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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616834 > unrolled thread

It only took one glimpse...

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

Contents

  It only took one glimpse... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-04 18:39 -0700
    Re: It only took one glimpse... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 19:44 -0700
    Re: It only took one glimpse... "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 21:10 -0700
      Re: It only took one glimpse... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 21:12 -0700
        Re: It only took one glimpse... "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 21:32 -0700
          Re: It only took one glimpse... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 21:42 -0700
          Re: It only took one glimpse... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 21:51 -0700
            Re: It only took one glimpse... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-04 22:51 -0700
              Re: It only took one glimpse... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-05 09:29 -0700
                Re: It only took one glimpse... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-05 10:16 -0700
                  Re: It only took one glimpse... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-05 13:57 -0700
                    Re: It only took one glimpse... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-05 20:13 -0700
                      Re: It only took one glimpse... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-06 11:39 -0700
    Re: It only took one glimpse... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 23:26 -0400
      Re: It only took one glimpse... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-05 20:30 -0700
        Re: It only took one glimpse... Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 20:53 -0700
          Re: It only took one glimpse... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 21:44 -0700
          Re: It only took one glimpse... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-05 21:50 -0700
            Re: It only took one glimpse... Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 22:02 -0700
              Re: It only took one glimpse... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 23:23 -0700
                Re: It only took one glimpse... Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 23:47 -0700
                  Re: It only took one glimpse... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 08:12 -0700
            Re: It only took one glimpse... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-06 14:03 -0400
              Re: It only took one glimpse... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-06 15:31 -0700
          Re: It only took one glimpse... Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-06 11:17 -0700
      Re: It only took one glimpse... Virgil Balaev <laii@vblagbig.vv> - 2023-08-06 08:01 +0000
    Re: It only took one glimpse... Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-05 20:37 -0700
    Re: It only took one glimpse... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-06 15:00 -0700
    Re: It only took one glimpse... Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-06 16:11 -0700
      Re: It only took one glimpse... Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 16:44 -0700
        Re: It only took one glimpse... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 22:32 -0700
        Re: It only took one glimpse... Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-07 09:59 -0700
          Re: It only took one glimpse... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-07 12:19 -0500
      Re: It only took one glimpse... Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 11:10 +0200
        Re: It only took one glimpse... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-07 13:11 +0200
          Re: It only took one glimpse... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 12:04 -0400
            Re: It only took one glimpse... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-07 12:22 -0500
          Re: It only took one glimpse... Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-08-07 10:01 -0700
            Re: It only took one glimpse... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-07 12:19 -0500
    Re: It only took one glimpse... Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 10:46 +0200
      Re: It only took one glimpse... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 02:10 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#616834 — It only took one glimpse...

...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#616835

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:39:34 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.

90 years.

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

#616843

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.

I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
is in the way of beginning the universe.
Atoms can split but how can singularities?

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

#616844

On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> 
> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.

I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.



> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
> is in the way of beginning the universe.
> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
> 

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

#616847

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> >> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory. 
> > 
> > I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
> > Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms. 
> > The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity 
> > is in the way of beginning the universe. 
> > Atoms can split but how can singularities? 
> >

For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
Not Him. He transcends creating.

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

#616849

On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
>>>
>>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
>> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
>>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
>>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
>>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
>>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
>>>
> 
> For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> Not Him. He transcends creating.
> 
> 

That's the part that makes my brain want to bleed. Imagine something 
that was always there. Never created, and will never pass away.

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

#616852

On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
>>>
>>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
>> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
>>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
>>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
>>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
>>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
>>>
> 
> For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> Not Him. He transcends creating.
> 
> 

So, basically we cannot ask God _when_ we were created because it might 
have no sense of time in a sense. Simply due to the fact that it was 
always there. No beginning for him.

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

#616853

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:51:05 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: 
> >> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> >>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory. 
> >>> 
> >>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension. 
> >> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning. 
> >>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms. 
> >>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity 
> >>> is in the way of beginning the universe. 
> >>> Atoms can split but how can singularities? 
> >>> 
> > 
> > For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning. 
> > Not Him. He transcends creating. 
> > 
> >
> So, basically we cannot ask God _when_ we were created because it might 
> have no sense of time in a sense. Simply due to the fact that it was 
> always there. No beginning for him.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

It was pointed out to me that God created light before he created the first light source.  There is something for physics to chew on in that historic fact.

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

#616857

patdolan wrote:
> 
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:51:05 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > >>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> > >>>
> > >>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
> > >> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
> > >>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
> > >>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
> > >>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
> > >>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
> > >>>
> > >
> > > For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> > > Not Him. He transcends creating.
> > >
> > >
> > So, basically we cannot ask God _when_ we were created because it might
> > have no sense of time in a sense. Simply due to the fact that it was
> > always there. No beginning for him.
> 
> 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> 
> 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> 
> 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> 
> 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> 
> It was pointed out to me that God created light before he created the first light source.  There is something for physics to chew on in that historic fact.

Before the big bang...Stars always existed.


