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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #465253 > unrolled thread

Deep Thought

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

Contents

  Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-22 14:26 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-23 16:43 +0200
      Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 18:08 +0200
        Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-23 21:45 -0700
          Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-24 11:42 +0200
            Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-24 11:21 -0700
            Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-24 16:52 -0700
              Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-25 22:31 +0200
                Re: Deep Thought mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 20:23 -0700
                Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-25 23:36 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 10:00 -0400
                    Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-26 11:23 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-27 12:15 -0700
                Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-25 23:56 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-26 00:00 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-07-27 17:01 +1000
                    Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-27 10:38 -0700
                      Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-28 10:38 -0700
                    Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-27 14:29 -0700
                      Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-28 12:00 +0200
                        Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-28 14:44 +0200
                          Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-30 18:18 +0200
                            Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-30 18:37 +0200
                              Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-01 22:38 +0200
                                Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-03 23:33 +0200
                                  Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-04 11:03 +0200
                                    Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-04 13:15 +0200
                                      Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-05 18:48 +0200
                                        Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-05 21:52 +0200
                                          Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-06 19:34 +0200
                                            Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-06 19:56 +0200
                                              Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-06 22:26 +0200
                  Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-08-12 15:59 -0700
                    Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-12 16:15 -0700
                      Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-08-12 16:30 -0700
                      Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-13 21:20 -0700
                        Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-13 21:30 -0700
                          Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-13 21:37 -0700
                        Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-13 23:42 -0700
                          Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-14 00:36 -0700
                            Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 00:21 -0700
                              Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-28 00:56 -0700
                                Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-08-28 19:23 +1000
                                  Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 00:01 -0700
                                Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 23:58 -0700
                                  Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 11:09 -0700
                                    Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 20:24 +0200
                                      Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 13:39 -0700
                                        Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 03:43 +0200
                                          Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 20:43 -0700
                                            Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-31 00:52 +0200
                                      Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 13:58 -0700
                                        Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 03:48 +0200
                                  Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-29 18:09 -0700
                                    Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 04:36 +0200
                                      Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 21:12 -0700
                                        Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 21:17 -0700
                                      Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-30 14:49 -0700
          Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 21:19 +0200
            Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-24 13:04 -0700
              Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-25 03:36 +0200
                Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-24 22:44 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 17:52 -0700
            Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-24 16:41 -0700
            Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-24 16:54 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:05 -0400
    Re: Deep Thought "C. Deifir" <cdf@dfr.net.inv> - 2018-07-23 21:18 +0100
      Re: Deep Thought mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 18:12 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 21:49 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-07-24 13:28 -0700

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

#469465 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> > > > >>> creation out of nothing.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Where did the matter come from?
> > > > >> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
> > > > > At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
> > > > > ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
> > > > > leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> > > > > but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
> > > > > that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
> > > > > -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
> > > > >     is the most likley outcome.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
> > > > black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
> > > > problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
> > >
> > > The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
> > >
> > > Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
> > >
> > > In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
> > >
> > > The Starmaker
> >
> > I mean...i thought i explained all this already..
> >
> > the purpose of a black hole is too consume stars and galaxies for the purpose of keeping a balance universe.
> >
> > In other words, just the right amount of stars.
> >
> > The Starmaker
> >
> > I mean, before the big bang there were simply too many stars.
> >
> > Too many stars is what caused the big bang.
> >
> > i even already provided an illustration:
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber's_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> >
> > during the actual explosion...new laws of physics were created.
> >
> > for example, before the big bang galaxies didn't exist.
> >
> > Do you need a list?
> 
> To put it simply, the universe was ...different.
> 
> It used to be different.
> 
> And the way it is today is because
> 
> it didn't work very well before..
> 
> So new laws of physics had to be made.
> 
> Before, when the universe was different...stars didn't die.
> 
> They didn't burn out.
> 
> Which caused a problem..
> 
> with so many new stars being born...
> 
> it simply ran out of space.
> 
> Now, you have plenty of space.
> 
> The question is, why is it so hard for yous to understand this?



maybe it's because yous are confined to complex systems like math and physics...

whereas I make observations of simplified systems to make predicitions.


