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

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #488593 > unrolled thread

Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth?

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

Contents

  Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-15 23:15 -0700
    Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? T Guy <tim.bateman1961@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 04:59 -0700
      Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 09:39 -0700
    Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-16 09:25 -0700
      Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-03-16 10:18 -0700
        Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-03-16 17:49 +0000
        Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? "Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 16:59 +0000
          Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-17 10:53 -0700
          Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-03-17 13:08 -0700
            Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? "Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 23:46 +0000
              Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-17 16:55 -0700
    Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 19:03 +0000
      Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 14:53 -0700
      Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 21:21 -0700
    Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 19:12 +0000
      Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 15:15 -0700
    Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 23:02 +0000
    Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 21:33 -0700
      Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 08:45 +0000
        Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-19 09:22 -0700
          Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-23 10:46 -0700
            Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-24 10:21 -0700
            Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-25 00:54 -0700
              Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-25 00:59 -0700
                Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-25 20:48 -0700
                  Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-26 00:06 -0700
                    Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-26 19:00 -0700
                      Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-27 10:37 -0700
                        Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-27 15:51 -0700
                    Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-27 23:30 -0700
        Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-22 13:29 -0700
          Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 01:41 +0000
          A more considered response to Mr.Hanson Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 11:00 +0100
            Re: A more considered response to Mr.Hanson "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-25 13:26 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#488932 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

Okay, too many talking rocks here..

a rock with egos.


I need to change the subject Heading...


Does Life Exist on Earth?


Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?

The earth is mostly ocean...

is ocean alive?

How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
chair? kitchen table? stove?

the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon? 


Is there anything in your room alive????

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

#488988 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Okay, too many talking rocks here..
> 
> a rock with egos.
> 
> I need to change the subject Heading...
> 
> Does Life Exist on Earth?
> 
> Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?
> 
> The earth is mostly ocean...
> 
> is ocean alive?
> 
> How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
> chair? kitchen table? stove?
> 
> the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon?
> 
> Is there anything in your room alive????

Certaintly all the other planets...just rocks, not alive..and the rest of the universe, not alive...


that only leaves...You!


Do you think
for the moment
you can remove
that stubborn  
illusion
that you're
alive?

There is no Life on Earth, it's a lie.


It's an illusion.


Imagine rocks talking to you
and they believe they are alive.

You can remove the illusion..
but then she starts to talk and
the illusion is gone.

If you take the machine apart
you will find a grey rock
doing all the talking.

Now what are you going to tell the judge?

"I was just curious to see how it works!"

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

#489013 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Okay, too many talking rocks here..
> 
> a rock with egos.
> 
> I need to change the subject Heading...
> 
> Does Life Exist on Earth?
> 
> Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?
> 
> The earth is mostly ocean...
> 
> is ocean alive?
> 
> How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
> chair? kitchen table? stove?
> 
> the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon?
> 
> Is there anything in your room alive????


You're surrounded by...dead things.

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

#489014 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Okay, too many talking rocks here..
> >
> > a rock with egos.
> >
> > I need to change the subject Heading...
> >
> > Does Life Exist on Earth?
> >
> > Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?
> >
> > The earth is mostly ocean...
> >
> > is ocean alive?
> >
> > How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
> > chair? kitchen table? stove?
> >
> > the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon?
> >
> > Is there anything in your room alive????
> 
> You're surrounded by...dead things.


So, there is no life on other plantes and the rest of the universe
is...dead.


And you're surrounded by dead things on earth, and everything in your
room...


so where does that leave you?

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

#489060 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, too many talking rocks here..
> > >
> > > a rock with egos.
> > >
> > > I need to change the subject Heading...
> > >
> > > Does Life Exist on Earth?
> > >
> > > Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?
> > >
> > > The earth is mostly ocean...
> > >
> > > is ocean alive?
> > >
> > > How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
> > > chair? kitchen table? stove?
> > >
> > > the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon?
> > >
> > > Is there anything in your room alive????
> >
> > You're surrounded by...dead things.
> 
> So, there is no life on other planets and the rest of the universe
> is...dead.
> 
> And you're surrounded by dead things on earth, and everything in your
> room...
> 
> so where does that leave you?


The first thing you need to do is...

throw out all your science books in the garbage.

The statement "All things are made of atoms." is incorrect.


The correct statement is..."All things are made of rocks."

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

#489072 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, too many talking rocks here..
> > > >
> > > > a rock with egos.
> > > >
> > > > I need to change the subject Heading...
> > > >
> > > > Does Life Exist on Earth?
> > > >
> > > > Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?
> > > >
> > > > The earth is mostly ocean...
> > > >
> > > > is ocean alive?
> > > >
> > > > How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
> > > > chair? kitchen table? stove?
> > > >
> > > > the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon?
> > > >
> > > > Is there anything in your room alive????
> > >
> > > You're surrounded by...dead things.
> >
> > So, there is no life on other planets and the rest of the universe
> > is...dead.
> >
> > And you're surrounded by dead things on earth, and everything in your
> > room...
> >
> > so where does that leave you?
> 
> The first thing you need to do is...
> 
> throw out all your science books in the garbage.
> 
> The statement "All things are made of atoms." is incorrect.
> 
> The correct statement is..."All things are made of rocks."


In other words, an atom is just ...a very small rock.

