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

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #488474 > unrolled thread

The Steady State Universe

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

Contents

  The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-14 11:40 -0700
    Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-14 18:24 -0700
      Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-14 21:50 -0700
        Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-15 23:33 -0700
          Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 09:21 -0700
        Re: The Steady State Universe Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 14:55 +0000
          Re: The Steady State Universe Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 18:17 +0000
          Re: The Steady State Universe Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 10:26 -0700
        Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-18 13:09 -0700
          Re: The Steady State Universe Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-03-19 15:03 +1100
            Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-18 22:46 -0700
              Re: The Steady State Universe Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-03-19 19:01 +1100
                Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-19 09:17 -0700
                  Re: The Steady State Universe Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-03-20 19:15 +1100
                    Re: The Steady State Universe Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-20 13:33 +0100
                    Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-20 09:54 -0700
                      Re: The Steady State Universe Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-03-21 17:31 +1100
                        Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-21 14:09 -0700
                          Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-22 23:25 -0700
            Re: The Steady State Universe J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 07:53 -0400
              Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-19 09:18 -0700
              Re: The Steady State Universe Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-20 00:44 +0100
                Re: The Steady State Universe Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-03-20 00:03 -0600
                  Re: The Steady State Universe Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2018-03-23 12:10 +0000
    Re: The Steady State Universe The  Zygon <stafford.martin@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 19:37 -0700
      Re: The Steady State Universe Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-03-14 21:59 -0700
      Re: The Steady State Universe "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 12:01 -0500
        Re: The Steady State Universe The  Zygon <stafford.martin@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 20:39 -0700
    Re: The Steady State Universe Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-15 13:46 -0700
    Re: The Steady State Universe Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 09:08 +0000
      Re: The Steady State Universe "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-22 13:25 -0700
        Re: The Steady State Universe Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 08:43 +0100
          Re: The Steady State Universe "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-25 13:26 -0700
          Re: The Steady State Universe "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-25 13:26 -0700
            Re: The Steady State Universe Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 18:10 +0100
              Re: The Steady State Universe "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-31 19:20 -0700
    Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-19 22:52 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#488474 — The Steady State Universe

Before the Big Bang occurred..

the universe was a Steady State Universe.

Simply put, it became unsteady.

So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..


it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.

Not the end of a theory for a new theory...

but the end of a universe for a new universe.

Based on observations..

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

oh, btw...i found the Blue.


but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,

when they both were correct.



Where do you guys learn physics from????

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#488522

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Before the Big Bang occurred..
> 
> the universe was a Steady State Universe.
> 
> Simply put, it became unsteady.
> 
> So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
> 
> it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
> 
> Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
> 
> but the end of a universe for a new universe.
> 
> Based on observations..
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> oh, btw...i found the Blue.
> 
> but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
> 
> when they both were correct.
> 
> Where do you guys learn physics from????



Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:

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


Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif



Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.



Where do you guys learn physics from????

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

#488538

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Before the Big Bang occurred..
> >
> > the universe was a Steady State Universe.
> >
> > Simply put, it became unsteady.
> >
> > So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
> >
> > it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
> >
> > Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
> >
> > but the end of a universe for a new universe.
> >
> > Based on observations..
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > oh, btw...i found the Blue.
> >
> > but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
> >
> > when they both were correct.
> >
> > Where do you guys learn physics from????
> 
> Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> 
> Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.
> 
> Where do you guys learn physics from????

For example...according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

" In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and 
populated by an infinite number of stars, then 
any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and 
hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright. 
This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."


They got this Olber thing (including Olber) ...backwards.


The green area here that is... 

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


"populated by an infinite number of stars"

any line of sight from Earth must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star

(which is the red area you see here) 


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


that which you call the big bang is "the (very bright) surface of a star".



Not "must end at the (very bright) surface of a star", but must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star.



Where do you guys learn physics from???? Who gets all this stuff ...backwards?