Here is a simplified system:

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


there simply you can observe the before and after the big bang at the sametime.

the red shooting stars is the big bang

the green steady state stars is your window to before the big bang.


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


math and physics woun't help you...observations of simplified systems is the key to the future!



Throw your math and physics books in the garbage can...


The Starmaker

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

#469468 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

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

If stars did not die, it seems like it can get a bit crowded? Did a 
bunch of stars, finally explode?

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

#469470 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

Chris M. Thomasson wrote on 28/08/2018 5:56 PM:
> On 8/28/2018 12:21 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> creation out of nothing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where did the matter come from?
>>>>>>>> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
>>>>>>> At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just 
>>>>>>> "eXergy"
>>>>>>> ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with 
>>>>>>> entropy,
>>>>>>> leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
>>>>>>> but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) 
>>>>>>> tells us
>>>>>>> that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
>>>>>>> -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
>>>>>>>      is the most likley outcome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
>>>>>> black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
>>>>>> problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate 
>>>>>> from?
>>>>>
>>>>> The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't 
>>>>> exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
> [...]
> 
> If stars did not die, it seems like it can get a bit crowded? Did a 
> bunch of stars, finally explode?
> 
Before The Big Bang, there were no stars ... nor a Universe to get crowded!!

-- 
Daniel

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

#469666 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

Daniel60 wrote:
> 
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote on 28/08/2018 5:56 PM:
> > On 8/28/2018 12:21 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> creation out of nothing.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Where did the matter come from?
> >>>>>>>> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
> >>>>>>> At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just
> >>>>>>> "eXergy"
> >>>>>>> ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with
> >>>>>>> entropy,
> >>>>>>> leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> >>>>>>> but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 )
> >>>>>>> tells us
> >>>>>>> that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
> >>>>>>> -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
> >>>>>>> Â Â Â Â  is the most likley outcome.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
> >>>>>> black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
> >>>>>> problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate
> >>>>>> from?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't
> >>>>> exist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
> > [...]
> >
> > If stars did not die, it seems like it can get a bit crowded? Did a
> > bunch of stars, finally explode?
> >
> Before The Big Bang, there were no stars ... nor a Universe to get crowded!!


then there would be no need for expansion...

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

#469665 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

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



.and then there was a big bang.

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

#469733 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

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


okay, seems people don't know what caused the big bang..i'll explain.

Observation.

You look up in the universe and you'll see a buch of 'rocks' flying around...

and you'll also see stars.

Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because...


before the big bang
only stars existed
that never die
and kept being born
and eventually ran
out of space...

but...just before
the stars ran out
of space, they in
their crowded room
began to manufacture
...rocks.
(caused by the over crowding)

and sooo..

now you have an
overcrowding of stars and
rocks...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif

then it simply exploded.

for you religious people out there...

'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'   earth meaning a material called...rocks. heavens meaning a material called...stars.


Now, for those of yous that need more...details,

Look up the definition of the word 'In
Look up the definition of the word '.. the
Look up the definition of the word  '...beginning'



Now here is a photograph of before and after the big bang...
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg

the red stars is after the big bang..
and the green stars is before the big bang.

Now, actually..there are lots more green stars than pictured, but
it was differcult for me to capture all the crowded green stars.

(it's not very easy to take a picture of...before the big bang)


(i need to find another method...)


something like this but all green
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif


then....bang.


The Starmaker



in otherwords..something strange happened that i could not explain..
when i tried to take a picture of 'moments' before the big bang...
the crowded green stars did not develop.


There were trillion of green stars in the picture but it's missing here:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg


There were so many green stars you could barely see the red shooting stars...


any way, that's what caused the big bang.


How come you girls don't know this stuff?

