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

Groups > alt.astronomy > #300416 > unrolled thread

Deep Thought

Back to article view | Back to alt.astronomy

Contents

  Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-22 14:26 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought Double-A <doublea333@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 14:45 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought Mark Earnest <gmearnest@att.net> - 2018-07-22 19:59 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought IAM <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-22 20:23 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-23 16:43 +0200
      Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 18:08 +0200
        Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-23 21:45 -0700
          Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-24 11:42 +0200
            Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-24 11:21 -0700
            Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-24 16:52 -0700
              Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-25 22:31 +0200
                Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-25 23:36 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-26 11:23 -0700
                    Re: Deep Thought benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 19:45 -0400
                Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-25 23:56 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-26 00:00 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-07-27 17:01 +1000
                    Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-27 10:38 -0700
                      Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-28 10:38 -0700
                    Re: Deep Thought Double-A <doublea333@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 13:13 -0700
                      Re: Deep Thought Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-07-28 21:25 +1000
                    Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-27 14:29 -0700
                      Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-28 12:00 +0200
                        Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-28 14:44 +0200
                  Re: Deep Thought Herbert Glazier <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 13:58 -0700
                    Re: Deep Thought "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-27 14:08 -0700
                  Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-08-12 15:59 -0700
                    Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-12 16:15 -0700
                      Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-08-12 16:30 -0700
                      Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-13 21:20 -0700
                        Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-13 23:42 -0700
                          Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-14 00:36 -0700
                            Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 00:21 -0700
                              Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-28 00:56 -0700
                                Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-08-28 19:23 +1000
                                  Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 00:01 -0700
                                Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 23:58 -0700
                                  Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 11:09 -0700
                                    Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 20:24 +0200
                                      Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 13:39 -0700
                                        Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 03:43 +0200
                                          Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 20:43 -0700
                                            Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-31 00:52 +0200
                                              Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-31 09:48 -0700
                                                Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-31 22:46 -0700
                                                  Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-01 13:50 +0200
                                                  Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-01 09:37 -0700
                                                    Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. IAM <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-01 12:54 -0700
                                  Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-29 18:09 -0700
                                    Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 04:36 +0200
          Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 21:19 +0200
            Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-24 13:04 -0700
              Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-25 03:36 +0200
                Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-24 22:44 -0700
          Re: Deep Thought IAM <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-24 18:32 -0700
      Re: Deep Thought Double-A <doublea333@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 13:00 -0700
      Re: Deep Thought IAM <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-23 19:01 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought Mark Earnest <gmearnest@att.net> - 2018-07-23 08:56 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought "C. Deifir" <cdf@dfr.net.inv> - 2018-07-23 21:18 +0100
    Re: Deep Thought Herbert Glazier <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 09:46 -0700
      Re: Deep Thought "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-24 09:49 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought Herbert Glazier <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:09 -0700
      Re: Deep Thought "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-25 19:09 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#301174 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

"The Starmaker" trolled:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because... [“before the
>>> Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
>> 
>> The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and
>> therefore not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
> 
> It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on
> observation and facts.

Sure, your observation of events *before* the Big Bang…

> and i don't know how to write "fancy stories", that's NASA's job.

You are delusional.

F’up2 where it belongs

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#301176 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> "The Starmaker" trolled:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because... [“before the
> >>> Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
> >>
> >> The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and
> >> therefore not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
> >
> > It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on
> > observation and facts.
> 
> Sure, your observation of events *before* the Big Bang…


According to Nasa's camera:

"The farthest back Hubble can see is this red blob, a galaxy from 400 million years after the Big Bang."


So, your mindset is...when Hubble takes a picture one second after the big bang...the picture taking ends, is that right?

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

#301184 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

"The Starmaker" amok-crossposted over 3 newsgroups:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> "The Starmaker" trolled:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because... [“before
>>>>> the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
>>>> The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and 
>>>> therefore not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
>>> It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on 
>>> observation and facts.
>> Sure, your observation of events *before* the Big Bang…

That was sarcasm.