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

#489123 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, too many talking rocks here..
> > > > >
> > > > > a rock with egos.
> > > > >
> > > > > I need to change the subject Heading...
> > > > >
> > > > > Does Life Exist on Earth?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?
> > > > >
> > > > > The earth is mostly ocean...
> > > > >
> > > > > is ocean alive?
> > > > >
> > > > > How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
> > > > > chair? kitchen table? stove?
> > > > >
> > > > > the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there anything in your room alive????
> > > >
> > > > You're surrounded by...dead things.
> > >
> > > So, there is no life on other planets and the rest of the universe
> > > is...dead.
> > >
> > > And you're surrounded by dead things on earth, and everything in your
> > > room...
> > >
> > > so where does that leave you?
> >
> > The first thing you need to do is...
> >
> > throw out all your science books in the garbage.
> >
> > The statement "All things are made of atoms." is incorrect.
> >
> > The correct statement is..."All things are made of rocks."
> 
> In other words, an atom is just ...a very small rock.

A rock by any another name is still a rock.

(especially when they both have the same composition and chemical ingredients.)


Remember, these 'science guys' are the same guys who call Pluto a planet, and then change their mind...

ateriods,  planets...they are all just rocks...with given names.  


What was the name of the latest rock...Oumuamua — Hawaiian for "messenger."


What name should I give my Pet Rock????


qwerty? (i hope it's not taken in outer space)

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

#489181 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay, too many talking rocks here..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a rock with egos.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I need to change the subject Heading...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does Life Exist on Earth?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The earth is mostly ocean...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > is ocean alive?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
> > > > > > chair? kitchen table? stove?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there anything in your room alive????
> > > > >
> > > > > You're surrounded by...dead things.
> > > >
> > > > So, there is no life on other planets and the rest of the universe
> > > > is...dead.
> > > >
> > > > And you're surrounded by dead things on earth, and everything in your
> > > > room...
> > > >
> > > > so where does that leave you?
> > >
> > > The first thing you need to do is...
> > >
> > > throw out all your science books in the garbage.
> > >
> > > The statement "All things are made of atoms." is incorrect.
> > >
> > > The correct statement is..."All things are made of rocks."
> >
> > In other words, an atom is just ...a very small rock.
> 
> A rock by any another name is still a rock.
> 
> (especially when they both have the same composition and chemical ingredients.)
> 
> Remember, these 'science guys' are the same guys who call Pluto a planet, and then change their mind...
> 
> ateriods,  planets...they are all just rocks...with given names.

What do these 'science guys' call all these rocks out there is space without names? Answer: "Small Solar System Body".


Have you ever heard of ....Sedna?  The other red planet....


There isn't any planet more red than planet Seda..

it's got it's own zipcode...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90377_Sedna


How many "the other red planet" are out there????



There is no difference between Science and Science Fiction.

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

#489204 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay, too many talking rocks here..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > a rock with egos.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I need to change the subject Heading...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does Life Exist on Earth?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The earth is mostly ocean...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > is ocean alive?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
> > > > > > > chair? kitchen table? stove?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is there anything in your room alive????
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're surrounded by...dead things.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, there is no life on other planets and the rest of the universe
> > > > > is...dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you're surrounded by dead things on earth, and everything in your
> > > > > room...
> > > > >
> > > > > so where does that leave you?
> > > >
> > > > The first thing you need to do is...
> > > >
> > > > throw out all your science books in the garbage.
> > > >
> > > > The statement "All things are made of atoms." is incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > The correct statement is..."All things are made of rocks."
> > >
> > > In other words, an atom is just ...a very small rock.
> >
> > A rock by any another name is still a rock.
> >
> > (especially when they both have the same composition and chemical ingredients.)
> >
> > Remember, these 'science guys' are the same guys who call Pluto a planet, and then change their mind...
> >
> > ateriods,  planets...they are all just rocks...with given names.
> 
> What do these 'science guys' call all these rocks out there is space without names? Answer: "Small Solar System Body".
> 
> Have you ever heard of ....Sedna?  The other red planet....
> 
> There isn't any planet more red than planet Seda..
> 
> it's got it's own zipcode...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90377_Sedna
> 
> How many "the other red planet" are out there????
> 


Okay, let's do the math...

There are three primary colors..red, green, and blue...

do you know of any planet with a blue surace color like earth? There is none..that leaves two colors..

Do you know of, or heard of a planet with a Green surface color out there in the universe??? Not here, out there...

not only there is none, but not even NASA will dare to imply one...even a speculative one.


That only leaves...Red.


All the fuckin planets out there are only one surface color...Red!

(including the other red planets)

If NASA sez there are 14 billion earth-like planets out there...are any one of them...green? or blue?? or are they talking about 14 billion
red surface planets???? 

The 'other red 14 billion planets'...



Now Blue represents water...in NASA's mind.. all planets contain water..

you already know about Red...


so what does Green represents????