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

#488595

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Before the Big Bang occurred..
> > >
> > > the universe was a Steady State Universe.
> > >
> > > Simply put, it became unsteady.
> > >
> > > So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
> > >
> > > it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
> > >
> > > Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
> > >
> > > but the end of a universe for a new universe.
> > >
> > > Based on observations..
> > >
> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > >
> > > oh, btw...i found the Blue.
> > >
> > > but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
> > >
> > > when they both were correct.
> > >
> > > Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >
> > Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...
> >
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> >
> > Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.
> >
> > Where do you guys learn physics from????
> 
> For example...according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
> 
> " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
> populated by an infinite number of stars, then
> any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
> hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
> This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."
> 
> They got this Olber thing (including Olber) ...backwards.
> 
> The green area here that is...
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> "populated by an infinite number of stars"
> 
> any line of sight from Earth must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star
> 
> (which is the red area you see here)
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> that which you call the big bang is "the (very bright) surface of a star".
> 
> Not "must end at the (very bright) surface of a star", but must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star.
> 
> Where do you guys learn physics from???? Who gets all this stuff ...backwards?



Albert Einstein liked 'the steady state universe' idea, but it conflicted with his relativity.


What he didn't realize was that what came before the big bang was 'the steady state universe'.

They are not seperate universes..just one exist in one diminsion...green, the other exist in the other diminsion...red.


Those red-shift you see far away are from the very beginnings....


The green area in this photo of the before and after the big bang

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


is stars just making more and more stars until it ran out of space...then...bang.


Sort of like a whirlpool...(not really a bang) 


Don't depend on scientist to give you all the answers...Nature speaks to anyone who listens.

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

#488602

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Before the Big Bang occurred..
> > > >
> > > > the universe was a Steady State Universe.
> > > >
> > > > Simply put, it became unsteady.
> > > >
> > > > So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
> > > >
> > > > it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
> > > >
> > > > Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
> > > >
> > > > but the end of a universe for a new universe.
> > > >
> > > > Based on observations..
> > > >
> > > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > > >
> > > > oh, btw...i found the Blue.
> > > >
> > > > but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
> > > >
> > > > when they both were correct.
> > > >
> > > > Where do you guys learn physics from????
> > >
> > > Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:
> > >
> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > >
> > > Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...
> > >
> > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> > >
> > > Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.
> > >
> > > Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >
> > For example...according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
> >
> > " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
> > populated by an infinite number of stars, then
> > any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
> > hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
> > This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."
> >
> > They got this Olber thing (including Olber) ...backwards.
> >
> > The green area here that is...
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > "populated by an infinite number of stars"
> >
> > any line of sight from Earth must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star
> >
> > (which is the red area you see here)
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > that which you call the big bang is "the (very bright) surface of a star".
> >
> > Not "must end at the (very bright) surface of a star", but must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star.
> >
> > Where do you guys learn physics from???? Who gets all this stuff ...backwards?
> 
> Albert Einstein liked 'the steady state universe' idea, but it conflicted with his relativity.
> 
> What he didn't realize was that what came before the big bang was 'the steady state universe'.
> 
> They are not seperate universes..just one exist in one diminsion...green, the other exist in the other diminsion...red.
> 
> Those red-shift you see far away are from the very beginnings....
> 
> The green area in this photo of the before and after the big bang
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> is stars just making more and more stars until it ran out of space...then...bang.
> 
> Sort of like a whirlpool...(not really a bang)
> 
> Don't depend on scientist to give you all the answers...Nature speaks to anyone who listens.


The mistake Albert Einstein made was that he had a piece of the puzzle that was upsidedown¿

This piece of the puzzle should have been at the beggining, not at the end (which created the paradox)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif

If Einstein simply took the one piece, turn it upside down..then it would fit with the other piece.

Then he would had have a 'steady state universe' that fits with an 'expansion universe' with the big bang in the middle.


It would look like this puzzle that fits:

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


The green is the 'steady state universe', the red is the 'big bang..expansion universe'.


Instead, Einstein threw away one piece to the garbage, and kept the second piece and everybody wondered, "Where is the piece before that?"

It's in the garbage, they threw it away!


That's dumb.



In your lingo...you had to combine the two pieces.



To my surprise 'they' still have the piece UPSIDEDOWN over here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox


And Albert Einstein piece is still in the garbage! till this day..





Where do you guys learn physics from???? 



What do you expect from people who got rocks in their heads¿

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

#488656

On 15/03/2018 04:50, The Starmaker wrote:

>>> ... yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake .........

You sure got that RIGHT eh!



> " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
> populated by an infinite number of stars, then
> any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
> hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
> This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."