What do they teach you in skool, 'there was no before?' wat a joke...stupid proffesors teaching at Harvard. (textbooks freaks)


You girls are stuck at the big bang and cannot get pass the wall thrown at you...while i'm
wayyyyyy before the big bang wall trying to figure out where the green stars came from.

i know the answer is somewhere near...Blue.


Hint: When somebody tells you "there was no before"...they are throwing a brick wall at you. Be careful of people who
put up brick walls in front of you.

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

#469741 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

The Starmaker wrote:
> okay, seems people don't know what caused the big bang..i'll explain.
> 
> Observation.
> 
> You look up in the universe and you'll see a buch of 'rocks' flying around...
> 
> and you'll also see stars.
> 
> Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because...
> [“before the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]

The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and therefore
not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.

By contrast, the Big Bang theory is an idea that is falsifiable, and it has
not been possible to falsify it yet: its predictions are in accordance with
all observations so far, including “rocks flying around”.

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

Get an education sometime.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#469768 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > okay, seems people don't know what caused the big bang..i'll explain.
> >
> > Observation.
> >
> > You look up in the universe and you'll see a buch of 'rocks' flying around...
> >
> > and you'll also see stars.
> >
> > Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because...
> > [“before the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
> 
> The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and therefore
> not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.


It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on observation and facts.


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


get a real name like PointedNose...

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

#469807 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

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

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

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

You are delusional.

F’up2 where it belongs

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#469822 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

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


According to Nasa's camera:

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


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

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

#469953 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

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

That was sarcasm.

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

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

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

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

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

Get a real name.  Stop amok-crossposting.

F’up2 sci.physics.relativity.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#469772 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 11:24:55 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > okay, seems people don't know what caused the big bang..i'll explain.
> > 
> > Observation.
> > 
> > You look up in the universe and you'll see a buch of 'rocks' flying around...
> > 
> > and you'll also see stars.
> > 
> > Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because...
> > [“before the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
> 
> The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and therefore
> not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
> 
> By contrast, the Big Bang theory is an idea that is falsifiable, and it has
> not been possible to falsify it yet: its predictions are in accordance with
> all observations so far, including “rocks flying around”.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_theory>
> 
> Get an education sometime.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Physics has lots of symmetries, 
and lots of dualities.

Here "how" and "why" the Universe appears to have 
a "Big Bang" while "how" and "why" the Universe appears 
to have a "Steady State", where those are binary and 
only one or the other holds, that science picks one, 
has for theory to figure out why there's two (and 
explain all the data).  Saying "science" and "maybe 
it's new physics that still agrees with us, like 
dark matter" is a bit the less than not hypocritical.

Then the usual computed "10^120 difference" or "we 
all the way disagree, let's both be right" involves 
for conscientious scientists why that's so, and of 
course there's quite an awareness of this in the 
thinking of conscientious scientists.

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

#469809 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Physics has lots of symmetries, 
> and lots of dualities.
> 
> Here "how" and "why" the Universe appears to have 
> a "Big Bang" while "how" and "why" the Universe appears 
> to have a "Steady State", where those are binary and 
> only one or the other holds, that science picks one, 
> has for theory to figure out why there's two (and 
> explain all the data).  [more word salad]

Hopeless.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#469805 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

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

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

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

#469816 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

F’up2 sci.physics.relativity

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#469823 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:36:42 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson amok-crossposted across 3 newsgroups:
> > Fwiw, I have a little thought that our big bang is contained within a 
> > black hole residing within our parent universe. We have many children as 
> > well. We have grandparents, and on and on. Time wrt the parent and child 
> > is radically different...
> 
> There are several proper definitions for “Big Bang”, and NONE of them
> applies to what you are saying:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang>
> 
> What you might MEAN is the WELL-KNOWN theory that we what we think our the
> universe might as well be the inside of a supermassive black hole as an
> expanding universe from the inside looks like a supermassive black hole
> from outside its event horizon.
> 
> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>
> 

It's among ideas of the universe inside/outside itself.


