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

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #440886 > unrolled thread

The purpose of a black hole..

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  The purpose of a black hole.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-30 11:57 -0700
    Re: The purpose of a black hole.. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-30 21:10 +0200
    Re: The purpose of a black hole.. Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-30 12:46 -0700
    Re: The purpose of a black hole.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-31 00:24 -0700
      Re: The purpose of a black hole.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-31 17:15 -0700
        Re: The purpose of a black hole.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-01 23:22 -0700
          Re: The purpose of a black hole.. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-06-02 05:07 -0700
            Re: The purpose of a black hole.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-02 23:22 -0700
          Re: The purpose of a black hole.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-02 11:46 -0700
            Re: The purpose of a black hole.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-03 10:32 -0700
              Re: The purpose of a black hole.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-04 10:48 -0700

#440886 — The purpose of a black hole..

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Supermassive_black_hole_wind_can_stop_new_stars_from_forming_999.html



as i mentioned before...
the purpose of a black hole is
to contain new stars from being born..

to control the temperature of the universe, and
the population of new stars.


What caused the big bang in the past
was...too many stars.

So, a whole new universe had to be
created that controls the population
of new stars.

That new universe created the black holes.


This is...irrefutable, and not up for discusion.


and besides I showed you a picture of that universe 'before and after' the big bang already...
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg


i just cannot help it, i'm a fuckin genuis! 


i wasn't born that way..
it was an accident...
my mother dropped me on my head.

Vola.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#440887

Użytkownik "The Starmaker"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:574C8D12.822@ix.netcom.com...

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Supermassive_black_hole_wind_can_stop_new_stars_from_forming_999.html



|as i mentioned before...
|the purpose of a black hole is
|to contain new stars from being born..

Wrong. The purpose of black hole is
to keep idiot physicist puffed.

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

#440889

"The Starmaker"  wrote in message news:574C8D12.822@ix.netcom.com...

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Supermassive_black_hole_wind_can_stop_new_stars_from_forming_999.html


>> snip drivel <<

Say, why don't you quit while you're ahead ...
any more of your theories and treBert will chime in and nominate
you for a Nobel ... really, take your meds ... 

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

#440909

David Waite wrote:
> 
> Things in nature don't have "purposes", lunatic.



Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word...purpose? 


https://www.google.com/#q=define+purpose

1.
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.



Now, I already defined the reason why black holes exist...their purpose in the universe:


 as i mentioned before...
> the purpose of a black hole is
> to contain new stars from being born..
> 
> to control the temperature of the universe, and
> the population of new stars.
> 
> What caused the big bang in the past
> was...too many stars.
> 
> So, a whole new universe had to be
> created that controls the population
> of new stars.
> 
> That new universe created the black holes.
> 
> This is...irrefutable, and not up for discusion.
> 
> and besides I showed you a picture of that universe 'before and after' the big bang already...
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> i just cannot help it, i'm a fuckin genuis!
> 
> i wasn't born that way..
> it was an accident...
> my mother dropped me on my head.
> 
> Vola.


as you can see before the big bang there were green stars that are known as...stable stars.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg

These green stars did not burn out. They reproduced more green stars untill eventually
they ran out of...space. That caused an explosion that you call today a big bang.

You can see in the photo of moments before and after the big bang, red shift stars exploding
in all different directions
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg

I had to remove a few trillion stars so that you can see the green stars individually.

But there were so many green stars that they were all a matter of inches of each other.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg


In the small amount of space the green stars were in...their universe exploded...forming
a new universe which this time...black holes were created to eat the stars and keep the universe in balance.

It fixed itself.

It's not my fault it's going to take you a thousand years to understand...


i just cannot help it, i'm a fuckin genuis! I know too much.

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

#440957

David Waite wrote:

> No dumb nut. There is NO "purpose" to anything in nature. Damn you're slow.


What are you trying to tell me, that the universe is 'about'...nothing??? You've been watching too many woody allen movies.


David Wait, Wait David, David Wait, Wait!!! What are you Waiting for? Wait, David, Wait!



watastupidhandle.


WAIT!

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

#441063

David Waite wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:15:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > David Waite wrote:
> >
> > > No dumb nut. There is NO "purpose" to anything in nature. Damn you're slow.
> >
> >
> > What are you trying to tell me, that the universe is 'about'...nothing??? You've been watching too many woody allen movies.
> >
> >
> > David Wait, Wait David, David Wait, Wait!!! What are you Waiting for? Wait, David, Wait!
> >
> >
> >
> > watastupidhandle.
> >
> >
> > WAIT!
> 
> Your proposal that its about something is utterly ludicrous. 


Why may I ask would Stephen Hawking even consider asking the question,  "Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"

Or why existence exists? but, ...i understand..it is beyond your understanding.


But I already also gave the purpose...the universe exist 'for entertainment and informational purposes only'.

 







Waite means a soldier who would stay awaite at night patrolling the city wall waiteing for enemy forces.