Not sure who is being quoted here, but it was either written before 
Hubble with his red-shifts, or by someone ignoring the relevance eh!

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

#488662

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote in
news:R%9rC.32761$%a5.4760@fx21.am4: 

> On 15/03/2018 04:50, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
>>>> ... yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake
>>>> ......... 
> 
> You sure got that RIGHT eh!
> 
> 
> 
>> " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static,
>> homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite
>> number of stars, then any line of sight from Earth must end at
>> the (very bright) surface of a star and hence the night sky
>> should be completely illuminated and very bright. This
>> contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the
>> night." 
> 
> Not sure who is being quoted here, but it was either written
> before Hubble with his red-shifts, or by someone ignoring the
> relevance eh! 
> 
Regardless of who he might be quoting, it was posted by Starmaker, 
who is mentally ill. Don't feed his illness.

-- 
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

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

#488710

On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 10:55:50 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 15/03/2018 04:50, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> >>> ... yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake .........
> 
> You sure got that RIGHT eh!
> 
> 
> 
> > " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
> > populated by an infinite number of stars, then
> > any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
> > hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
> > This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."
> 
> Not sure who is being quoted here, but it was either written before 
> Hubble with his red-shifts, or by someone ignoring the relevance eh!

This notion dates back to the 16th century, and is usually known as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

pt

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

#488681

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Before the Big Bang occurred..
> > >
> > > the universe was a Steady State Universe.
> > >
> > > Simply put, it became unsteady.
> > >
> > > So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
> > >
> > > it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
> > >
> > > Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
> > >
> > > but the end of a universe for a new universe.
> > >
> > > Based on observations..
> > >
> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > >
> > > oh, btw...i found the Blue.
> > >
> > > but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
> > >
> > > when they both were correct.
> > >
> > > Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >
> > Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...
> >
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> >
> > Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.
> >
> > Where do you guys learn physics from????
> 
> For example...according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
> 
> " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
> populated by an infinite number of stars, then
> any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
> hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
> This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."
> 
> They got this Olber thing (including Olber) ...backwards.
> 
> The green area here that is...
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> "populated by an infinite number of stars"
> 
> any line of sight from Earth must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star
> 
> (which is the red area you see here)
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> that which you call the big bang is "the (very bright) surface of a star".
> 
> Not "must end at the (very bright) surface of a star", but must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star.
> 
> Where do you guys learn physics from???? Who gets all this stuff ...backwards?


Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang photo' looks like...sideways:
http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg


A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.


It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg


The green is A and the B is red.



and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A transformed to B

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif



just looking for more space:
http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg



Actually...if you believe the universe is ...flat, then picture a flat...cone.



Where do you guys learn physics from????


from stupid proffesors?? oh, go back to skool, you're gonna learn a lot more, ain't you?

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

#488691

The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 07:09:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Before the Big Bang occurred..
>>>>
>>>> the universe was a Steady State Universe.
>>>>
>>>> Simply put, it became unsteady.
>>>>
>>>> So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
>>>>
>>>> it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
>>>>
>>>> Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
>>>>
>>>> but the end of a universe for a new universe.
>>>>
>>>> Based on observations..
>>>>
>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>
>>>> oh, btw...i found the Blue.
>>>>
>>>> but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
>>>>
>>>> when they both were correct.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>>>
>>> Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:
>>>
>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>
>>> Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
>>>
>>> Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.
>>>
>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>>
>> For example...according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
>>
>> " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
>> populated by an infinite number of stars, then
>> any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
>> hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
>> This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."
>>
>> They got this Olber thing (including Olber) ...backwards.
>>
>> The green area here that is...
>>
>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>
>> "populated by an infinite number of stars"
>>
>> any line of sight from Earth must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star
>>
>> (which is the red area you see here)
>>
>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>
>> that which you call the big bang is "the (very bright) surface of a star".
>>
>> Not "must end at the (very bright) surface of a star", but must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star.
>>
>> Where do you guys learn physics from???? Who gets all this stuff ...backwards?
> 
> 
> Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang photo' looks like...sideways:
> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> 
> 
> A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
> 
> 
> It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> 
> The green is A and the B is red.
> 
> 
> 
> and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A transformed to B
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> 
> 
> 
> just looking for more space:
> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> Actually...if you believe the universe is ...flat, then picture a flat...cone.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you guys learn physics from????
> 
> 
> from stupid proffesors?? oh, go back to skool, you're gonna learn a lot more, ain't you?
> 
Looking at those links ... it's easy to see that you have *NEVER* 
learned any physics!!

