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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372021 > unrolled thread

The Center of the Universe...

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Center of the Universe... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-14 10:48 -0800
    Re: The Center of the Universe... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 12:50 -0600
    Re: The Center of the Universe... Bill Gill <billnews2@cox.net> - 2015-12-14 20:36 -0600
    Re: The Center of the Universe... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-14 20:02 -0800
      Re: The Center of the Universe... "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 21:47 -0800
        Re: The Center of the Universe... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-14 23:21 -0800
          Re: The Center of the Universe... "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 05:49 -0800
      Re: The Center of the Universe... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 08:36 -0600
        Re: The Center of the Universe... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-15 23:02 -0800
          Re: The Center of the Universe... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 15:34 -0800
      Re: The Center of the Universe... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-15 14:17 -0800
        Re: The Center of the Universe... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 18:36 -0600
          Re: The Center of the Universe... Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-15 19:15 -0800
            Re: The Center of the Universe... John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-15 19:52 -0800
              Re: The Center of the Universe... "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 22:29 -0800
        Re: The Center of the Universe... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 18:26 -0600

#372021 — The Center of the Universe...

If you can Picture It,  if you will...
the Earth being the center of the universe.


then...

stars are born

and more space is

needed all around us

to make room for

more stars.


The Starmaker

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#372022

On 12/14/15 12:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> stars are born and more space is needed all around us to make room
> for more stars.


               ##                                      #
               ##                                      #
               #########################################
               #########################################
               ##                                 ######
               ##                             ##########
                                            ############
                                         ##############
                                       #############
                                    #############
                                ##############
                              #############
                           ##############
                         #############
                      ##############
                  #############                        #
                #############                          #
               #########################################
               #########################################
                                                       #

                       ########
                    ###############
                  ##################
                 #####################
                ####               ####
                ##                   ##
               ##                     ##
               ##                     ##
               ##                    ###
                ##                   ##
                ####               ####
                 #####################
                  ##################
                    ###############
                       ########


-- 

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

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

#372049

On 12/14/2015 12:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> If you can Picture It,  if you will...
> the Earth being the center of the universe.
>
>
> then...
>
> stars are born
>
> and more space is
>
> needed all around us
>
> to make room for
>
> more stars.
>
>
> The Starmaker
>
Actually the Center of the Universe is here in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
It is on top of the pedestrian bridge across the rail road tracks
connecting the Brady Arts District and the Blue Dome District.  There
is a marker so you can stand there and test it for yourself.

Bill

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

#372053

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> If you can Picture It,  if you will...
> the Earth being the center of the universe.
> 
> then...
> 
> stars are born
> 
> and more space is
> 
> needed all around us
> 
> to make room for
> 
> more stars.
> 
> The Starmaker


Once 
scientist believed 
the only thing that
existed was
the milky way.

Maybe they were right.

Maybe...it just grew from there...

from the center..

of the universe, 

the earth.


That would mean...
the earth is older
than the universe.

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

#372055

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 8:02:01 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > If you can Picture It,  if you will...
> > the Earth being the center of the universe.
> > 
> > then...
> > 
> > stars are born
> > 
> > and more space is
> > 
> > needed all around us
> > 
> > to make room for
> > 
> > more stars.
> > 
> > The Starmaker
> 
> 
> Once 
> scientist believed 
> the only thing that
> existed was
> the milky way.
> 
> Maybe they were right.
> 
> Maybe...it just grew from there...
> 
> from the center..
> 
> of the universe, 
> 
> the earth.
> 
> 
> That would mean...
> the earth is older
> than the universe.

Immobile celestial spheres and the 
utter anthropocentrism of self-
centrism is feasibly where you are 
the center of your own universe, or 
in the middle somewhere, but to then 
work up everything from first principles 
and the simple presence of sense has that 
there is also the abstract observer and 
also all the other observers, each their 
own center and origin (of the middle).

The origin is everywhere, eh.

The idea is to work up from first principles 
how the physical world works besides the 
philosophical world.  Here there are philosophical 
approaches to physics just like there are 
philosophical approaches to escapist abstraction, 
which can also be approaches to physics, and 
are the approach of reason instead of response.

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

#372058

W dniu wtorek, 15 grudnia 2015 06:47:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Ross A. Finlayson napisał:
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 8:02:01 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > 
> > > If you can Picture It,  if you will...
> > > the Earth being the center of the universe.
> > > 
> > > then...
> > > 
> > > stars are born
> > > 
> > > and more space is
> > > 
> > > needed all around us
> > > 
> > > to make room for
> > > 
> > > more stars.
> > > 
> > > The Starmaker
> > 
> > 
> > Once 
> > scientist believed 
> > the only thing that
> > existed was
> > the milky way.
> > 
> > Maybe they were right.
> > 
> > Maybe...it just grew from there...
> > 
> > from the center..
> > 
> > of the universe, 
> > 
> > the earth.
> > 
> > 
> > That would mean...
> > the earth is older
> > than the universe.
> 
> Immobile celestial spheres and the 
> utter anthropocentrism of self-
> centrism is feasibly where you are 
> the center of your own universe, or 
> in the middle somewhere, but to then 
> work up everything from first principles

I wonder, why your "first" principles
were made after thousands years of
development of other principles.