(don't ask the science fiction group because all planets to them contain at least one Burger King and a new york pizzeria)

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

#489250 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, too many talking rocks here..
> > > > >
> > > > > a rock with egos.
> > > > >
> > > > > I need to change the subject Heading...
> > > > >
> > > > > Does Life Exist on Earth?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?
> > > > >
> > > > > The earth is mostly ocean...
> > > > >
> > > > > is ocean alive?
> > > > >
> > > > > How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
> > > > > chair? kitchen table? stove?
> > > > >
> > > > > the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there anything in your room alive????
> > > >
> > > > You're surrounded by...dead things.
> > >
> > > So, there is no life on other planets and the rest of the universe
> > > is...dead.
> > >
> > > And you're surrounded by dead things on earth, and everything in your
> > > room...
> > >
> > > so where does that leave you?
> >
> > The first thing you need to do is...
> >
> > throw out all your science books in the garbage.
> >
> > The statement "All things are made of atoms." is incorrect.
> >
> > The correct statement is..."All things are made of rocks."
> 
> In other words, an atom is just ...a very small rock.


Now that you know 'all things are made of rocks'...


and rocks are not alive..

and you're made of rocks..

and everything around you and the universe are dead things...



Does Life Exist On Earth?

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

#488874

"Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
>
> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
>
>     K ~= 10^-10 /year
>     t = time in years
>
> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
>
>                        K = H = Hubble's Constant
> and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
>
> which substituted in (3) gives:
>
>             Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
>
> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
>             e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
>
> So for t << 1/H we have:
>
>             Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
>
> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
>
> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
> in observatories all around the world eh!
>
> Conclusions:
>     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>     2. There was no "Big Bang"
>     3. There was no "Inflation"
>     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>     5. There is no "Dark Energy"
>
>
hanson wrote:
Very nice and cool post, Keith. Kudos!
>
All of your conclusions, except [ >     1.] are in vogue today.
Also consider that there are very many ways to skin the cat.
IOW, it's story telling about nature... It's all just theorizing.
>
Just like you using your MO above, all of this was done already
a full century ago, by folks like Hartree-Fock, etc.
<vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/courses/chem6485/pdf/Hartree-Fock>
and <http://www.shodor.org/chemviz/overview/hfa.html> , etc

and even earlier by D'alembert (for black holes), see:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_principle>
>
and by by others who were gesticulating in/with Gedanken-XPs,
using Nature's -Scaling-Laws- & it's obvious -Self-Similarity-
whose addressed domain or realm does always span many
dozens of orders of magnitudes, up or down... as exampled
>
by the great old timers of Physics such as Max Planck who
published stuff like the above in 1899... BUT then, unfortunately,
in 1905 Einstein entered and his "Juden physics" got into
the Lime-light with its immense Zionist propaganda machine......
>
... which was the beginning of the end of the golden age of
physics, which is the science of quantitatively MEASURING
items, events & processes, & it began to decay & to deteriorate
into the current free-for-all socio-physic-philosophy-palaver
that we see to day on social media, TV shows, and here
>
on Usenet by cranks and crackpots, who proudly state
that they do physics-without-math, & insist that that their
own Weltbild is the absolute truth which they try to cram
and stuff down everybody else's throat. When "dissidents"
laugh at the posted excrements of these Usenet cranks, the
cranks get vicious and criminally homicidal. The cranks
threaten to shit into the mouths of the dissidents and want
them to be murdered so that the cranks can urinate onto
their graves.
>
So much for the physics-of-the-cranks, which in a way
is reflected in the artistry of, e.g.,  the melancholy of:
<https://www.bing.com/search?q=dire+straits+lyrics+brothers+in+arms&FORM=AWRE>:
>
"There's so many different worlds -- So many different suns
And we have just one world -- But we live in different ones..."
>
Warnings about this sorry trend of real physics came early
on, out of the ivy-league of academia:
>
by John Beckman, an astronomy prof & Einstein disciple:
"The theory of relativity lives on.   Is it a true picture of reality?
That is more a matter of faith than of proof."
>
or by Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, who said:
"Einstein didn't know what he was talking about,
or that Einstein was lying, or both".
>
or Prof. Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
who wrote: "It is my firm belief that the 20th century will be
characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
>
or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, all
associated with the names of Marx,  Freud and Einstein"
>
______ The Dossier _________

So, here is a set of links which belabor such issues:
<http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe>
<http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
<http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper.html>
<http://tinyurl.com/electron-is-NOT-ZERO-sized>
<http://tinyurl.com/Pauls-composite-volume-Belief>
<http://tinyurl.com/Drapers-zero-volume-Belief>
<http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0f1a7daa49aa8cf3>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/70e4aba63b7351ba>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2753001d76037d04>
>
_____ Examples of quantifications: _______

The Proton- and Electron-mass can be expressed in terms
of their measured properties & fundamental Physics constants:
>
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
>
or the proton with mass m_p as:
>
m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)

Both of these particle masses have characteristics of nucleon-sized
Black holes. See detailed explanation for the above  in here:
>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/53371ffd43f>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4ab31e372f1dfee7>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968>
>
...of course you can make the case/conjecture that an uncharged
mini-black-hole of 1 Planck-mass having the radius of 1 Planck-length,
is manifest/has half-life of only one 1 Planck-time-unit after which
it disintegrates into exactly 1 mole of particles that consist of stable,
charged particles with the average mass of the electron. .. in which
>
their fundamental electrical charge, will endow them with
 "immortality", of a duration that vastly exceeds the life-time
span of our universe.
What "charge" is, or where it comes from, is unknown.
All we know is what the said charge does....
>
>
_____________  Up shot: ________________

"The only thing that new changes is Change itself"