-- 
Daniel

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

#488695

Daniel60 wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 07:09:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Before the Big Bang occurred..
> >>>>
> >>>> the universe was a Steady State Universe.
> >>>>
> >>>> Simply put, it became unsteady.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
> >>>>
> >>>> it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
> >>>>
> >>>> but the end of a universe for a new universe.
> >>>>
> >>>> Based on observations..
> >>>>
> >>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>>
> >>>> oh, btw...i found the Blue.
> >>>>
> >>>> but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
> >>>>
> >>>> when they both were correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >>>
> >>> Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:
> >>>
> >>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>
> >>> Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...
> >>>
> >>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> >>>
> >>> Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.
> >>>
> >>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >>
> >> For example...according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
> >>
> >> " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
> >> populated by an infinite number of stars, then
> >> any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
> >> hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
> >> This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."
> >>
> >> They got this Olber thing (including Olber) ...backwards.
> >>
> >> The green area here that is...
> >>
> >> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>
> >> "populated by an infinite number of stars"
> >>
> >> any line of sight from Earth must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star
> >>
> >> (which is the red area you see here)
> >>
> >> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>
> >> that which you call the big bang is "the (very bright) surface of a star".
> >>
> >> Not "must end at the (very bright) surface of a star", but must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star.
> >>
> >> Where do you guys learn physics from???? Who gets all this stuff ...backwards?
> >
> >
> > Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang photo' looks like...sideways:
> > http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> >
> >
> > A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
> >
> >
> > It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> >
> > The green is A and the B is red.
> >
> >
> >
> > and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A transformed to B
> >
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> >
> >
> >
> > just looking for more space:
> > http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually...if you believe the universe is ...flat, then picture a flat...cone.
> >
> >
> >
> > Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >
> >
> > from stupid proffesors?? oh, go back to skool, you're gonna learn a lot more, ain't you?
> >
> Looking at those links ... it's easy to see that you have *NEVER*
> learned any physics!!
> 


Is there a mistake that you see or error you can point out? Or you don't have a leg to stand on...

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

#488697

The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 16:46:
> Daniel60 wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 07:09:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before the Big Bang occurred..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the universe was a Steady State Universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simply put, it became unsteady.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but the end of a universe for a new universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on observations..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oh, btw...i found the Blue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> when they both were correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
>>>>>
>>>>> Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>>>>
>>>> For example...according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
>>>>
>>>> " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
>>>> populated by an infinite number of stars, then
>>>> any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
>>>> hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
>>>> This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."
>>>>
>>>> They got this Olber thing (including Olber) ...backwards.
>>>>
>>>> The green area here that is...
>>>>
>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>
>>>> "populated by an infinite number of stars"
>>>>
>>>> any line of sight from Earth must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star
>>>>
>>>> (which is the red area you see here)
>>>>
>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>
>>>> that which you call the big bang is "the (very bright) surface of a star".
>>>>
>>>> Not "must end at the (very bright) surface of a star", but must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from???? Who gets all this stuff ...backwards?
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang photo' looks like...sideways:
>>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> The green is A and the B is red.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A transformed to B
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> just looking for more space:
>>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually...if you believe the universe is ...flat, then picture a flat...cone.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>>>
>>>
>>> from stupid proffesors?? oh, go back to skool, you're gonna learn a lot more, ain't you?
>>>
>> Looking at those links ... it's easy to see that you have *NEVER*
>> learned any physics!!
>>
> 
> 
> Is there a mistake that you see or error you can point out? Or you don't have a leg to stand on...
> 
What?? You mean like the links don't seem to show what you reckon they 
show?? Sure, there's an error!!

