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

Groups > sci.physics > #532033 > unrolled thread

INFINITY

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-10 23:55 -0800
    Re: INFINITY HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-11 19:57 +1100
      Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 08:46 -0600
        Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 11:55 -0800
          Re: INFINITY David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-11-11 14:19 -0600
            Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 13:12 -0800
    INFINITY HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 06:20 -0800
      Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 08:40 -0600
        Re: INFINITY benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 12:01 -0500
          Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 13:16 -0800
            Re: INFINITY gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-11 21:21 -0600
              Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 19:40 -0800
              Re: INFINITY je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-11-12 02:02 -0800
                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 09:39 -0800
                  Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:47 -0600
                    Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 23:25 -0800
                      Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 09:09 -0600
                        Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 15:52 -0500
                          Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 15:07 -0600
                          Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 15:11 -0600
                            Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 16:39 -0500
                              Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 16:11 -0600
                                Re: INFINITY "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 14:43 -0800
                                  Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 17:24 -0600
                                Re: INFINITY Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-13 23:44 +0100
                                Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 19:39 -0500
                                  Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 18:50 -0600
                                    Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 04:39 -0500
                              Re: INFINITY Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 14:48 -0800
                                Re: INFINITY "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 15:05 -0800
                      Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-13 15:59 -0800
                        Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-14 11:46 -0800
                          Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-14 12:04 -0800
                            Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 14:27 -0800
                              Re: INFINITY pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-15 14:35 -0800
                                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 15:07 -0800
                                  Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 16:23 -0800
                                    Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 21:56 -0800
                                      Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-16 11:16 -0800
                                        Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:29 -0600
                                        Re: INFINITY dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-16 15:50 -0500
                                          Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-16 13:48 -0800
                                            Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-16 14:45 -0800
                                        Re: INFINITY HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 15:39 -0800
                                        Re: INFINITY pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-16 20:14 -0800
                          Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 14:57 -0800
                  Re: INFINITY benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 14:06 -0500
                    Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 11:42 -0800
                Re: INFINITY benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 13:15 -0500
                  Re: INFINITY Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 10:26 -0800
            Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 19:37 -0800
        Re: INFINITY HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 10:27 -0800
          Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 11:55 -0800
            Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 13:14 -0800
              Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. "Efftard J. Smith" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-11-12 18:10 -0800
                Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 08:15 -0800
                  Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 12:35 -0500
                    Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 04:15 -0800
                      Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 14:24 -0500
                        Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 18:21 -0800
                          Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 04:16 -0500
                            Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 03:10 -0800
                          Re: The _observable_ universe is finite. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:26 -0800
      Re: INFINITY benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:59 -0500
    Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 08:43 -0600
    Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 18:25 -0800
      Re: INFINITY David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-11-12 13:04 -0600
        Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 11:54 -0800
          Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 22:51 -0800
    Re: INFINITY "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 10:16 -0800
      Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 15:12 -0600
    Re: INFINITY Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-16 15:58 -0800
      Re: INFINITY "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 16:47 -0800

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

#532841

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:11:08 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/13/15 2:52 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> There seems to be a problem with everything being hot and the
>> universe infinite in size, that leaves no place for heat to radiate
>> to, and no place for the universe to expand into.
>
>   No -- the expanding universe cools. After about 380,000 hears of
>   expansion the thermal energy is free to roam.  We detect it today
>   with q black-body radiation temperature on the order of 2.7 Kelvin.

         There is a problem with the dynamics 
of that concept, and a problem with the
idea that a hot plasma or whatever that
is everywhere expanding.
        Expansion requires differences in
pressure, with some rational physics,
just saying "expansion" provides no
rational physics.

        The galaxies are receding, the
spectral line shifts do show expansion,
but the described premise of past
history leaves a lot to be explained.

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

#532861

On 11/13/15 3:39 PM, kefischer wrote:
> There is a problem with the dynamics of that concept, and a problem
> with the idea that a hot plasma or whatever that is everywhere
> expanding


Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
 > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html

 > The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important
 > observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate
 > pages:


 > The expansion of the universe
 > Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding
 > from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be
 > right.

 > The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
 > The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have
 > been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after
 > the Big Bang.

 > The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
 > The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave
 > background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.



 > These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that
 > the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just
 > as the Big Bang model predicts.