>
IOW no matter how "logical", rigorous one "calculates
solutions, they are always limited to comparatives
relative to each other, at best, but mostly just only
consist of belletristic philosophical palcer.
>
The Dirty little secret, that nobody likes to admit to,
is that no, none, not a single "absolute" is known to
exist. What is advertised as "absolute/s" is/are
edicts that are arbitrated and issued by human
cabals or committee and declared to be "absolutes"
so that searches and workers  can comparatively
well communicate rationally with each other.
>
Cranks OTOH take refuge and invoke their "god"
of faith as the "real" manifest "absolute", instead of
just humbly admitting to saying: "I don't know"
>
Interestingly, faith, which is an emotional notion,
is a million times stronger than any obviously rational
logic. The force of Faith and religious beliefs are so
deep that societies and potentates have elected
to protect and enshrine Faith in societies' laws
and its constitutions, even in today's modern society.
>
>
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO

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

#488891

On 22/03/2018 20:29, hanson wrote:
> "Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
>> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
>> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
>>
>> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
>> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
>> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
>>
>>     K ~= 10^-10 /year
>>     t = time in years
>>
>> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
>> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
>> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
>>
>>                        K = H = Hubble's Constant
>> and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
>>
>> which substituted in (3) gives:
>>
>>             Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
>>
>> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
>> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
>>             e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
>>
>> So for t << 1/H we have:
>>
>>             Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
>>
>> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
>> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
>>
>> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
>> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
>> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
>> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
>> in observatories all around the world eh!
>>
>> Conclusions:
>>     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>>     2. There was no "Big Bang"
>>     3. There was no "Inflation"
>>     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>>     5. There is no "Dark Energy"


> hanson wrote:
> Very nice and cool post, Keith. Kudos!

Well thank you Mr. Hanson,
High praise indeed from an old timer like yourself,
and you the first one who even said they liked it,
even a little bit eh!

> All of your conclusions, except [ >     1.] are in vogue today.
That's news to me Mr.Hanson. I don't know whether to be pleased,
or disappointed.

> Also consider that there are very many ways to skin the cat.
and everyone of them bad news for the cat eh!

the rest of your post i will study later,
but nice to meet old friends from the 20th century.

keith stein

> IOW, it's story telling about nature... It's all just theorizing.
>>
> Just like you using your MO above, all of this was done already
> a full century ago, by folks like Hartree-Fock, etc.
> <vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/courses/chem6485/pdf/Hartree-Fock>
> and <http://www.shodor.org/chemviz/overview/hfa.html> , etc
> 
> and even earlier by D'alembert (for black holes), see:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_principle>
>>
> and by by others who were gesticulating in/with Gedanken-XPs,
> using Nature's -Scaling-Laws- & it's obvious -Self-Similarity-
> whose addressed domain or realm does always span many
> dozens of orders of magnitudes, up or down... as exampled
>>
> by the great old timers of Physics such as Max Planck who
> published stuff like the above in 1899... BUT then, unfortunately,
> in 1905 Einstein entered and his "Juden physics" got into
> the Lime-light with its immense Zionist propaganda machine......
>>
> ... which was the beginning of the end of the golden age of
> physics, which is the science of quantitatively MEASURING
> items, events & processes, & it began to decay & to deteriorate
> into the current free-for-all socio-physic-philosophy-palaver
> that we see to day on social media, TV shows, and here
>>
> on Usenet by cranks and crackpots, who proudly state
> that they do physics-without-math, & insist that that their
> own Weltbild is the absolute truth which they try to cram
> and stuff down everybody else's throat. When "dissidents"
> laugh at the posted excrements of these Usenet cranks, the
> cranks get vicious and criminally homicidal. The cranks
> threaten to shit into the mouths of the dissidents and want
> them to be murdered so that the cranks can urinate onto
> their graves.
>>
> So much for the physics-of-the-cranks, which in a way
> is reflected in the artistry of, e.g.,  the melancholy of:
> <https://www.bing.com/search?q=dire+straits+lyrics+brothers+in+arms&FORM=AWRE>: 
> 
>>
> "There's so many different worlds -- So many different suns
> And we have just one world -- But we live in different ones..."
>>
> Warnings about this sorry trend of real physics came early
> on, out of the ivy-league of academia:
>>
> by John Beckman, an astronomy prof & Einstein disciple:
> "The theory of relativity lives on.   Is it a true picture of reality?
> That is more a matter of faith than of proof."
>>
> or by Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, who said:
> "Einstein didn't know what he was talking about,
> or that Einstein was lying, or both".
>>
> or Prof. Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
> who wrote: "It is my firm belief that the 20th century will be
> characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
>>
> or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
> Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, all
> associated with the names of Marx,  Freud and Einstein"
>>
> ______ The Dossier _________
> 
> So, here is a set of links which belabor such issues:
> <http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
> <http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper.html>
> <http://tinyurl.com/electron-is-NOT-ZERO-sized>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Pauls-composite-volume-Belief>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Drapers-zero-volume-Belief>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
> <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0f1a7daa49aa8cf3>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/70e4aba63b7351ba>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2753001d76037d04>
>>
> _____ Examples of quantifications: _______
> 
> The Proton- and Electron-mass can be expressed in terms
> of their measured properties & fundamental Physics constants:
>>
> m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
>>
> or the proton with mass m_p as:
>>
> m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
> 
> Both of these particle masses have characteristics of nucleon-sized
> Black holes. See detailed explanation for the above  in here:
>>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/53371ffd43f>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4ab31e372f1dfee7>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968>
>>
> ...of course you can make the case/conjecture that an uncharged
> mini-black-hole of 1 Planck-mass having the radius of 1 Planck-length,
> is manifest/has half-life of only one 1 Planck-time-unit after which
> it disintegrates into exactly 1 mole of particles that consist of stable,
> charged particles with the average mass of the electron. .. in which
>>
> their fundamental electrical charge, will endow them with
> "immortality", of a duration that vastly exceeds the life-time
> span of our universe.
> What "charge" is, or where it comes from, is unknown.
> All we know is what the said charge does....
>>
>>
> _____________  Up shot: ________________
> 
> "The only thing that new changes is Change itself"
> 
>>
> IOW no matter how "logical", rigorous one "calculates
> solutions, they are always limited to comparatives
> relative to each other, at best, but mostly just only
> consist of belletristic philosophical palcer.
>>
> The Dirty little secret, that nobody likes to admit to,
> is that no, none, not a single "absolute" is known to
> exist. What is advertised as "absolute/s" is/are
> edicts that are arbitrated and issued by human
> cabals or committee and declared to be "absolutes"
> so that searches and workers  can comparatively
> well communicate rationally with each other.
>>
> Cranks OTOH take refuge and invoke their "god"
> of faith as the "real" manifest "absolute", instead of
> just humbly admitting to saying: "I don't know"
>>
> Interestingly, faith, which is an emotional notion,
> is a million times stronger than any obviously rational
> logic. The force of Faith and religious beliefs are so
> deep that societies and potentates have elected
> to protect and enshrine Faith in societies' laws
> and its constitutions, even in today's modern society.
>>
>>
> hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