-- 
Daniel

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

#488703

Daniel60 wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 16:46:
> > Daniel60 wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 07:09:
> >>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Before the Big Bang occurred..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the universe was a Steady State Universe.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Simply put, it became unsteady.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> but the end of a universe for a new universe.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Based on observations..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> oh, btw...i found the Blue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> when they both were correct.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >>>>
> >>>> For example...according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
> >>>>
> >>>> " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
> >>>> populated by an infinite number of stars, then
> >>>> any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
> >>>> hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
> >>>> This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."
> >>>>
> >>>> They got this Olber thing (including Olber) ...backwards.
> >>>>
> >>>> The green area here that is...
> >>>>
> >>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>>
> >>>> "populated by an infinite number of stars"
> >>>>
> >>>> any line of sight from Earth must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star
> >>>>
> >>>> (which is the red area you see here)
> >>>>
> >>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>>
> >>>> that which you call the big bang is "the (very bright) surface of a star".
> >>>>
> >>>> Not "must end at the (very bright) surface of a star", but must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star.
> >>>>
> >>>> Where do you guys learn physics from???? Who gets all this stuff ...backwards?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang photo' looks like...sideways:
> >>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
> >>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The green is A and the B is red.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A transformed to B
> >>>
> >>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> just looking for more space:
> >>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Actually...if you believe the universe is ...flat, then picture a flat...cone.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> from stupid proffesors?? oh, go back to skool, you're gonna learn a lot more, ain't you?
> >>>
> >> Looking at those links ... it's easy to see that you have *NEVER*
> >> learned any physics!!
> >>
> >
> >
> > Is there a mistake that you see or error you can point out? Or you don't have a leg to stand on...
> >
> What?? You mean like the links don't seem to show what you reckon they
> show?? Sure, there's an error!!
> 
> --
> Daniel



Which link are you refering to and where is the error exactly? ...or are you one of those vague people with their drive by shootings...

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

#488745

The Starmaker wrote on 20/03/18 03:17:
> Daniel60 wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 16:46:
>>> Daniel60 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 07:09:
>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Before the Big Bang occurred..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the universe was a Steady State Universe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simply put, it became unsteady.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but the end of a universe for a new universe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Based on observations..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> oh, btw...i found the Blue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> when they both were correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example...according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
>>>>>> populated by an infinite number of stars, then
>>>>>> any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
>>>>>> hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
>>>>>> This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They got this Olber thing (including Olber) ...backwards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The green area here that is...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "populated by an infinite number of stars"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> any line of sight from Earth must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (which is the red area you see here)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that which you call the big bang is "the (very bright) surface of a star".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not "must end at the (very bright) surface of a star", but must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from???? Who gets all this stuff ...backwards?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang photo' looks like...sideways:
>>>>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> The green is A and the B is red.
>>>>>
>>>>> and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A transformed to B
>>>>>
>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
>>>>>
>>>>> just looking for more space:
>>>>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually...if you believe the universe is ...flat, then picture a flat...cone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>>>>>
>>>>> from stupid proffesors?? oh, go back to skool, you're gonna learn a lot more, ain't you?
>>>>>
>>>> Looking at those links ... it's easy to see that you have *NEVER*
>>>> learned any physics!!
>>>
>>> Is there a mistake that you see or error you can point out? Or you don't have a leg to stand on...
>>>
>> What?? You mean like the links don't seem to show what you reckon they
>> show?? Sure, there's an error!!
> 
> Which link are you refering to and where is the error exactly? ...or are you one of those vague people with their drive by shootings...
> 
Well lets start with the four links from your post from a couple of days 
ago ....

*Quote*
Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang 
photo' looks like...sideways:
http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg

A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.

It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg

The green is A and the B is red.

and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A 
transformed to B

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif

just looking for more space:
http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
*End Quote*


Your first link states it is an image of a Wormhole!!
Your second link shows some pretty lights on a possibly star spangled 
background.
Your third link shows an orange blob on a black background that turns 
orange.
Your forth link is just a copy of your first link!

