC Davis):
> > > > >
> > > > >    "CMB fluctuations give evidence for (though not proof of)
> > > > >    inflation.
> > > > >
> > > > >    "So far, I haven't said anything about where the initial
> > > > >    density variations of the pre-recombination plasma came
> > > > >    from. There are many possibilities. We know, at least, that
> > > > >    they must be there -- even if we try to start with a
> > > > >    perfectly smooth, unvarying plasma, the Heisenberg
> > > > >    uncertainty principle tells us that there must be a minimum
> > > > >    level of quantum fluctuations.
> > > > >
> > > > >         ∆E · ∆t ≥  h/4π
> > > > >
> > > > >    "Inflationary" models propose that the very early Universe
> > > > >    -- before the time of primordial nucleosynthesis --
> > > > >    underwent a very rapid expansion. Such an expansion would
> > > > >    smooth out/dilute any earlier inhomogeneities, leaving only
> > > > >    the quantum fluctuations, which would be "stretched" in size
> > > > >    by the rapidly expanding space.
> > > > >
> > > > >    "Such models predict a special pattern of fluctuations. In
> > > > >    particular, although any particular fluctuation is random,
> > > > >    the average number at any particular scale is predictable.
> > > > >    This pattern on initial variations, in turn, should show up
> > > > >    in the details of the CMB variations. So far, observations
> > > > >    match the predictions of inflation very well. Most people in
> > > > >    the field don't consider this conclusive -- one can imagine
> > > > >    other ways of getting a similar pattern of initial
> > > > >    perturbations -- but it is suggestive."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> > > > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> > > > > community, and physics-related social issues.
> > > >
> > > > How did the inflationary period attenuate?
> > >
> > > You talk about "inflationary" as if is real...it's just a  fudge factor.
> > >
> > > It's used to add fudge to 'the big bang'.
> > >
> > > What i find strange is...
> > >
> > > that the majority of the
> > > 'scientific community'
> > > talk as
> > > believe that
> > > think that
> > > say that
> > > 'the big bang' happen.
> > >
> > > It's not even a Fact.
> > >
> > > The Big Bang is not a fact.
> > >
> > > That aside...
> > >
> > > I have a photograph
> > > that shows you what the big bang looked like
> > > a few seconds after it happen.
> > >
> > > You will see the big bang
> > > in a color photograph...
> > > and at the same time you
> > > can see what existed at the
> > > time of the big bang...
> > > what I call the stable stars...the green stars.
> > >
> > > The big bang stars are red shifted because
> > > you can see the big bang stars shooting in all
> > > directions at once...while the green stars remain stable
> > > because they existed before the big bang.
> > >
> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > >
> > > The Starmaker
> >
> > So..looking at my photo of before and after the big bang...i figured out what caused the big bang.
> >
> > What caused the big bang was the acculmulation
> > of green stable stars.
> >
> > In other words, the green stars
> > simply gave birth to more green stars,
> > and more green stars, and more green stars,
> > and more green stars, and more green stars,
> > till there were so many green stars that
> > there was no more room.
> >
> > Can you imagine how hot it got?
> >
> > The green stars were so stable they didn't die...there was
> > an over-population of green stars.
> >
> > This photo of during the big bang...was differcult to produce..
> >
> > but i do have the photo of the crowded green stars...i just didn't know why it was so crowded.
> >
> > I'll have to find time to produce that one of the crowded green stars.
> >
> > I'm sure you all like to see photographs of what caused the big bang.
> >
> > The Starmaker
> 
> In other words...
> the green stars
> created
> ...Space.
> 
> That is why you had the
> explosion of Space.
> 
> Or, what yous call a big bang.
> 
> In the process
> of this new space...
> the green stars turned
> blue.
> 
> Or, white as you see it.
> 
> I know that
> this is a level
> the 'scientific community'
> has not reached yet...
> so you won't find it in your
> wiki books.
> 
> I give the
> 'scientific community'
> another thousand years
> to catch up to me.
> 
> The Starmaker



Now, most people
in the 'scientific community'
don't understand what Space is.

Space is made up of Green Stars.

Green stars are stars that
are pefect stars, not to hot,
not to cold..so they last longer than
stars you see today.