-- 

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]

#532871

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 2:11:40 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/13/15 3:39 PM, kefischer wrote:
> > There is a problem with the dynamics of that concept, and a problem
> > with the idea that a hot plasma or whatever that is everywhere
> > expanding
> 
> 
> Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
>  > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html
> 
>  > The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important
>  > observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate
>  > pages:
> 
> 
>  > The expansion of the universe
>  > Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding
>  > from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be
>  > right.
> 
>  > The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
>  > The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have
>  > been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after
>  > the Big Bang.
> 
>  > The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
>  > The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave
>  > background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.
> 
> 
> 
>  > These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that
>  > the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just
>  > as the Big Bang model predicts.
> 


How are 
  Big Crunch, 
  Heat Death, and 
  Cold Death 
all the same?

Because they result in a 
uniform medium then as 
to a point inconsistency.

I call this the "root probabilistic flaw", 
of the Universe in its creation, it is when 
God rolled a die, (and that logically it 
wouldn't not be), then for example that 
whether there is determinism in the face 
of consciousness, where consciousness has 
that there is determinism, that whether 
there is choice or not, is a matter 
of consciousness of choice.

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

#532886

On 11/13/15 4:43 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> How are Big Crunch, Heat Death, and Cold Death all the same?


   They are not the same. We are on a one way trip--a cooling universe
   where heat sources will eventually disappear resulting is nothing
   happening.  A instability in the Higgs field could get us first.

   For that matter, the a global warming driven mass extinction might
   get us sooner than we think.




-- 

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]

#532872

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:qNOdnQl18rWE_dvLnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

> Tests of Big Bang Cosmology

Usual: wawing arms and yelling "Support!!!!Support!!!!"
Well, maybe not as obvious nonsenses, as usual.

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

#532913

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:11:37 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/13/15 3:39 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> There is a problem with the dynamics of that concept, and a problem
>> with the idea that a hot plasma or whatever that is everywhere
>> expanding
>
>
>Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html
>
> > The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important
> > observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate
> > pages:

         I would urge that everyone consider the
possibility that light can be captured by gases
or light element molecules half a visible 
universe from where it was emitted.

        This would result in the constant creation
of new star forming material, always, forever.
        It repairs the defect of light simply vanishing,
it satisfies the conditions needed for expansion
of the universe as inferred from the spectral
line shifts.
        Only considering the recession of galaxies
away from each other as an isolated physical
process requiring a beginning, is simplistic.
     
         If it were to have begun as a hot gas,
it seems to ignore the effects of gravity,
if gravity were a mutually attractive process,
hot gases provide a powerful counter to
the attraction.


> > The expansion of the universe
> > Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding
> > from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be
> > right.

          It only provides a strong suggestion that
the galaxies are all moving apart, receding
from each other, quite uniformly at large scales.

         No matter what original condition is
considered, it requires a "beginning" condition
of some kind, with no explanation of that original
condition.

        Recycled light removes that issue, making
the expansion part of a symmetrical process
that needs no beginning or end.


> > The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
> > The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have
> > been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after
> > the Big Bang.

         The same thing might be predicted in the
case of matter expanding, with compression
of atoms and molecules of hydrogen or even
any parts of matter in any configuration.
         Matter expanding from a net, close-range
repulsion, results in close range dynamics
that can become a complex physics that
looks just like classical physics, but with
gravity being a close range repulsion
instead of a long range attraction.

        The physics becomes more rational
with the expansion of matter creating the
inertia that is measured as mass.

         Stars and solid matter is one result,
but not having light energy accounted for
is a serious defect.


> > The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
> > The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave
> > background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.

      It is only one possibility.


> > These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that
> > the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just
> > as the Big Bang model predicts.

       Expanding matter, resulting in got gases in
the regions where there is considerable matter
results in hotter gases.

      In regions where these expanding hot gases
are surrounded by great quantities of cooler
gases, and the expanding gases are compressed
by the inertial resistance to acceleration of the
surrounding cooler gases, is a better description
of the conditions of star formation than attraction
of hot gases.

      It requires that gravity could not have any
other parameters than those of inertia.



       Expanding matter and recycled light,
together, forms a new rational physics of
a much higher level of rational science.

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

#532918

On 11/13/15 6:39 PM, kefischer wrote:
> I would urge that everyone consider the possibility that light can be
> captured by gases or light element molecules half a visible universe
> from where it was emitted.
>
> This would result in the constant creation of new star forming
> material, always, forever.

   No.