Sure, the images are pretty, but hardly cosmologically significant!! 
IMHO, of course!!
-- 
Daniel

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

#488747

Daniel60 amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups without Followup-To:

> The Starmaker [trolled]:
>> […]
> [Full quote]

Score adjusted.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?  
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#488755

Daniel60 wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote on 20/03/18 03:17:
> > Daniel60 wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 16:46:
> >>> Daniel60 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 07:09:
> >>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Before the Big Bang occurred..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the universe was a Steady State Universe.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Simply put, it became unsteady.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> but the end of a universe for a new universe.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Based on observations..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> oh, btw...i found the Blue.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> when they both were correct.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For example...according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
> >>>>>> populated by an infinite number of stars, then
> >>>>>> any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
> >>>>>> hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
> >>>>>> This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They got this Olber thing (including Olber) ...backwards.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The green area here that is...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "populated by an infinite number of stars"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> any line of sight from Earth must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (which is the red area you see here)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> that which you call the big bang is "the (very bright) surface of a star".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not "must end at the (very bright) surface of a star", but must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from???? Who gets all this stuff ...backwards?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang photo' looks like...sideways:
> >>>>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
> >>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The green is A and the B is red.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A transformed to B
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> >>>>>
> >>>>> just looking for more space:
> >>>>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actually...if you believe the universe is ...flat, then picture a flat...cone.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >>>>>
> >>>>> from stupid proffesors?? oh, go back to skool, you're gonna learn a lot more, ain't you?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Looking at those links ... it's easy to see that you have *NEVER*
> >>>> learned any physics!!
> >>>
> >>> Is there a mistake that you see or error you can point out? Or you don't have a leg to stand on...
> >>>
> >> What?? You mean like the links don't seem to show what you reckon they
> >> show?? Sure, there's an error!!
> >
> > Which link are you refering to and where is the error exactly? ...or are you one of those vague people with their drive by shootings...
> >
> Well lets start with the four links from your post from a couple of days
> ago ....
> 
> *Quote*
> Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang
> photo' looks like...sideways:
> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> 
> A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
> 
> It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> The green is A and the B is red.
> 
> and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A
> transformed to B
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> 
> just looking for more space:
> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> *End Quote*
> 
> Your first link states it is an image of a Wormhole!!
> Your second link shows some pretty lights on a possibly star spangled
> background.
> Your third link shows an orange blob on a black background that turns
> orange.
> Your forth link is just a copy of your first link!
> 
> Sure, the images are pretty, but hardly cosmologically significant!!
> IMHO, of course!!
> --
> Daniel

I am simply using "illustrations", that I find on the Internet to...'illustrate' to you what this 

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

is all about.

This is a photograph (not an illustration) of what it looked like 'before and after the big bang'

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




Dictionary
il·lus·trate

explain or make (something) clear by using examples, charts, pictures, etc.
"the results are illustrated in Figure 7"
synonyms:	explain, explicate, elucidate, clarify, make plain, demonstrate, show, emphasize; informalget across
"this can be illustrated through a brief example"
serve as an example of.





If I want to use a pair of woman's stockings to illustrate...I can. It doesn't mean the big bang is a pair of woman's stockings.

I'm illustrating
what this
photograph is:

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


It is a 'photograph' of moments after the big bang *and* what it looked like before the big bang. A window into both universes.

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



There is no error here, just a misunderstanding of women's stockings.

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

#488796

The Starmaker wrote on 21/03/18 03:54:
> Daniel60 wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote on 20/03/18 03:17:
>>> Daniel60 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 16:46:

<Snip>

>>>>> Is there a mistake that you see or error you can point out? Or you don't have a leg to stand on...
>>>>>
>>>> What?? You mean like the links don't seem to show what you reckon they
>>>> show?? Sure, there's an error!!
>>>
>>> Which link are you refering to and where is the error exactly? ...or are you one of those vague people with their drive by shootings...
>>>
>> Well lets start with the four links from your post from a couple of days
>> ago ....
>>
>> *Quote*
>> Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang
>> photo' looks like...sideways:
>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
>>
>> A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
>>
>> It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>
>> The green is A and the B is red.
>>
>> and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A
>> transformed to B
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
>>
>> just looking for more space:
>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
>> *End Quote*
>>
>> Your first link states it is an image of a Wormhole!!
>> Your second link shows some pretty lights on a possibly star spangled
>> background.
>> Your third link shows an orange blob on a black background that turns
>> orange.
>> Your forth link is just a copy of your first link!
>>
>> Sure, the images are pretty, but hardly cosmologically significant!!
>> IMHO, of course!!
>> --
>> Daniel
> 
> I am simply using "illustrations", that I find on the Internet to...'illustrate' to you what this
> 
> "photograph"
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> is all about.
> 
> This is a photograph (not an illustration) of what it looked like 'before and after the big bang'
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> Dictionary
> il·lus·trate
> 
> explain or make (something) clear by using examples, charts, pictures, etc.
> "the results are illustrated in Figure 7"
> synonyms:	explain, explicate, elucidate, clarify, make plain, demonstrate, show, emphasize; informalget across
> "this can be illustrated through a brief example"
> serve as an example of.
> 
> If I want to use a pair of woman's stockings to illustrate...I can. It doesn't mean the big bang is a pair of woman's stockings.
> 
> I'm illustrating
> what this
> photograph is:
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> It is a 'photograph' of moments after the big bang *and* what it looked like before the big bang. A window into both universes.
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> There is no error here, just a misunderstanding of women's stockings.
> 
"explain or make (something) clear by using examples, charts, pictures, 
etc."