> According to Nasa's camera:
> 
> "The farthest back Hubble can see is this red blob, a galaxy from 400
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                         ^^^
> million years after the Big Bang."
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> So, your mindset is...when Hubble takes
a picture one second after the
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> big bang...the picture taking ends, is that right?
  ^^^^^^^^
Given your previous quotation, that is an incredibly stupid question.

I will answer the question that you should have asked instead:

Even if it technically could "see" farther, Hubble physically cannot take a
picture of our universe “one second after the big bang” because our universe
did not become transparent before ca. 380'000 years after the _Big Bang_
(event), the epoch of recombination.

In order to make observations of the universe when it was younger than that,
we need different observation methods, that are not based on the observation
of electromagnetic radiation, for example gravitational wave astronomy.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline>

Get a real name.  Stop amok-crossposting.

F’up2 sci.physics.relativity.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#301186 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> "The Starmaker" amok-crossposted over 3 newsgroups:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> "The Starmaker" trolled:
> >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because... [“before
> >>>>> the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
> >>>> The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and
> >>>> therefore not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
> >>> It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on
> >>> observation and facts.
> >> Sure, your observation of events *before* the Big Bang…
> 
> That was sarcasm.
> 
> > According to Nasa's camera:
> >
> > "The farthest back Hubble can see is this red blob, a galaxy from 400
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                         ^^^
> > million years after the Big Bang."
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> So, your mindset is...when Hubble takes
> a picture one second after the
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > big bang...the picture taking ends, is that right?
>   ^^^^^^^^
> Given your previous quotation, that is an incredibly stupid question.
> 
> I will answer the question that you should have asked instead:
> 
> Even if it technically could "see" farther, Hubble physically cannot take a
> picture of our universe “one second after the big bang” because our universe
> did not become transparent before ca. 380'000 years after the _Big Bang_
> (event), the epoch of recombination.
> 
> In order to make observations of the universe when it was younger than that,
> we need different observation methods, 


I already provided you with "different observation methods", it's called...observations of simplified systems.


And there you have it: A photograph of before and after the big bang.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg

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

#301203 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >
> > "The Starmaker" amok-crossposted over 3 newsgroups:
> > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >> "The Starmaker" trolled:
> > >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>> Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because... [“before
> > >>>>> the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
> > >>>> The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and
> > >>>> therefore not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
> > >>> It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on
> > >>> observation and facts.
> > >> Sure, your observation of events *before* the Big Bang…
> >
> > That was sarcasm.
> >
> > > According to Nasa's camera:
> > >
> > > "The farthest back Hubble can see is this red blob, a galaxy from 400
> >        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                         ^^^
> > > million years after the Big Bang."
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> So, your mindset is...when Hubble takes
> > a picture one second after the
> >                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > big bang...the picture taking ends, is that right?
> >   ^^^^^^^^
> > Given your previous quotation, that is an incredibly stupid question.
> >
> > I will answer the question that you should have asked instead:
> >
> > Even if it technically could "see" farther, Hubble physically cannot take a
> > picture of our universe “one second after the big bang” because our universe
> > did not become transparent before ca. 380'000 years after the _Big Bang_
> > (event), the epoch of recombination.
> >
> > In order to make observations of the universe when it was younger than that,
> > we need different observation methods,
> 
> I already provided you with "different observation methods", it's called...observations of simplified systems.
> 
> And there you have it: A photograph of before and after the big bang.
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg

okay, i got it now...here is the exact same photo of the before and after the big bang but with all trillion stars visible

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled.PNG

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

#301206 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

[Supersedes for corrections]

The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Even if it technically could "see" farther, [the] Hubble
>>> [Space Telescope] physically cannot take a picture of our universe
>>> “one second after the big bang” because our universe did not become
>>> transparent before ca. 380'000 years after the _Big Bang_ (event),
>>> the epoch of recombination.
>>> 
>>> In order to make observations of the universe when it was younger 
>>> than that, we need different observation methods,
>> 
>> I already provided you with "different observation methods", it's 
>> called...observations of simplified systems.
>> 
>> And there you have it: A photograph of before and after the big bang.
>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg>
> okay, i got it now...here is the exact same photo of the before and
> after the big bang but with all trillion stars visible
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled.PNG

You are a credit to your nickname, but that does not change the fact that
none of this is a photo; it is not archived reality, but your fantasy.