Green stars can last for trillions of years
or more...

but they all disapeared when the green stars
ran out of space for new born green stars.

It just got too crowded for green stars
to a point where the green stars were
practiacally inches away from each other...
and that caused the tempature in the 'room'
to get very hot, they ran out of
breathing space and...there was an explosion..
an explosion of more space..to expand to give more
room, but it caised the green stars to turn blue
and shorten it's life span..and burn out.

Of course, I'm not sure what size the green stars were 
at the time of the big bang...they could be very big, or very small..
like the size of a molecue.

But, if you put all the green stars together
close enough....they create...Space.

Just like that stuff that makes things feel...wet.

The Starmaker

I make stars.

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

#279068

YOU ARE A FAKER: YOU MAKE NOTHING!

THERE ARE NO GREEN STARS!

LYING FRAUD!

Saul Levy


On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:04:14 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>The Starmaker
>
>I make stars.

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

#279097

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:04:15 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
 
> Space is made up of Green Stars.

You are an extremely slow learner...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy)

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

#279099

palsing wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:04:15 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > Space is made up of Green Stars.
> 
> You are an extremely slow learner...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy)

You are an extremely slow reader...


Why are you pointing to a link that doesn't exist???? When I already
mentioned that

> I know that
> this is a level
> the 'scientific community'
> has not reached yet...
> so you won't find it in your
> wiki books.
> 
> I give the
> 'scientific community'
> another thousand years
> to catch up to me.
> 
> The Starmaker


I'm here to explain Not 'what you know'...but 'what you don't know'.


Let me put it this way since I know
you have no other place to turn too...

Space consist, or is made of
little particles that give you the 
sensation you're in outersapce.


No different than what a fish
feels floating around the
ocean of water..

you don't actually believe a fish feels...wet?


Or, to make it more simplier...
what makes water is dry.

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

#279101

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:27:40 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > palsing wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:04:15 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > > Space is made up of Green Stars.
> > >
> > > You are an extremely slow learner...
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy)
> >
> > You are an extremely slow reader...
> >
> >
> > Why are you pointing to a link that doesn't exist????
> 
> The link exists just fine, and says this...
> 
> "In astronomy, a green star is a white or blue star that appears green due to an optical illusion. There are no truly green stars, because the color of a star is more or less given by a black-body spectrum and this never looks green."
> 
> There is no such thing as a green star, no matter how much you babble otherwise...


My mistake, I copied an incomplete link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_%28astronomy%29



But, I was refering to 'green stars' that existed BEFORE the big bang:


Don't you see the color green? Don't you see Green Stars?
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg



The Starmaker

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

#279106

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 3:07:39 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > My mistake, I copied an incomplete link:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_%28astronomy%29
> >
> >
> >
> > But, I was refering to 'green stars' that existed BEFORE the big bang:
> >
> >
> > Don't you see the color green? Don't you see Green Stars?
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> I'm going to suggest that perhaps you are colorblind.
> 
> I'm also going to suggest that before the big bang there was nothing... but any answer to that question is doomed to be just speculation, in any case...

What question are you refering to?


Just imagine for a moment...
(try thinking on your own)

You take a camera..
and stand right where
the big bang took place..
take a picture
just before the big bang...
what will you see?

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

#279114

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 4:23:28 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 3:07:39 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > > My mistake, I copied an incomplete link:
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_%28astronomy%29
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But, I was refering to 'green stars' that existed BEFORE the big bang:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Don't you see the color green? Don't you see Green Stars?
> > > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > >
> > > I'm going to suggest that perhaps you are colorblind.
> > >
> > > I'm also going to suggest that before the big bang there was nothing... but any answer to that question is doomed to be just speculation, in any case...
> >
> > What question are you refering to?
> 
> Why, the question of "what existed before the big bang". Having a little trouble with comprehension, are we?
> 
> > Just imagine for a moment...
> > (try thinking on your own)
> >
> > You take a camera..
> > and stand right where
> > the big bang took place..
> > take a picture
> > just before the big bang...
> > what will you see?
> 
> Nothing at all. Why, what do YOU think you would see?


“My god, it’s full of green stars”

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy

csiph-web