#489015 — A more considered response to Mr.Hanson

On 22/03/2018 20:25, hanson wrote:
 > "Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
 >> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
 >> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
 >> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
 >> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
 >>
 >> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
 >> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
 >> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
 >>
 >>     K ~= 10^-10 /year
 >>     t = time in years
 >>
 >> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
 >> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
 >> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
 >>
 >>                        K = H = Hubble's Constant
 >> and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
 >>
 >> which substituted in (3) gives:
 >>
 >>             Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
 >>
 >> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
 >> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
 >>             e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
 >>
 >> So for t << 1/H we have:
 >>
 >>             Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
 >>
 >> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
 >> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
 >>
 >> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
 >> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
 >> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
 >> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
 >> in observatories all around the world eh!
 >>
 >> Conclusions:
 >>     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
 >>     2. There was no "Big Bang"
 >>     3. There was no "Inflation"
 >>     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
 >>     5. There is no "Dark Energy"
 >>
 >>
 > hanson wrote:
 > Very nice and cool post, Keith.,

Thank you very much Mr.Hanson, i really do appreciate that.
I thought it was pretty cool myself, to be honest, and have been 
surprised by the general lack of enthusiasm with which it has been 
received by sci.physics.relativity readers.
Not quite all the feedback has been negative though, HGW, who i guess 
you know, did say my conclusions where correct, and we have progressed 
on to a civilized discussion of the merits of 'photons' versus 'e-m waves'

 > Kudos!

Thank you again Mr.Hanson
(when praise is in such short supply one does tent to milk it eh!)


 > All of your conclusions, except [ >     1.] are in vogue today.

I am rather confused by what you say here, Mr.Hanson.
If folk are not going for "1. The speed of light... is slowing down",
and yet are rejecting the Big Bang, then what are they attributing the 
Hubble red-shifts to?

 > Also consider that there are very many ways to skin the cat.
 > IOW, it's story telling about nature...

I suppose so, but it's surely an improvement on "The Universe Rests on 
the Back of a Turtle" eh!

 > It's all just theorizing.

You are right, but what else is theoretical physics meant to be doing, 
Mr.Hanson.

 > Just like you using your MO above, all of this was done already
 > a full century ago, by folks like Hartree-Fock, etc.
 > <vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/courses/chem6485/pdf/Hartree-Fock>
 > and <http://www.shodor.org/chemviz/overview/hfa.html> , etc
 >
 > and even earlier by D'alembert (for black holes), see:
 > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_principle>
 >>
 > and by by others who were gesticulating in/with Gedanken-XPs,
 > using Nature's -Scaling-Laws- & it's obvious -Self-Similarity-
 > whose addressed domain or realm does always span many
 > dozens of orders of magnitudes, up or down... as exampled
 >>
 > by the great old timers of Physics such as Max Planck who
 > published stuff like the above in 1899...

As you say, Mr.Hanson. Physics has a long and proud history eh!

 > BUT then, unfortunately,
 > in 1905 Einstein entered and his "Juden physics" got into
 > the Lime-light with its immense Zionist propaganda machine......
 > ... which was the beginning of the end of the golden age of
 > physics, which is the science of quantitatively MEASURING
 > items, events & processes, & it began to decay & to deteriorate
 > into the current free-for-all socio-physic-philosophy-palaver
 > that we see to day on social media, TV shows, and here

As you say, Mr.Hanson, (but i wouldn't dare to say myself )

 > on Usenet by cranks and crackpots, who proudly state
 > that they do physics-without-math, & insist that that their
 > own Weltbild is the absolute truth which they try to cram
 > and stuff down everybody else's throat. When "dissidents"
 > laugh at the posted excrements of these Usenet cranks, the
 > cranks get vicious and criminally homicidal. The cranks
 > threaten to shit into the mouths of the dissidents and want
 > them to be murdered so that the cranks can urinate onto
 > their graves.