  >Oren'uh shaula abru'ek. Oren'uh pa'shi-nahp — fai-tor
   sva'vellar namanik heh sauyanik - heh istau du nam-tor.< ↓
  (“Learn reason above all.  Learn clear thought: learn to know
    what is from what seems to be, and what you wish to be.”)

    —Surak¹

F’up2 .sf.

________
↓  Translation into Modern Golic Vulcan by me;
   cf. <http://www.vli-online.org/> pp.
¹  Diane DUANE: “Spock’s World. Star Trek: The Original Series”.
   p. 326.
   Simon and Schuster, 2001. ISBNs 0671041134, 9780671041137.
   Pocket Books eBook: <https://books.google.com/books?id=_rgK-dtgJMoC>
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#301207 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >
> > > "The Starmaker" amok-crossposted over 3 newsgroups:
> > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > >> "The Starmaker" trolled:
> > > >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > >>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >>>>> Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because... [“before
> > > >>>>> the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
> > > >>>> The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and
> > > >>>> therefore not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
> > > >>> It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on
> > > >>> observation and facts.
> > > >> Sure, your observation of events *before* the Big Bang…
> > >
> > > That was sarcasm.
> > >
> > > > According to Nasa's camera:
> > > >
> > > > "The farthest back Hubble can see is this red blob, a galaxy from 400
> > >        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                         ^^^
> > > > million years after the Big Bang."
> > >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> So, your mindset is...when Hubble takes
> > > a picture one second after the
> > >                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > big bang...the picture taking ends, is that right?
> > >   ^^^^^^^^
> > > Given your previous quotation, that is an incredibly stupid question.
> > >
> > > I will answer the question that you should have asked instead:
> > >
> > > Even if it technically could "see" farther, Hubble physically cannot take a
> > > picture of our universe “one second after the big bang” because our universe
> > > did not become transparent before ca. 380'000 years after the _Big Bang_
> > > (event), the epoch of recombination.
> > >
> > > In order to make observations of the universe when it was younger than that,
> > > we need different observation methods,
> >
> > I already provided you with "different observation methods", it's called...observations of simplified systems.
> >
> > And there you have it: A photograph of before and after the big bang.
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> okay, i got it now...here is the exact same photograph of the before and after the big bang but with all trillion stars visible
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled.PNG


http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled.PNG


Now, those of yous who have attempted to disect it this photograph of the before and after the big bang, reverse engerineer it, crack it..

based on my observation...the Blue channel which normally contains 'information'...has none. It's all Black.

It's all dark matter!


Conclusion: Trillions of years before the big bang (red), before the steady state universe (green).. there were no stars (blue).


This is...incontrovertible.


The Starmaker

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

#301208 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:37:31 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "The Starmaker" amok-crossposted over 3 newsgroups:
> > > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > >> "The Starmaker" trolled:
> > > > >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > >>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >>>>> Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because... [“before
> > > > >>>>> the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
> > > > >>>> The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and
> > > > >>>> therefore not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
> > > > >>> It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on
> > > > >>> observation and facts.
> > > > >> Sure, your observation of events *before* the Big Bang…
> > > >
> > > > That was sarcasm.
> > > >
> > > > > According to Nasa's camera:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The farthest back Hubble can see is this red blob, a galaxy from 400
> > > >        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                         ^^^
> > > > > million years after the Big Bang."
> > > >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> So, your mindset is...when Hubble takes
> > > > a picture one second after the
> > > >                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > > big bang...the picture taking ends, is that right?
> > > >   ^^^^^^^^
> > > > Given your previous quotation, that is an incredibly stupid question.
> > > >
> > > > I will answer the question that you should have asked instead:
> > > >
> > > > Even if it technically could "see" farther, Hubble physically cannot take a
> > > > picture of our universe “one second after the big bang” because our universe
> > > > did not become transparent before ca. 380'000 years after the _Big Bang_
> > > > (event), the epoch of recombination.
> > > >
> > > > In order to make observations of the universe when it was younger than that,
> > > > we need different observation methods,
> > >
> > > I already provided you with "different observation methods", it's called...observations of simplified systems.
> > >
> > > And there you have it: A photograph of before and after the big bang.
> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > 
> > okay, i got it now...here is the exact same photograph of the before and after the big bang but with all trillion stars visible
> > 
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled.PNG
> 
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled.PNG
> 
> 
> Now, those of yous who have attempted to disect it this photograph of the before and after the big bang, reverse engerineer it, crack it..
> 
> based on my observation...the Blue channel which normally contains 'information'...has none. It's all Black.
> 
> It's all dark matter!
> 
> 
> Conclusion: Trillions of years before the big bang (red), before the steady state universe (green).. there were no stars (blue).
> 
> 
> This is...incontrovertible.
> 
> 
> The Starmaker