   The hydrogen and helium that stars form from was created in the
   first three minutes, not from light.


-- 

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]

#532994

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:50:53 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/13/15 6:39 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> I would urge that everyone consider the possibility that light can be
>> captured by gases or light element molecules half a visible universe
>> from where it was emitted.
>>
>> This would result in the constant creation of new star forming
>> material, always, forever.
>
>   No.
>
>   The hydrogen and helium that stars form from was created in the
>   first three minutes, not from light.

          In a cosmology that presumes a "first three minutes".

         A better model would not require a beginning,
or an end, that makes recycled light a better model,
rest assured, the cosmologists will see a lot of
advantages in a model with no beginning or end,
and that does not ignore all propagated light
from all the stars (huge amounts of energy),
just vanishing at all wavelengths, including
high energy.

         Having galaxies with relative motion
greater than c would be difficult to explain,
recycled light avoids that problem, because
the relative velocity of galaxies arises as a
result of the speed of the propagated light.

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

#532875

In article <kplc4bduf0g0t9ft8av3qrg40s5dbrd9b7@4ax.com>,
 kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:

>          There is a problem with the dynamics 
> of that concept, and a problem with the
> idea that a hot plasma or whatever that
> is everywhere expanding.

It wasn't plasma, and it wasn't expanding. It was too hot to be plasma. And the 
space was expanding, dragging the matter-energy along with it.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists since we
cannot prove the consistency.  ~~ Morris Kline

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

#532879

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 2:48:59 PM UTC-8, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <kplc4bduf0g0t9ft8av3qrg40s5dbrd9b7@4ax.com>,
>  kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
> 
> >          There is a problem with the dynamics 
> > of that concept, and a problem with the
> > idea that a hot plasma or whatever that
> > is everywhere expanding.
> 
> It wasn't plasma, and it wasn't expanding. It was too hot to be plasma. And the 
> space was expanding, dragging the matter-energy along with it.
> 
> -- 
> :-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
> 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'

 God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists since we
 cannot prove the consistency.  ~~ Morris Kline


Do you want the proof of God 
or the disproof of the Devil?  
The Devil would be a servant of 
God.  God is truth, the Devil can't 
make you lie.

Why not lie?

(Because it wouldn't be true / the truth.)

Not proving or disproving God isn't a lie.

Because if you're God, then you don't lie, 
and if you're the Devil, then you can't make 
yourself lie.

"God" backward is "Dog".

Why not tell the truth?

True foundations:  something to believe

God is truth and the Devil's in the details.

http://grammarist.com/words/devil-is-in-the-details-vs-god-is-in-the-detail/

Change them for each other, 
it should be the same:
for one might lie.