Yes indeed Mr.Hanson, the level of discussion on the net can be a little 
coarse eh!

 > So much for the physics-of-the-cranks, which in a way
 > is reflected in the artistry of, e.g.,  the melancholy of:
 > 
<https://www.bing.com/search?q=dire+straits+lyrics+brothers+in+arms&FORM=AWRE>: 


not all your links seem to be working for me Mr.Hanson, but that's just 
as well, or it would take forever to get finished here eh!

 > "There's so many different worlds -- So many different suns
 > And we have just one world -- But we live in different ones..."

Yes indeed Mr.Hanson, and no pain feels half as bad as our own eh!

 > Warnings about this sorry trend of real physics came early
 > on, out of the ivy-league of academia:
 >>
 > by John Beckman, an astronomy prof & Einstein disciple:
 > "The theory of relativity lives on.   Is it a true picture of reality?
 > That is more a matter of faith than of proof."
 >>
 > or by Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, who said:
 > "Einstein didn't know what he was talking about,
 > or that Einstein was lying, or both".
 >>
 > or Prof. Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
 > who wrote: "It is my firm belief that the 20th century will be
 > characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
 >>
 > or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
 > Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, all
 > associated with the names of Marx,  Freud and Einstein"

If i were to pick a hero from history it would be Giordano Bruno,
who said "In the future all men will believe as I believe", and do you 
know Mr.Hanson, i rather think that about light slowing down too. I hope 
they don't burn me, like they did my hero G.B. eh!

 > ______ The Dossier _________
 >
 > So, here is a set of links which belabor such issues:
 > <http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe>
 > <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
 > <http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper.html>
 > <http://tinyurl.com/electron-is-NOT-ZERO-sized>
 > <http://tinyurl.com/Pauls-composite-volume-Belief>
 > <http://tinyurl.com/Drapers-zero-volume-Belief>
 > <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
 > <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
 > <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
 > <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
 > <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0f1a7daa49aa8cf3>
 > <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/70e4aba63b7351ba>
 > <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2753001d76037d04>
 >>
 > _____ Examples of quantifications: _______
 >
 > The Proton- and Electron-mass can be expressed in terms
 > of their measured properties & fundamental Physics constants:
 >>
 > m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
 >>
 > or the proton with mass m_p as:
 >>
 > m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
 >
 > Both of these particle masses have characteristics of nucleon-sized
 > Black holes. See detailed explanation for the above  in here:
 >>
 > <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/53371ffd43f>
 > <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4ab31e372f1dfee7>
 > <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968>

Thank you for all your links Mr.Hanson, and i will study them in due 
course, but must get on eh!

 > ...of course you can make the case/conjecture that an uncharged
 > mini-black-hole of 1 Planck-mass having the radius of 1 Planck-length,
 > is manifest/has half-life of only one 1 Planck-time-unit after which
 > it disintegrates into exactly 1 mole of particles that consist of stable,
 > charged particles with the average mass of the electron. .. in which
 >>
 > their fundamental electrical charge, will endow them with
 > "immortality", of a duration that vastly exceeds the life-time
 > span of our universe.
 > What "charge" is, or where it comes from, is unknown.
 > All we know is what the said charge does....

I can see you have given quite some thought to this Mr.Hanson, which 
makes your kind reception of my little piece all the more gratifying.

 >>
 >>
 > _____________  Up shot: ________________
 >
 > "The only thing that new changes is Change itself"
 >
 >>
 > IOW no matter how "logical", rigorous one "calculates
 > solutions, they are always limited to comparatives
 > relative to each other, at best, but mostly just only
 > consist of belletristic philosophical palcer.
 >>
 > The Dirty little secret, that nobody likes to admit to,
 > is that no, none, not a single "absolute" is known to
 > exist. What is advertised as "absolute/s" is/are
 > edicts that are arbitrated and issued by human
 > cabals or committee and declared to be "absolutes"
 > so that searches and workers  can comparatively
 > well communicate rationally with each other.

Socrates put it like this:
     "I KNOW THAT I KNOW NOTHING,
     and in this i know more than any other man"

Whereas i put it like this:
     "I KNOW THAT I DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER THAN YOU,
     and in this i know more than Socrates eh""

 > Cranks OTOH take refuge and invoke their "god"
 > of faith as the "real" manifest "absolute", instead of
 > just humbly admitting to saying: "I don't know"
 >>
 > Interestingly, faith, which is an emotional notion,
 > is a million times stronger than any obviously rational
 > logic. The force of Faith and religious beliefs are so
 > deep that societies and potentates have elected
 > to protect and enshrine Faith in societies' laws
 > and its constitutions, even in today's modern society.
 >>
 >>
 > hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO


I really don't know Mr.Hanson,
what does ROTFLMAO mean ?

keith stein
P.S. Remember this?
The Big Bang Myth ... Keith Stein - Mountain Man's News Archive
www.mountainman.com.au/news97_9.html
Date: 22 Feb 1997 06:57:03 +0000. From: Keith Stein Organization: My 
Organisation Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.electromag. 
Subject: THE BIG BANG MYTH ...