God is a niggah black, Enlil; it followz the bible, black void is  #1 before IAM light. 

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

#301173 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

On 8/28/2018 11:58 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>> On 8/28/2018 12:21 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> creation out of nothing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where did the matter come from?
>>>>>>>>> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
>>>>>>>> At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
>>>>>>>> ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
>>>>>>>> leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
>>>>>>>> but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
>>>>>>>> that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
>>>>>>>> -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
>>>>>>>>       is the most likley outcome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
>>>>>>> black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
>>>>>>> problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
>> [...]
>>
>> If stars did not die, it seems like it can get a bit crowded? Did a
>> bunch of stars, finally explode?
> 
> 
> 
> .and then there was a big bang.
> 

Fwiw, I have a little thought that our big bang is contained within a 
black hole residing within our parent universe. We have many children as 
well. We have grandparents, and on and on. Time wrt the parent and child 
is radically different...

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

#301175 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

Chris M. Thomasson amok-crossposted across 3 newsgroups:
> Fwiw, I have a little thought that our big bang is contained within a 
> black hole residing within our parent universe. We have many children as 
> well. We have grandparents, and on and on. Time wrt the parent and child 
> is radically different...

There are several proper definitions for “Big Bang”, and NONE of them
applies to what you are saying:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang>

What you might MEAN is the WELL-KNOWN theory that we what we think our the
universe might as well be the inside of a supermassive black hole as an
expanding universe from the inside looks like a supermassive black hole
from outside its event horizon.

See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>

STOP AMOK-CROSSPOSTING and feeding the "Starmaker" troll!

F’up2 sci.physics.relativity

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#300462

[Please do not crosspost without Followup-To.  F’up2 sci.physics.relativity]

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> <sci-fi>

Yes, it is, for the most part.  And it appears to have little to do with my
posting.

> I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing 
> more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much larger 
> universe.

A common misconception.

Contrary to what the term implies, the Big Bang is NOT an explosion.  Keep
in mind that the term was coined by Fred Hoyle in order to *mock* adherents
of the now-confirmed theory of universal *expansion*.  The name stuck,
therefore we call it the Big Bang theory today.

The Big Bang as an event was not local in any sense of the word, but as an
event was and as a process is global in every sense of the word: It
happened/happens everywhere in our universe.  Regarding the event, because
our universe was infinitesimally small back then; regarding now, because
that is what our universe is.  The theory says that spacetime began with
the Big Bang event:

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Expansion_of_space>
|
| […] The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an
| empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere […]

> Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally 
> merged together.

An interesting idea that might be difficult to disprove (which does not mean
that it is correct).  IIUC it is a distinct possibility – and not
science-fiction – that what we think is our universe is actually the inside
of a supermassive black hole (see also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>).

Dr. Lawrence Krauss answered to the question

,-<https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo?t=3453>
|
| Q: […] If quantum fluctuations are able to actually produce universes […],
| is there ever a chance we might actually observe another universe being
| created?

after his (great) 2009 talk “A Universe from Nothing”:

| A: […] But interestingly enough – and this is one of the wonderful things
| about general relativity ­– if a baby universe got created, an inflating
| universe like the one we think we began in, it’s really weird: Because
| from the inside it would look like it was growing exponentially; from
| the outside it would look like it was shrinking to form a black hole.