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

#532897

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:47:05 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > On 11/12/15 11:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Where do you think the universe came from?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
> > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle
> > >    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8FTr2qMutA
> > >
> > >    Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that it is
> > >    impossible to simultaneously measure the position and
> > >    momentum of a particle with arbitrary precision. In our
> > >    everyday lives we virtually never come up against this
> > >    limit, hence why it seems peculiar. In this experiment a
> > >    laser is shone through a narrow slit onto a screen. As the
> > >    slit is made narrower, the spot on the screen also becomes
> > >    narrower. But at a certain point, the spot starts becoming
> > >    wider. This is because the photons of light have been so
> > >    localised at the slit that their horizontal momentum must
> > >    become less well defined in order to satisfy Heisenberg's
> > >    uncertainty principle.
> > >
> > > Quantum vacuum fluctuation (or Quantum Fluctuation for short)
> > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
> > >
> > > Quoting from the above Wikipedia page:
> > >
> > >    "In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or
> > >    quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary
> > >    change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising
> > >    from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
> > >
> > >    "According to one formulation of the principle, energy and
> > >    time can be related by the relation
> > >
> > >        ∆E · ∆t ≥ h/4π
> > >
> > >    "That means that conservation of energy can appear to be
> > >    violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation
> > >    of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The
> > >    effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in
> > >    the effective charge of the electron, different from its
> > >    "naked" charge.
> > >
> > >    "In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the
> > >    eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not
> > >    the same as (i.e., the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the
> > >    particle number operators.
> > >
> > >    "Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the
> > >    origin of the structure of the universe: according to the
> > >    model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation
> > >    began were amplified and formed the seed of all current
> > >    observed structure."
> > >
> > > Quoting from A USENET Posting by Steve Carlip (UC Davis):
> > >
> > >    "CMB fluctuations give evidence for (though not proof of)
> > >    inflation.
> > >
> > >    "So far, I haven't said anything about where the initial
> > >    density variations of the pre-recombination plasma came
> > >    from. There are many possibilities. We know, at least, that
> > >    they must be there -- even if we try to start with a
> > >    perfectly smooth, unvarying plasma, the Heisenberg
> > >    uncertainty principle tells us that there must be a minimum
> > >    level of quantum fluctuations.
> > >
> > >         ∆E · ∆t ≥  h/4π
> > >
> > >    "Inflationary" models propose that the very early Universe
> > >    -- before the time of primordial nucleosynthesis --
> > >    underwent a very rapid expansion. Such an expansion would
> > >    smooth out/dilute any earlier inhomogeneities, leaving only
> > >    the quantum fluctuations, which would be "stretched" in size
> > >    by the rapidly expanding space.
> > >
> > >    "Such models predict a special pattern of fluctuations. In
> > >    particular, although any particular fluctuation is random,
> > >    the average number at any particular scale is predictable.
> > >    This pattern on initial variations, in turn, should show up
> > >    in the details of the CMB variations. So far, observations
> > >    match the predictions of inflation very well. Most people in
> > >    the field don't consider this conclusive -- one can imagine
> > >    other ways of getting a similar pattern of initial
> > >    perturbations -- but it is suggestive."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> > > community, and physics-related social issues.
> >
> > How did the inflationary period attenuate?
> 
> You talk about "inflationary" as if is real...it's just a  fudge factor.
> 
> It's used to add fudge to 'the big bang'.
> 
> What i find strange is...
> 
> that the majority of the
> 'scientific community'
> talk as
> believe that
> think that
> say that
> 'the big bang' happen.
> 
> It's not even a Fact.
> 
> The Big Bang is not a fact.
> 
> That aside...
> 
> I have a photograph
> that shows you what the big bang looked like
> a few seconds after it happen.
> 
> You will see the big bang
> in a color photograph...
> and at the same time you
> can see what existed at the
> time of the big bang...
> what I call the stable stars...the green stars.
> 
> The big bang stars are red shifted because
> you can see the big bang stars shooting in all
> directions at once...while the green stars remain stable
> because they existed before the big bang.
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> The Starmaker


So..looking at my photo of before and after the big bang...i figured out what caused the big bang.

What caused the big bang was the acculmulation
of green stable stars.

In other words, the green stars
simply gave birth to more green stars,
and more green stars, and more green stars, 
and more green stars, and more green stars,
till there were so many green stars that
there was no more room.

Can you imagine how hot it got?

The green stars were so stable they didn't die...there was
an over-population of green stars.

This photo of during the big bang...was differcult to produce..

but i do have the photo of the crowded green stars...i just didn't know why it was so crowded.

I'll have to find time to produce that one of the crowded green stars.

I'm sure you all like to see photographs of what caused the big bang.