We're making our principles for ourself.
Give me a SINGLE reason, why we shouldn't
keep them anthropocentric.
Will you?

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

#372071

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 11:21:18 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 15 grudnia 2015 06:47:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Ross A. Finlayson napisał:
> > On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 8:02:01 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > If you can Picture It,  if you will...
> > > > the Earth being the center of the universe.
> > > > 
> > > > then...
> > > > 
> > > > stars are born
> > > > 
> > > > and more space is
> > > > 
> > > > needed all around us
> > > > 
> > > > to make room for
> > > > 
> > > > more stars.
> > > > 
> > > > The Starmaker
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Once 
> > > scientist believed 
> > > the only thing that
> > > existed was
> > > the milky way.
> > > 
> > > Maybe they were right.
> > > 
> > > Maybe...it just grew from there...
> > > 
> > > from the center..
> > > 
> > > of the universe, 
> > > 
> > > the earth.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > That would mean...
> > > the earth is older
> > > than the universe.
> > 
> > Immobile celestial spheres and the 
> > utter anthropocentrism of self-
> > centrism is feasibly where you are 
> > the center of your own universe, or 
> > in the middle somewhere, but to then 
> > work up everything from first principles
> 
> I wonder, why your "first" principles
> were made after thousands years of
> development of other principles.
> 
> We're making our principles for ourself.
> Give me a SINGLE reason, why we shouldn't
> keep them anthropocentric.
> Will you?

Who wouldn't?

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

#372073

On 12/14/15 10:02 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Once scientist believed the only thing that existed was the milky
> way.


   Hubble and other scientist of his time, using bigger telescopes showed
   that the Milky Way was just one of many galaxies. And that's not all
   that they found.

> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_exp.html

> The Big Bang model was a natural outcome of Einstein's General
> Relativity as applied to a homogeneous universe. However, in 1917,
> the idea that the universe was expanding was thought to be absurd. So
> Einstein invented the cosmological constant as a term in his General
> Relativity theory that allowed for a static universe. In 1929, Edwin
> Hubble announced that his observations of galaxies outside our own
> Milky Way showed that they were systematically moving away from us
> with a speed that was proportional to their distance from us. The
> more distant the galaxy, the faster it was receding from us. The
> universe was expanding after all, just as General Relativity
> originally predicted! Hubble observed that the light from a given
> galaxy was shifted further toward the red end of the light spectrum
> the further that galaxy was from our galaxy.
>
> The Hubble Constant

> Expanding raisin bread loaf moves the raisins apart at different
> speeds with greater distance between raisins. The specific form of
> Hubble's expansion law is important: the speed of recession is
> proportional to distance. Hubble expressed this idea in an equation -
> distance/time per megaparsec. A megaparsec is a really big distance
> (3.26 million light-years). The expanding raisin bread model at left
> illustrates why this proportion law is important. If every portion of
> the bread expands by the same amount in a given interval of time,
> then the raisins would recede from each other with exactly a Hubble
> type expansion law. In a given time interval, a nearby raisin would
> move relatively little, but a distant raisin would move relatively
> farther - and the same behavior would be seen from any raisin in the
> loaf. In other words, the Hubble law is just what one would expect
> for a homogeneous expanding universe, as predicted by the Big Bang
> theory. Moreover no raisin, or galaxy, occupies a special place in
> this universe - unless you get too close to the edge of the loaf
> where the analogy breaks down.
>
> The current WMAP results show the Hubble Constant to be 71.0 ± 2.5
> (km/sec)/Mpc. If the WMAP data is combined with other cosmological
> data, the best estimate is 70.4 ± 1.4 (km/sec)/Mpc.





-- 

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

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

#372128

Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> On 12/14/15 10:02 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Once scientist believed the only thing that existed was the milky
> > way.
> 
>    Hubble and other scientist of his time, using bigger telescopes showed
>    that the Milky Way was just one of many galaxies. And that's not all
>    that they found.


I understand, ..you don't know the definition of the word..."Once".


once
w?ns/
adverb
adverb: once

    
    2.
    at some time in the past; formerly.

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



(why is it i always have to give...English lessons here?)


Strange that the only people who understand English here are the Science Fiction Writers..
(and i never read a sf book.)

(that won't stop me from writing one)


I guess the Science people only wake up when they enter the Science class...

History class must have been boring to them...


This guy Sam Wormley believes History started with a guy named Hubble... 


The truth is, these science people have no idea what planet they are on.