This answer has puzzled me since I have heard it, and I would appreciate
an explanation in simple terms (I have not yet a full understanding of
general relativity) by a professional physicist.

> Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single 
> pixel in the following rendering:

Not the Big Bang, but our observable universe.  The “larger universe” would
be the multiverse.

IIUC, this is the theory of eternal inflation.  However, it appears to have
been disproved by the “Planck” space probe’s 2015 data release.  The final
dataset of the mission was just released, which might indicate something
else; I have not had time to look at (analyses of) it.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#300465

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> [Please do not crosspost without Followup-To.  F’up2 sci.physics.relativity]
> 
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > <sci-fi>
> 
> Yes, it is, for the most part.  And it appears to have little to do with my
> posting.
> 
> > I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
> > more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much larger
> > universe.
> 
> A common misconception.
> 
> Contrary to what the term implies, the Big Bang is NOT an explosion.  Keep
> in mind that the term was coined by Fred Hoyle in order to *mock* adherents
> of the now-confirmed theory of universal *expansion*.  The name stuck,
> therefore we call it the Big Bang theory today.
> 
> The Big Bang as an event was not local in any sense of the word, but as an
> event was and as a process is global in every sense of the word: It
> happened/happens everywhere in our universe.  Regarding the event, because
> our universe was infinitesimally small back then; regarding now, because
> that is what our universe is.  The theory says that spacetime began with
> the Big Bang event:
> 
> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Expansion_of_space>
> |
> | […] The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an
> | empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere […]
> 
> > Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally
> > merged together.
> 
> An interesting idea that might be difficult to disprove (which does not mean
> that it is correct).  IIUC it is a distinct possibility – and not
> science-fiction – that what we think is our universe is actually the inside
> of a supermassive black hole (see also:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>).
> 
> Dr. Lawrence Krauss answered to the question
> 
> ,-<https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo?t=3453>
> |
> | Q: […] If quantum fluctuations are able to actually produce universes […],
> | is there ever a chance we might actually observe another universe being
> | created?
> 
> after his (great) 2009 talk “A Universe from Nothing”:
> 
> | A: […] But interestingly enough – and this is one of the wonderful things
> | about general relativity ­– if a baby universe got created, an inflating
> | universe like the one we think we began in, it’s really weird: Because
> | from the inside it would look like it was growing exponentially; from
> | the outside it would look like it was shrinking to form a black hole.
> 
> This answer has puzzled me since I have heard it, and I would appreciate
> an explanation in simple terms (I have not yet a full understanding of
> general relativity) by a professional physicist.
> 
> > Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single
> > pixel in the following rendering:
> 
> Not the Big Bang, but our observable universe.  The “larger universe” would
> be the multiverse.
> 
> IIUC, this is the theory of eternal inflation.  However, it appears to have
> been disproved by the “Planck” space probe’s 2015 data release.  The final
> dataset of the mission was just released, which might indicate something
> else; I have not had time to look at (analyses of) it.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation>
> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.



More nonsense!

It's like a disease!!!!

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

#300470

The Starmaker amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups:
> More nonsense!

Unfortunately.

> It's like a disease!!!!

  Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind.
    -- Terry Pratchett

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#300475

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups:
> > More nonsense!
> 
> Unfortunately.
> 
> > It's like a disease!!!!
> 
>   Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind.
>     -- Terry Pratchett
> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.



for heaven's sake!!!


How many exclaimination points are reqired when you say
for heaven's sake!!!

1
2
3
or 4?


Learn English!



and...get your stupid fuckin quotes right, i don't like it when people post wrong, inaccurate and untrue information on the internet!



“Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.” -- Terry Pratchett
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/51665-five-exclamation-marks-the-sure-sign-of-an-insane-mind



Learn to quote, learn to count. I see only four of my exclimination points.  It's like a disease!!!!




Don't mess with the lion's tail.