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

#489042 — Re: A more considered response to Mr.Hanson

Yo!, "Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com>, Kudos!:
 I appreciated and agree with all of your incisive & poignant
comments.
>
If it tickles your fancy, belabor the mentioned link to the
concatenated ***** 1234-cosmic envelope**** expression.
(note the sequence of its exponents)
>
***  c^(1) = (GM/R)^(1/2) = (GMH)^(1/3) = (GM*b_r)^(1/4)
>
wherein the term **b_r** may confirm, bolster and give
support to your conclusion that "c may slow down", since
that b_r appears to be part of a multiple of Sommerfeld's
Finestructure constant (a), and been in use,  in many of
the venerable deSitter models, since ca. 1926.
>
To clarify my stance on (E) Experimental physics vs. (T)
Theoretical physics: Both types, E & T,  have arisen since
physics, in the broadest sense, is a social enterprise, incl.
a scathing view in <http://tinyurl.com/Best-posting-of-the-year>
>
My organization has devoted its efforts to the E-type which
has provided many hundreds of folks with a financially great
and intellectually satisfying living. I will leave the current thread
now, as I regard the issues discussed here to be a thing of the
past. But by all means, Keith, do carry on with your T-mission.
>
Your question as to what ROTFLMAO means is hilarious as
it made me "Roll On The Floor, Laughing My Ass Off".

PS: Poster "HGW" appears to be Aussie "Henry G Wilson"??
>
Take care, Keith,
-- hanson
>
>