Sure they can tell you all about a desolate place called Mars, but have no idea what a girl is on Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=80tq0UGdYqo#t=1561


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWt94YoYSgM&spfreload=10

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

#372272

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> > On 12/14/15 10:02 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Once scientist believed the only thing that existed was the milky
> > > way.
> >
> >    Hubble and other scientist of his time, using bigger telescopes showed
> >    that the Milky Way was just one of many galaxies. And that's not all
> >    that they found.
> 
> I understand, ..you don't know the definition of the word..."Once".
> 
> once
> w?ns/
> adverb
> adverb: once
> 
> 
>     2.
>     at some time in the past; formerly.
> 
> https://www.google.com/#q=define+Once
> 
> (why is it i always have to give...English lessons here?)
> 
> Strange that the only people who understand English here are the Science Fiction Writers..
> (and i never read a sf book.)
> 
> (that won't stop me from writing one)
> 
> I guess the Science people only wake up when they enter the Science class...
> 
> History class must have been boring to them...
> 
> This guy Sam Wormley believes History started with a guy named Hubble...
> 
> The truth is, these science people have no idea what planet they are on.
> 
> Sure they can tell you all about a desolate place called Mars, but have no idea what a girl is on Earth.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=80tq0UGdYqo#t=1561
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWt94YoYSgM&spfreload=10


The reason why the majority of people in the 'scientific community' are not good at math is becasue....they hate math!!!

This show is all about how much they *don't* know..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWt94YoYSgM&spfreload=10


and they don't know practically everything!


They don't even know what to do with a chick...


I'll help you guys out...next time you see a girl, tell her..

"I want to feel you up."

She'll say, "Excuse me?"

That's a signal, put your hand on her breast..

She'll say, "What the fuck do you think you're doin???"

That's another signal...that's when you put
your other hand on her other breast.


By now you should have two hands on her breast...

She'll say "WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING PUTTING YOUR HAND ON MY BREAST???"

That means she loves it!

That's when you tell her, "What are you going to do with your hands?"

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

#372095

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > If you can Picture It,  if you will...
> > the Earth being the center of the universe.
> >
> > then...
> >
> > stars are born
> >
> > and more space is
> >
> > needed all around us
> >
> > to make room for
> >
> > more stars.
> >
> > The Starmaker
> 
> Once
> scientist believed
> the only thing that
> existed was
> the milky way.
> 
> Maybe they were right.
> 
> Maybe...it just grew from there...
> 
> from the center..
> 
> of the universe,
> 
> the earth.
> 
> That would mean...
> the earth is older
> than the universe.


I'm sure
anyone can find
(if they admit the truth)
that there are
stars in our universe
that are older than our
universe...planets too!



You simply have a lot of the old with the new.

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

#372110

On 12/15/15 4:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> I'm sure anyone can find (if they admit the truth) that there are
> stars in our universe that are older than our universe.


   Sorry Charlie -- The aren't an stars older that about 13.4 Gyrs.


-- 

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

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

#372116

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 5:36:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> On 12/15/15 4:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure anyone can find (if they admit the truth) that there are
> > stars in our universe that are older than our universe.
> 
> 
>    Sorry Charlie -- The aren't an stars older that about 13.4 Gyrs.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/03/hubble-telescope-dates-oldest-star-at-14-5-billion-years-old/

"With a birthdate around 14.5 billion years ago and a margin for error of
0.8 billion years"

Puts its minimum age at 13.7 billion years.

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

#372118

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 9:15:24 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 5:36:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> > On 12/15/15 4:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm sure anyone can find (if they admit the truth) that there are
> > > stars in our universe that are older than our universe.
> > 
> > 
> >    Sorry Charlie -- The aren't an stars older that about 13.4 Gyrs.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/03/hubble-telescope-dates-oldest-star-at-14-5-billion-years-old/
> 
> "With a birthdate around 14.5 billion years ago and a margin for error of
> 0.8 billion years"
> 
> Puts its minimum age at 13.7 billion years.

Maybe, our telescopes have run into "plateaus" when dealing with technology vs. magnification.  Maybe, the next step is to place a giant telescope on the moon.  I wonder how far we would see then?

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

#372126

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 7:53:03 PM UTC-8, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 9:15:24 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 5:36:35 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/15/15 4:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure anyone can find (if they admit the truth) that there are
> > > > stars in our universe that are older than our universe.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >    Sorry Charlie -- The aren't an stars older that about 13.4 Gyrs.
> > 
> > http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/03/hubble-telescope-dates-oldest-star-at-14-5-billion-years-old/
> > 
> > "With a birthdate around 14.5 billion years ago and a margin for error of
> > 0.8 billion years"
> > 
> > Puts its minimum age at 13.7 billion years.
> 
> Maybe, our telescopes have run into "plateaus" when dealing with technology vs. magnification.  Maybe, the next step is to place a giant telescope on the moon.  I wonder how far we would see then?

Ubiquitous lensing could very well see a
"well of mirrors" (in analogy to the "hall 
of mirrors") that configuration via displace-
ment could well broaden and refine.

That's whether lensing is gravitic/gravific 
or Fresnel/anti-Fresnel, where parallel 
transport of simply enough of the geodesics 
where gravity is constantly evaluated 
(continuous-constantly, constant-rate 
"continuous", continuously constant).

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

#372275

On 12/15/15 4:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> I'm sure anyone can find (if they admit the truth) that there are
> stars in our universe that are older than our universe...planets
> too!


   Sorry Charlie -- The first stars were born about 13.4 Gyrs ago.




-- 

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web