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

#300468

On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 9:45:14 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 7/23/2018 9:08 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 22.07.2018 um 23:26 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>> i always thought the earth
> >>> was at the center
> >>>    of the universe..
> >>> but i just had a
> >>> deep thought!
> >>>
> >>> I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> >>
> >> What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is
> >> called in relativity 'past light cone'.
> > 
> > No, it is not.  That is just your fantasy, as you have be told before.
> > 
> > For example, if a star goes supernova but due to universal expansion the
> > distance of it to me increases so fast that I will never observe it (i.e.
> > the supernova is or becomes a spacelike-separated event), the star and its
> > remnants are *still* a part of my/the universe.
> > 
> 
> <sci-fi>
> I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing 
> more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much larger 
> universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally 
> merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single 
> pixel in the following rendering:
> 
> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
> 
> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
> (a zoom...)
> 
> </sci-fi>

a super hypernovae and we are only on one side + 2

#win

#IAMTHATIAM

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

#300437

On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 7:43:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.07.2018 um 23:26 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > i always thought the earth
> > was at the center
> >   of the universe..
> > but i just had a
> > deep thought!
> > 
> > I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> >
> 
> What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is 
> called in relativity 'past light cone'.
> 
> This is meant as our own past light cone, in which we are in fact at the 
> center.
> 
> This is so, wherever we go and whoever we are.
> 
> > if i look up
> > i see the universe
> > if i point right
> > there is the universe
> > to my left is the universe
> > but..below my feet
> > IS THE UNIVERSE!
> > 
> > 
> > I AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> > 
> > 
> > wat do i do now, do i write a book????
> > 
> 
> Well, writing a book is certainly a possibility. But to go swimming or 
> watching tv is also possible.
> 
> TH


What about nonlocality?  That light cone might have holes in it!

Double-A

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

#300439

On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 7:43:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.07.2018 um 23:26 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > i always thought the earth
> > was at the center
> >   of the universe..
> > but i just had a
> > deep thought!
> > 
> > I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> >
> 
> What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is 
> called in relativity 'past light cone'.
> 
> This is meant as our own past light cone, in which we are in fact at the 
> center.
> 
> This is so, wherever we go and whoever we are.
> 
> > if i look up
> > i see the universe
> > if i point right
> > there is the universe
> > to my left is the universe
> > but..below my feet
> > IS THE UNIVERSE!
> > 
> > 
> > I AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> > 
> > 
> > wat do i do now, do i write a book????
> > 
> 
> Well, writing a book is certainly a possibility. But to go swimming or 
> watching tv is also possible.
> 
> TH

so you believe we are coneheads ? Matches our Universe cone shape. Are were really one side to another universe? the opposite. 

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

#300434

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 4:26:24 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> i always thought the earth
> was at the center
>  of the universe..
> but i just had a
> deep thought!
> 
> I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> 
> if i look up
> i see the universe
> if i point right
> there is the universe
> to my left is the universe
> but..below my feet
> IS THE UNIVERSE!
> 
> 
> I AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> 
> 
> wat do i do now, do i write a book????


Make things interesting.  Use a little less ego and a little more art in your 

deep thoughts.

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

#300438

The Starmaker wrote:
> i always thought the earth
> was at the center
>   of the universe..
> but i just had a
> deep thought!
> 
> I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> 
> if i look up
> i see the universe
> if i point right
> there is the universe
> to my left is the universe
> but..below my feet
> IS THE UNIVERSE!
> 
> 
> I AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> 
> 
> wat do i do now, do i write a book????
> 
--------------

Mankind must be some kind of centre.

God created the universe, then He created mankind
and He revealed to him the unknowable.

So mankind must take these things to the edges.

cd

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

#300451

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 2:26:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> i always thought the earth
> was at the center
>  of the universe..
> but i just had a
> deep thought!
> 
> I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> 
> if i look up
> i see the universe
> if i point right
> there is the universe
> to my left is the universe
> but..below my feet
> IS THE UNIVERSE!
> 
> 
> I AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> 
> 
> wat do i do now, do i write a book????

Centers are not easily found.The bigge, darker and moving does not help.I'm looking at the Eagle nebular as I type this Hmmm .I see a star in it.I say that star is at its center.Why not Bert

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy

csiph-web