> "Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/03/2018 20:25, hanson wrote:
> > "Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
> >> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
> >> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> >> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> >>
> >> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
> >> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
> >> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
> >>
> >>     K ~= 10^-10 /year
> >>     t = time in years
> >>
> >> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
> >> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
> >> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
> >>
> >>                        K = H = Hubble's Constant
> >> and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
> >>
> >> which substituted in (3) gives:
> >>
> >>             Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
> >>
> >> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
> >> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
> >>             e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
> >>
> >> So for t << 1/H we have:
> >>
> >>             Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
> >>
> >> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
> >> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
> >>
> >> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
> >> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
> >> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
> >> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
> >> in observatories all around the world eh!
> >>
> >> Conclusions:
> >>     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> >>     2. There was no "Big Bang"
> >>     3. There was no "Inflation"
> >>     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> >>     5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> >>
> >>
> > hanson wrote:
> > Very nice and cool post, Keith.,
>
> Thank you very much Mr.Hanson, i really do appreciate that.
> I thought it was pretty cool myself, to be honest, and have been surprised
> by the general lack of enthusiasm with which it has been received by
> sci.physics.relativity readers.
> Not quite all the feedback has been negative though, HGW, who i guess you
> know, did say my conclusions where correct, and we have progressed on to a
> civilized discussion of the merits of 'photons' versus 'e-m waves'
>
> > Kudos!
>
> Thank you again Mr.Hanson
> (when praise is in such short supply one does tent to milk it eh!)
>
>
> > All of your conclusions, except [ >     1.] are in vogue today.
>
> I am rather confused by what you say here, Mr.Hanson.
> If folk are not going for "1. The speed of light... is slowing down",
> and yet are rejecting the Big Bang, then what are they attributing the
> Hubble red-shifts to?
>
> > Also consider that there are very many ways to skin the cat.
> > IOW, it's story telling about nature...
>
> I suppose so, but it's surely an improvement on "The Universe Rests on the
> Back of a Turtle" eh!
>
> > It's all just theorizing.
>
> You are right, but what else is theoretical physics meant to be doing,
> Mr.Hanson.
>
> > Just like you using your MO above, all of this was done already
> > a full century ago, by folks like Hartree-Fock, etc.
> > <vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/courses/chem6485/pdf/Hartree-Fock>
> > and <http://www.shodor.org/chemviz/overview/hfa.html> , etc
> >
> > and even earlier by D'alembert (for black holes), see:
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_principle>
> >>
> > and by by others who were gesticulating in/with Gedanken-XPs,
> > using Nature's -Scaling-Laws- & it's obvious -Self-Similarity-
> > whose addressed domain or realm does always span many
> > dozens of orders of magnitudes, up or down... as exampled
> >>
> > by the great old timers of Physics such as Max Planck who
> > published stuff like the above in 1899...
>
> As you say, Mr.Hanson. Physics has a long and proud history eh!
>
> > BUT then, unfortunately,
> > in 1905 Einstein entered and his "Juden physics" got into
> > the Lime-light with its immense Zionist propaganda machine......
> > ... which was the beginning of the end of the golden age of
> > physics, which is the science of quantitatively MEASURING
> > items, events & processes, & it began to decay & to deteriorate
> > into the current free-for-all socio-physic-philosophy-palaver
> > that we see to day on social media, TV shows, and here
>
> As you say, Mr.Hanson, (but i wouldn't dare to say myself )
>
> > on Usenet by cranks and crackpots, who proudly state
> > that they do physics-without-math, & insist that that their
> > own Weltbild is the absolute truth which they try to cram
> > and stuff down everybody else's throat. When "dissidents"
> > laugh at the posted excrements of these Usenet cranks, the
> > cranks get vicious and criminally homicidal. The cranks
> > threaten to shit into the mouths of the dissidents and want
> > them to be murdered so that the cranks can urinate onto
> > their graves.
>
> Yes indeed Mr.Hanson, the level of discussion on the net can be a little
> coarse eh!
>
> > So much for the physics-of-the-cranks, which in a way
> > is reflected in the artistry of, e.g.,  the melancholy of:
> >
> <https://www.bing.com/search?q=dire+straits+lyrics+brothers+in+arms&FORM=AWRE>:
>
> not all your links seem to be working for me Mr.Hanson, but that's just as
> well, or it would take forever to get finished here eh!
>
> > "There's so many different worlds -- So many different suns
> > And we have just one world -- But we live in different ones..."
>
> Yes indeed Mr.Hanson, and no pain feels half as bad as our own eh!
>
> > Warnings about this sorry trend of real physics came early
> > on, out of the ivy-league of academia:
> >>
> > by John Beckman, an astronomy prof & Einstein disciple:
> > "The theory of relativity lives on.   Is it a true picture of reality?
> > That is more a matter of faith than of proof."
> >>
> > or by Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, who said:
> > "Einstein didn't know what he was talking about,
> > or that Einstein was lying, or both".
> >>
> > or Prof. Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
> > who wrote: "It is my firm belief that the 20th century will be
> > characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
> >>
> > or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
> > Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, all
> > associated with the names of Marx,  Freud and Einstein"
>
> If i were to pick a hero from history it would be Giordano Bruno,
> who said "In the future all men will believe as I believe", and do you
> know Mr.Hanson, i rather think that about light slowing down too. I hope
> they don't burn me, like they did my hero G.B. eh!
>
> > ______ The Dossier _________
> >
> > So, here is a set of links which belabor such issues:
> > <http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe>
> > <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
> > <http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper.html>
> > <http://tinyurl.com/electron-is-NOT-ZERO-sized>
> > <http://tinyurl.com/Pauls-composite-volume-Belief>
> > <http://tinyurl.com/Drapers-zero-volume-Belief>
> > <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
> > <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
> > <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
> > <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0f1a7daa49aa8cf3>
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/70e4aba63b7351ba>
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2753001d76037d04>
> >>
> > _____ Examples of quantifications: _______
> >
> > The Proton- and Electron-mass can be expressed in terms
> > of their measured properties & fundamental Physics constants:
> >>
> > m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
> >>
> > or the proton with mass m_p as:
> >>
> > m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
> >
> > Both of these particle masses have characteristics of nucleon-sized
> > Black holes. See detailed explanation for the above  in here:
> >>
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/53371ffd43f>
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4ab31e372f1dfee7>
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968>
>
> Thank you for all your links Mr.Hanson, and i will study them in due
> course, but must get on eh!
>
> > ...of course you can make the case/conjecture that an uncharged
> > mini-black-hole of 1 Planck-mass having the radius of 1 Planck-length,
> > is manifest/has half-life of only one 1 Planck-time-unit after which
> > it disintegrates into exactly 1 mole of particles that consist of
> > stable,
> > charged particles with the average mass of the electron. .. in which
> >>
> > their fundamental electrical charge, will endow them with
> > "immortality", of a duration that vastly exceeds the life-time
> > span of our universe.
> > What "charge" is, or where it comes from, is unknown.
> > All we know is what the said charge does....
>
> I can see you have given quite some thought to this Mr.Hanson, which makes
> your kind reception of my little piece all the more gratifying.
>
> >>
> >>
> > _____________  Up shot: ________________
> >
> > "The only thing that new changes is Change itself"
> >
> >>
> > IOW no matter how "logical", rigorous one "calculates
> > solutions, they are always limited to comparatives
> > relative to each other, at best, but mostly just only
> > consist of belletristic philosophical palcer.
> >>
> > The Dirty little secret, that nobody likes to admit to,
> > is that no, none, not a single "absolute" is known to
> > exist. What is advertised as "absolute/s" is/are
> > edicts that are arbitrated and issued by human
> > cabals or committee and declared to be "absolutes"
> > so that searches and workers  can comparatively
> > well communicate rationally with each other.
>
> Socrates put it like this:
>     "I KNOW THAT I KNOW NOTHING,
>     and in this i know more than any other man"
>
> Whereas i put it like this:
>     "I KNOW THAT I DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER THAN YOU,
>     and in this i know more than Socrates eh""
>
> > Cranks OTOH take refuge and invoke their "god"
> > of faith as the "real" manifest "absolute", instead of
> > just humbly admitting to saying: "I don't know"
> >>
> > Interestingly, faith, which is an emotional notion,
> > is a million times stronger than any obviously rational
> > logic. The force of Faith and religious beliefs are so
> > deep that societies and potentates have elected
> > to protect and enshrine Faith in societies' laws
> > and its constitutions, even in today's modern society.
> >>
> >>
> > hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO
>
>
> I really don't know Mr.Hanson,
> what does ROTFLMAO mean ?
>
> keith stein
> P.S. Remember this?
> The Big Bang Myth ... Keith Stein - Mountain Man's News Archive
> www.mountainman.com.au/news97_9.html
> Date: 22 Feb 1997 06:57:03 +0000. From: Keith Stein Organization: My
> Organisation Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.electromag.
> Subject: THE BIG BANG MYTH ...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web