The holographic principle about there being 
a (for example) 1-D continuous manifold as 
that then a usual 3 + 1/2-D (ray of time) for 
space-time, is about how to encode not just 
each point but maintaining the distances in 
the encoded data.

One way to look at this is storing 3-D in the 
dimension being in the usual real numbers 
then the other two dimensions tucked away 
in the infinitesimal and infinite numbers, about 
how string theory adds 2 extra dimensions for 
each space dimension to support a space to project 
their rotations to the other dimension, then 
with yet another dimension to project all that, 
that this here is tucked in instead of rolled up.


Excuse me this is rather casual then for a 
usual consideration of why "superstring theory" 
is about some "quantum theory for quantum theory", 
here's a link to a paper with much more expert 
discussion about formalisms in superstring theory.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/19e6/c670e1439508fa8c06b1eef5ac6c3c113be1.pdf

The introduction is quite explanatory about some 
reasoning why things in superstring theory hold 
and are developed as they are.

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

#469824 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:12:11 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:36:42 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Chris M. Thomasson amok-crossposted across 3 newsgroups:
> > > Fwiw, I have a little thought that our big bang is contained within a 
> > > black hole residing within our parent universe. We have many children as 
> > > well. We have grandparents, and on and on. Time wrt the parent and child 
> > > is radically different...
> > 
> > There are several proper definitions for “Big Bang”, and NONE of them
> > applies to what you are saying:
> > 
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang>
> > 
> > What you might MEAN is the WELL-KNOWN theory that we what we think our the
> > universe might as well be the inside of a supermassive black hole as an
> > expanding universe from the inside looks like a supermassive black hole
> > from outside its event horizon.
> > 
> > See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>
> > 
> 
> It's among ideas of the universe inside/outside itself.
> 
> 
> The holographic principle about there being 
> a (for example) 1-D continuous manifold as 
> that then a usual 3 + 1/2-D (ray of time) for 
> space-time, is about how to encode not just 
> each point but maintaining the distances in 
> the encoded data.
> 
> One way to look at this is storing 3-D in the 
> dimension being in the usual real numbers 
> then the other two dimensions tucked away 
> in the infinitesimal and infinite numbers, about 
> how string theory adds 2 extra dimensions for 
> each space dimension to support a space to project 
> their rotations to the other dimension, then 
> with yet another dimension to project all that, 
> that this here is tucked in instead of rolled up.
> 
> 
> Excuse me this is rather casual then for a 
> usual consideration of why "superstring theory" 
> is about some "quantum theory for quantum theory", 
> here's a link to a paper with much more expert 
> discussion about formalisms in superstring theory.
> 
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/19e6/c670e1439508fa8c06b1eef5ac6c3c113be1.pdf
> 
> The introduction is quite explanatory about some 
> reasoning why things in superstring theory hold 
> and are developed as they are.

"The gauge anomalies that arise at the classical level 
give an indication (among many others) that M theory 
makes sense _only_ at the quantum level."

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

#469943 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

On 8/29/2018 7:36 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson amok-crossposted across 3 newsgroups:
>> Fwiw, I have a little thought that our big bang is contained within a
>> black hole residing within our parent universe. We have many children as
>> well. We have grandparents, and on and on. Time wrt the parent and child
>> is radically different...
> 
> There are several proper definitions for “Big Bang”, and NONE of them
> applies to what you are saying:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang>
> 
> What you might MEAN is the WELL-KNOWN theory that we what we think our the
> universe might as well be the inside of a supermassive black hole as an
> expanding universe from the inside looks like a supermassive black hole
> from outside its event horizon.
> 
> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>
> 
> STOP AMOK-CROSSPOSTING and feeding the "Starmaker" troll!
> 
> F’up2 sci.physics.relativity
> 

Argh!

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

#465473

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

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

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

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

A common misconception.

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Lawrence Krauss answered to the question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#465481

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



More nonsense!

It's like a disease!!!!

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

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

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

csiph-web