You're failing in that aim!!

Plonk!!

-- 
Daniel

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

#488826

Daniel60 wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote on 21/03/18 03:54:
> > Daniel60 wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote on 20/03/18 03:17:
> >>> Daniel60 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 16:46:
> 
> <Snip>
> 
> >>>>> Is there a mistake that you see or error you can point out? Or you don't have a leg to stand on...
> >>>>>
> >>>> What?? You mean like the links don't seem to show what you reckon they
> >>>> show?? Sure, there's an error!!
> >>>
> >>> Which link are you refering to and where is the error exactly? ...or are you one of those vague people with their drive by shootings...
> >>>
> >> Well lets start with the four links from your post from a couple of days
> >> ago ....
> >>
> >> *Quote*
> >> Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang
> >> photo' looks like...sideways:
> >> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> >>
> >> A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
> >>
> >> It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
> >> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>
> >> The green is A and the B is red.
> >>
> >> and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A
> >> transformed to B
> >>
> >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> >>
> >> just looking for more space:
> >> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> >> *End Quote*
> >>
> >> Your first link states it is an image of a Wormhole!!
> >> Your second link shows some pretty lights on a possibly star spangled
> >> background.
> >> Your third link shows an orange blob on a black background that turns
> >> orange.
> >> Your forth link is just a copy of your first link!
> >>
> >> Sure, the images are pretty, but hardly cosmologically significant!!
> >> IMHO, of course!!
> >> --
> >> Daniel
> >
> > I am simply using "illustrations", that I find on the Internet to...'illustrate' to you what this
> >
> > "photograph"
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > is all about.
> >
> > This is a photograph (not an illustration) of what it looked like 'before and after the big bang'
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > Dictionary
> > il·lus·trate
> >
> > explain or make (something) clear by using examples, charts, pictures, etc.
> > "the results are illustrated in Figure 7"
> > synonyms:     explain, explicate, elucidate, clarify, make plain, demonstrate, show, emphasize; informalget across
> > "this can be illustrated through a brief example"
> > serve as an example of.
> >
> > If I want to use a pair of woman's stockings to illustrate...I can. It doesn't mean the big bang is a pair of woman's stockings.
> >
> > I'm illustrating
> > what this
> > photograph is:
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > It is a 'photograph' of moments after the big bang *and* what it looked like before the big bang. A window into both universes.
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > There is no error here, just a misunderstanding of women's stockings.
> >
> "explain or make (something) clear by using examples, charts, pictures,
> etc."
> 
> You're failing in that aim!!



Maybe it's a level too high in terms you can understand. They don't teach this stuff in school...


Let me make something clear to you ....that you failed..to understand...


pho·to·graph
'fod??graf/
noun
noun: photograph; plural noun: photographs

    1.
    a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
    synonyms:	picture, photo, snapshot, shot, image, likeness, print, slide, transparency, still, enlargement, snap; More
    informalmug shot, head shot
    "a photograph of her father"

verb
verb: photograph; 3rd person present: photographs; gerund or present participle: photographing; past tense: photographed; past participle: photographed

    1.
    take a photograph of.


Okay, do you understand the defintion of the word...."photograph"? (which you didn't even bother to point out which is most important)

Now, I wrote: "It is a 'photograph' of moments after the big bang *and* what it looked like before the big bang. A window into both universes."


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


That is a 'photogragh',  "a picture made using a camera" of moments before and after the big bang.