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

#441079

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 2:21:33 AM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> David Waite wrote:
> > 
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:15:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > David Waite wrote:
> > >
> > > > No dumb nut. There is NO "purpose" to anything in nature. Damn you're slow.
> > >
> > >
> > > What are you trying to tell me, that the universe is 'about'...nothing??? You've been watching too many woody allen movies.
> > >
> > >
> > > David Wait, Wait David, David Wait, Wait!!! What are you Waiting for? Wait, David, Wait!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > watastupidhandle.
> > >
> > >
> > > WAIT!
> > 
> > Your proposal that its about something is utterly ludicrous. 
> 
> 
> Why may I ask would Stephen Hawking even consider asking the question,  "Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"
> 
> Or why existence exists? but, ...i understand..it is beyond your understanding.
> 
> 
> But I already also gave the purpose...the universe exist 'for entertainment and informational purposes only'.

If that's the case, why are YOU in it?

You meet neither criteria.

> 
> 
> Waite means a soldier who would stay awaite at night patrolling the city wall waiteing for enemy forces.

Kevin R

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

#441161

Kevrob wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 2:21:33 AM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > David Waite wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:15:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > David Waite wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > No dumb nut. There is NO "purpose" to anything in nature. Damn you're slow.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What are you trying to tell me, that the universe is 'about'...nothing??? You've been watching too many woody allen movies.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David Wait, Wait David, David Wait, Wait!!! What are you Waiting for? Wait, David, Wait!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > watastupidhandle.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WAIT!
> > >
> > > Your proposal that its about something is utterly ludicrous.
> >
> >
> > Why may I ask would Stephen Hawking even consider asking the question,  "Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"
> >
> > Or why existence exists? but, ...i understand..it is beyond your understanding.
> >
> >
> > But I already also gave the purpose...the universe exist 'for entertainment and informational purposes only'.
> 
> If that's the case, why are YOU in it?


It's The Starmaker Show!

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

#441123

David Waite wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:21:33 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > David Waite wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:15:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > David Waite wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > No dumb nut. There is NO "purpose" to anything in nature. Damn you're slow.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What are you trying to tell me, that the universe is 'about'...nothing??? You've been watching too many woody allen movies.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David Wait, Wait David, David Wait, Wait!!! What are you Waiting for? Wait, David, Wait!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > watastupidhandle.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WAIT!
> > >
> > > Your proposal that its about something is utterly ludicrous.
> >
> >
> > Why may I ask would Stephen Hawking even consider asking the question...
> 
> Why do you speculate that I would care what questions are attributed to him?


So, where did you get this 'idea' may I ask that, "There is NO "purpose" to anything in nature."?


Surely, it must come from someone (with a name), or a group of faceless, nameless people..you couldn't have 
come up with the idea that "There is NO "purpose" to anything in nature." all by yourself?? You must have had help.

Maybe your mother...dad, a crazy uncle..

I suspect someone nameless and faceless...


it's how you people communicate...

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

#441183

David Waite wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 11:46:07 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > David Waite wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:21:33 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > David Waite wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:15:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > David Waite wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > No dumb nut. There is NO "purpose" to anything in nature. Damn you're slow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What are you trying to tell me, that the universe is 'about'...nothing??? You've been watching too many woody allen movies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David Wait, Wait David, David Wait, Wait!!! What are you Waiting for? Wait, David, Wait!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > watastupidhandle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WAIT!
> > > > >
> > > > > Your proposal that its about something is utterly ludicrous.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why may I ask would Stephen Hawking even consider asking the question...
> > >
> > > Why do you speculate that I would care what questions are attributed to him?
> >
> >
> > So, where did you get this 'idea' may I ask that, "There is NO "purpose" to anything in nature."?
> 
> Any such insane propositions must be rationally rejected without an equally insane quantity of evidence for the propositions. So until you prove your insane proposition, it is rightly rejected in accord with the null hypothesis.


That sounds a lot like a 'Philosophy' statement, ....where have you
been, haven't you heard, ...that Philosophy is dead?



Philosophy is dead!

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

#441242

David Waite wrote:
> 
> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 10:32:37 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > David Waite wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 11:46:07 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > David Waite wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:21:33 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > David Waite wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:15:29 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > David Waite wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No dumb nut. There is NO "purpose" to anything in nature. Damn you're slow.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What are you trying to tell me, that the universe is 'about'...nothing??? You've been watching too many woody allen movies.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > David Wait, Wait David, David Wait, Wait!!! What are you Waiting for? Wait, David, Wait!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > watastupidhandle.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > WAIT!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your proposal that its about something is utterly ludicrous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why may I ask would Stephen Hawking even consider asking the question...
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you speculate that I would care what questions are attributed to him?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, where did you get this 'idea' may I ask that, "There is NO "purpose" to anything in nature."?
> > >
> > > Any such insane propositions must be rationally rejected without an equally insane quantity of evidence for the propositions. So until you prove your insane proposition, it is rightly rejected in accord with the null hypothesis.
> >
> >
> > That sounds a lot like a 'Philosophy' statement, ....where have you
> > been, haven't you heard, ...that Philosophy is dead?
> >
> >
> >
> > Philosophy is dead!
> 
> You're a moron so your opinion doesn't amount to anything.

'Philosophy is dead' is not my opinion...damn you real slow...slower
than slow. What's slower than slow? Time stood still for you..you're
dead.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web