You can still see with the naked eye remenants of those stars that
existed before the big bang. The Big Dipper.


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

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

#616861

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> patdolan wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:51:05 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > >>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
> > > >> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
> > > >>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
> > > >>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
> > > >>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
> > > >>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> > > > Not Him. He transcends creating.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > So, basically we cannot ask God _when_ we were created because it might
> > > have no sense of time in a sense. Simply due to the fact that it was
> > > always there. No beginning for him.
> >
> > 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> >
> > 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> >
> > 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> >
> > 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> >
> > 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> >
> > It was pointed out to me that God created light before he created the first light source.  There is something for physics to chew on in that historic fact.
> 
> Before the big bang...Stars always existed.
> 
> You can still see with the naked eye remenants of those stars that
> existed before the big bang. The Big Dipper.


Now...if you look at the little dipper...it begins to form a pattern.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

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

#616883

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > patdolan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:51:05 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > >> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > >>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
> > > > >> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
> > > > >>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
> > > > >>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
> > > > >>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
> > > > >>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> > > > > Not Him. He transcends creating.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > So, basically we cannot ask God _when_ we were created because it might
> > > > have no sense of time in a sense. Simply due to the fact that it was
> > > > always there. No beginning for him.
> > >
> > > 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> > >
> > > 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> > >
> > > 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> > >
> > > 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> > >
> > > 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> > >
> > > It was pointed out to me that God created light before he created the first light source.  There is something for physics to chew on in that historic fact.
> >
> > Before the big bang...Stars always existed.
> >
> > You can still see with the naked eye remenants of those stars that
> > existed before the big bang. The Big Dipper.
> 
> Now...if you look at the little dipper...it begins to form a pattern.

i do have to warn you...don't let the names dippers throw you off, it's
not a dipper.


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

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

#616888

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > patdolan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:51:05 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > >> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > >>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
> > > > > >> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
> > > > > >>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
> > > > > >>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
> > > > > >>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
> > > > > >>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> > > > > > Not Him. He transcends creating.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > So, basically we cannot ask God _when_ we were created because it might
> > > > > have no sense of time in a sense. Simply due to the fact that it was
> > > > > always there. No beginning for him.
> > > >
> > > > 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> > > >
> > > > 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> > > >
> > > > 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> > > >
> > > > 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> > > >
> > > > 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> > > >
> > > > It was pointed out to me that God created light before he created the first light source.  There is something for physics to chew on in that historic fact.
> > >
> > > Before the big bang...Stars always existed.
> > >
> > > You can still see with the naked eye remenants of those stars that
> > > existed before the big bang. The Big Dipper.
> >
> > Now...if you look at the little dipper...it begins to form a pattern.
> 
> i do have to warn you...don't let the names dippers throw you off, it's
> not a dipper.

Let me put it in another way...


If you took a peek at what it looks like Before the big bang...
then you can understand today's arrangement of the stars.

All stars were arranged line the big dipper, but without the handle.

The handle is simply a spread out version of the big dipper without a handle.


All stars before the big bang simply looked like this:



.   .

.   .














-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

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

#616921

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > patdolan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:51:05 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > > On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
> > > > > > >> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
> > > > > > >>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
> > > > > > >>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
> > > > > > >>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
> > > > > > >>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> > > > > > > Not Him. He transcends creating.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > So, basically we cannot ask God _when_ we were created because it might
> > > > > > have no sense of time in a sense. Simply due to the fact that it was
> > > > > > always there. No beginning for him.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was pointed out to me that God created light before he created the first light source.  There is something for physics to chew on in that historic fact.
> > > >
> > > > Before the big bang...Stars always existed.
> > > >
> > > > You can still see with the naked eye remenants of those stars that
> > > > existed before the big bang. The Big Dipper.
> > >
> > > Now...if you look at the little dipper...it begins to form a pattern.
> >
> > i do have to warn you...don't let the names dippers throw you off, it's
> > not a dipper.
> 
> Let me put it in another way...
> 
> If you took a peek at what it looks like Before the big bang...
> then you can understand today's arrangement of the stars.
> 
> All stars were arranged line the big dipper, but without the handle.
> 
> The handle is simply a spread out version of the big dipper without a handle.
> 
> All stars before the big bang simply looked like this:
> 
> .   .
> 
> .   .



All stars before the big bang were in order...


.    .      .     .     .     .     .     



.    .      .     .     .     .     . 



.    .      .     .     .     .     .



Now, in the explosion they   simply    spread      apart..



.     .


.     .

        .

           .
       
                 .





The Starmaker 






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

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

#616890

On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.

When do you think this will happen?

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

#616891

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> When do you think this will happen?
Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago:

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years.

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

#616893

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory. 

> > When do you think this will happen?

> Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago: 
> 
> https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years.

Theories like the BB don't get trashed so easily. This is how science works. You have this fellow from the University of Ottawa who has done a study and made some observations that appear to conflict with the current mainstream thinking. He has come to some conclusions, including the revival of the old tired light theory, which is definitely *not* in favor and, in fact, has a lot of evidence against it. 