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



Now, how come you missed that? Is your panties in a knot? Did you strangle yourself with your silk stockings?


This is a 'photogragh',  "a picture made using a camera" of moments before and after the big bang.


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


unretouched.



Now, take this photo and show it to your Science teacher and tell him...


"This is a unretouched photograh..made using a camera...showing moments before and after the big bang."


You know what your stupid science professor is going to say? He's gonna say..


"GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!!!"


Because your science teacher only knows whats inside a textbook.

If it ain't in a textbook, it doesn't exist inside his mind.

He's gonna say.."Nobody has taken a picture with a camera of moments before and after the big bang!!!!"


Then you show him the picture and point out and tell him...

"The Green area is the steady state universe, and the red area is moments after the big bang."

and he's gonna say..


"GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!!!"


In other words, you're not going to learn anything in skool...



This is a 'photogragh',  "a picture made using a camera" of moments before and after the big bang.


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


unretouched.

It's beyond your Science.


The Starmaker

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

#488896

palsing wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 2:08:57 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> > > > It is a 'photograph' of moments after the big bang *and* what it looked like before the big bang. A window into both universes.
> 
> So... just where was the photographer standing?


Observation will show that the phototgrapher had to be standing moments in front of the big bang...


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


If you attempted to do a image search you probably discovered Google does not have a ...similiar image.


This photo is beyond science, but within the realms of Nature.


Here are some facts about this photo of before and after the big bang..


Google doesn't have an image like it shown...but,


but...

the fact is...

this exact photo is in everybodys home on earth.


It's not shown on Google as you already discovered, but this exact photo is in
everyones home on this planet.

Of course, it's not visible as you see it, ...Nature is subtle.


But I can go into anybodys home on earth and find it..


Nature...is


sub·tle
's?dl/
adjective
adjective: subtle; comparative adjective: subtler; superlative adjective: subtlest

    (especially of a change or distinction) so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe.
    "his language expresses rich and subtle meanings"
    synonyms:	fine, fine-drawn, nice, hair-splitting
    "subtle distinctions"
        (of a mixture or effect) delicately complex and understated.
        "subtle lighting"
        synonyms:	understated, muted, subdued; More
        delicate, faint, pale, soft, indistinct
        "subtle colors"
        making use of clever and indirect methods to achieve something.
        "he tried a more subtle approach"




Puzzeling isn't it?

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

#488700

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:03:22 +1100, Daniel60
<daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:

>The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 07:09:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Before the Big Bang occurred..
>>>>>
>>>>> the universe was a Steady State Universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply put, it became unsteady.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
>>>>>
>>>>> it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
>>>>>
>>>>> but the end of a universe for a new universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on observations..
>>>>>
>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> oh, btw...i found the Blue.
>>>>>
>>>>> but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
>>>>>
>>>>> when they both were correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>>>>
>>>> Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:
>>>>
>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...
>>>>
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
>>>>
>>>> Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>>>
>>> For example...according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
>>>
>>> " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
>>> populated by an infinite number of stars, then
>>> any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
>>> hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
>>> This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."
>>>
>>> They got this Olber thing (including Olber) ...backwards.
>>>
>>> The green area here that is...
>>>
>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>
>>> "populated by an infinite number of stars"
>>>
>>> any line of sight from Earth must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star
>>>
>>> (which is the red area you see here)
>>>
>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>
>>> that which you call the big bang is "the (very bright) surface of a star".
>>>
>>> Not "must end at the (very bright) surface of a star", but must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star.
>>>
>>> Where do you guys learn physics from???? Who gets all this stuff ...backwards?
>> 
>> 
>> Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang photo' looks like...sideways:
>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
>> 
>> 
>> A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
>> 
>> 
>> It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>> 
>> 
>> The green is A and the B is red.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A transformed to B
>> 
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> just looking for more space:
>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Actually...if you believe the universe is ...flat, then picture a flat...cone.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>> 
>> 
>> from stupid proffesors?? oh, go back to skool, you're gonna learn a lot more, ain't you?
>> 
>Looking at those links ... it's easy to see that you have *NEVER* 
>learned any physics!!

If you are going to continue to play with Starmaker, please let the
rest of us know so we can killfile you.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web