Here is what will happen next. Many other researchers will attempt to make the same observations as Dr. Gupta, to verify that his data agrees with their data. If no one can duplicate his results, his data will be in question. If new data agrees with Gupta's, then the theory will, in time, be modified to include the new observational data. Modifying a theory is not the same as trashing a theory. 

This is done all the time now and will be done often in the future. Anyone who successfully overthrows the BB theory will earn a lot of notoriety, but many have tried and o one has succeeded as of yet. However, it is too soon to crow over this recent paper as being a dramatic deal-breaker for the BB theory. 

Are you willing to bet the farm that this paper is the knife through the heart of the BB theory? If so, you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.

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

#616898

On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 05:53:42 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > > On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory. 
> 
> > > When do you think this will happen? 
> 
> > Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago: 
> > 
> > https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years.
> Theories like the BB don't get trashed so easily. This is how science works.

Sure, baseless assertions made by some insane maniacs
are not always trashed easily. Inconsistent Shit of your
idiot guru is another example, and that's how science
works, indeed.

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

#616900

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:53:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > > On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory. 
> 
> > > When do you think this will happen? 
> 
> > Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago: 
> > 
> > https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years.
> Theories like the BB don't get trashed so easily. This is how science works. You have this fellow from the University of Ottawa who has done a study and made some observations that appear to conflict with the current mainstream thinking. He has come to some conclusions, including the revival of the old tired light theory, which is definitely *not* in favor and, in fact, has a lot of evidence against it. 
> 
> Here is what will happen next. Many other researchers will attempt to make the same observations as Dr. Gupta, to verify that his data agrees with their data. If no one can duplicate his results, his data will be in question. If new data agrees with Gupta's, then the theory will, in time, be modified to include the new observational data. Modifying a theory is not the same as trashing a theory. 
We've all read Khun, Muttons.
> 
> This is done all the time now and will be done often in the future. Anyone who successfully overthrows the BB theory will earn a lot of notoriety, but many have tried and o one has succeeded as of yet. However, it is too soon to crow over this recent paper as being a dramatic deal-breaker for the BB theory. 
Possibly not.  But it is certainly a Kuhnian anomaly for which the BB must be tweaked.  Such as doubling the age of the U.
> 
> Are you willing to bet the farm that this paper is the knife through the heart of the BB theory? If so, you are not nearly as smart as you think you are. I am the originator of the BBP!  What more need I say about my credentials.

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

#616901

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 9:50:08 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:53:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > > > On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory. 
> > 
> > > > When do you think this will happen? 
> > 
> > > Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago: 
> > > 
> > > https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years. 
> > Theories like the BB don't get trashed so easily. This is how science works. You have this fellow from the University of Ottawa who has done a study and made some observations that appear to conflict with the current mainstream thinking. He has come to some conclusions, including the revival of the old tired light theory, which is definitely *not* in favor and, in fact, has a lot of evidence against it. 
> > 
> > Here is what will happen next. Many other researchers will attempt to make the same observations as Dr. Gupta, to verify that his data agrees with their data. If no one can duplicate his results, his data will be in question. If new data agrees with Gupta's, then the theory will, in time, be modified to include the new observational data. Modifying a theory is not the same as trashing a theory.

> We've all read Khun, Muttons.

I have no idea what you are referencing.
> > 
> > This is done all the time now and will be done often in the future. Anyone who successfully overthrows the BB theory will earn a lot of notoriety, but many have tried and o one has succeeded as of yet. However, it is too soon to crow over this recent paper as being a dramatic deal-breaker for the BB theory.

> Possibly not. But it is certainly a Kuhnian anomaly for which the BB must be tweaked. Such as doubling the age of the U. 

Sure, that might be the case. We shall see.

> > Are you willing to bet the farm that this paper is the knife through the heart of the BB theory? If so, you are not nearly as smart as you think you are. 

I am the originator of the BBP! What more need I say about my credentials.

As I said, you are not nearly as smart as you think you are... pride goeth before the fall.

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

#616903

On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 07:02:09 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 9:50:08 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:53:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > > > > On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > > > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory. 
> > > 
> > > > > When do you think this will happen? 
> > > 
> > > > Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago: 
> > > > 
> > > > https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years. 
> > > Theories like the BB don't get trashed so easily. This is how science works. You have this fellow from the University of Ottawa who has done a study and made some observations that appear to conflict with the current mainstream thinking. He has come to some conclusions, including the revival of the old tired light theory, which is definitely *not* in favor and, in fact, has a lot of evidence against it. 
> > > 
> > > Here is what will happen next. Many other researchers will attempt to make the same observations as Dr. Gupta, to verify that his data agrees with their data. If no one can duplicate his results, his data will be in question. If new data agrees with Gupta's, then the theory will, in time, be modified to include the new observational data. Modifying a theory is not the same as trashing a theory. 
> 
> > We've all read Khun, Muttons.
> I have no idea what you are referencing.

No surprise that you don't know what you don't know, poor
halfbrain.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web