The Starmaker

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

#533082

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:47:05 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > On 11/12/15 11:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Where do you think the universe came from?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
> > > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle
> > > >    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8FTr2qMutA
> > > >
> > > >    Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that it is
> > > >    impossible to simultaneously measure the position and
> > > >    momentum of a particle with arbitrary precision. In our
> > > >    everyday lives we virtually never come up against this
> > > >    limit, hence why it seems peculiar. In this experiment a
> > > >    laser is shone through a narrow slit onto a screen. As the
> > > >    slit is made narrower, the spot on the screen also becomes
> > > >    narrower. But at a certain point, the spot starts becoming
> > > >    wider. This is because the photons of light have been so
> > > >    localised at the slit that their horizontal momentum must
> > > >    become less well defined in order to satisfy Heisenberg's
> > > >    uncertainty principle.
> > > >
> > > > Quantum vacuum fluctuation (or Quantum Fluctuation for short)
> > > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
> > > >
> > > > Quoting from the above Wikipedia page:
> > > >
> > > >    "In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or
> > > >    quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary
> > > >    change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising
> > > >    from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
> > > >
> > > >    "According to one formulation of the principle, energy and
> > > >    time can be related by the relation
> > > >
> > > >        ∆E · ∆t ≥ h/4π
> > > >
> > > >    "That means that conservation of energy can appear to be
> > > >    violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation
> > > >    of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The
> > > >    effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in
> > > >    the effective charge of the electron, different from its
> > > >    "naked" charge.
> > > >
> > > >    "In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the
> > > >    eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not
> > > >    the same as (i.e., the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the
> > > >    particle number operators.
> > > >
> > > >    "Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the
> > > >    origin of the structure of the universe: according to the
> > > >    model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation
> > > >    began were amplified and formed the seed of all current
> > > >    observed structure."
> > > >
> > > > Quoting from A USENET Posting by Steve Carlip (UC Davis):
> > > >
> > > >    "CMB fluctuations give evidence for (though not proof of)
> > > >    inflation.
> > > >
> > > >    "So far, I haven't said anything about where the initial
> > > >    density variations of the pre-recombination plasma came
> > > >    from. There are many possibilities. We know, at least, that
> > > >    they must be there -- even if we try to start with a
> > > >    perfectly smooth, unvarying plasma, the Heisenberg
> > > >    uncertainty principle tells us that there must be a minimum
> > > >    level of quantum fluctuations.
> > > >
> > > >         ∆E · ∆t ≥  h/4π
> > > >
> > > >    "Inflationary" models propose that the very early Universe
> > > >    -- before the time of primordial nucleosynthesis --
> > > >    underwent a very rapid expansion. Such an expansion would
> > > >    smooth out/dilute any earlier inhomogeneities, leaving only
> > > >    the quantum fluctuations, which would be "stretched" in size
> > > >    by the rapidly expanding space.
> > > >
> > > >    "Such models predict a special pattern of fluctuations. In
> > > >    particular, although any particular fluctuation is random,
> > > >    the average number at any particular scale is predictable.
> > > >    This pattern on initial variations, in turn, should show up
> > > >    in the details of the CMB variations. So far, observations
> > > >    match the predictions of inflation very well. Most people in
> > > >    the field don't consider this conclusive -- one can imagine
> > > >    other ways of getting a similar pattern of initial
> > > >    perturbations -- but it is suggestive."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> > > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> > > > community, and physics-related social issues.
> > >
> > > How did the inflationary period attenuate?
> >
> > You talk about "inflationary" as if is real...it's just a  fudge factor.
> >
> > It's used to add fudge to 'the big bang'.
> >
> > What i find strange is...
> >
> > that the majority of the
> > 'scientific community'
> > talk as
> > believe that
> > think that
> > say that
> > 'the big bang' happen.
> >
> > It's not even a Fact.
> >
> > The Big Bang is not a fact.
> >
> > That aside...
> >
> > I have a photograph
> > that shows you what the big bang looked like
> > a few seconds after it happen.
> >
> > You will see the big bang
> > in a color photograph...
> > and at the same time you
> > can see what existed at the
> > time of the big bang...
> > what I call the stable stars...the green stars.
> >
> > The big bang stars are red shifted because
> > you can see the big bang stars shooting in all
> > directions at once...while the green stars remain stable
> > because they existed before the big bang.
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > The Starmaker
> 
> So..looking at my photo of before and after the big bang...i figured out what caused the big bang.
> 
> What caused the big bang was the acculmulation
> of green stable stars.
> 
> In other words, the green stars
> simply gave birth to more green stars,
> and more green stars, and more green stars,
> and more green stars, and more green stars,
> till there were so many green stars that
> there was no more room.
> 
> Can you imagine how hot it got?
> 
> The green stars were so stable they didn't die...there was
> an over-population of green stars.
> 
> This photo of during the big bang...was differcult to produce..
> 
> but i do have the photo of the crowded green stars...i just didn't know why it was so crowded.
> 
> I'll have to find time to produce that one of the crowded green stars.
> 
> I'm sure you all like to see photographs of what caused the big bang.
> 
> The Starmaker


In other words...
the green stars
created
...Space.

That is why you had the
explosion of Space.

Or, what yous call a big bang.

In the process
of this new space...
the green stars turned
blue.

Or, white as you see it.

I know that
this is a level
the 'scientific community'
has not reached yet...
so you won't find it in your
wiki books.

I give the
'scientific community'
another thousand years
to catch up to me.

The Starmaker

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

#533089

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:47:05 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > > On 11/12/15 11:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > Where do you think the universe came from?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
> > > > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle
> > > > >    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8FTr2qMutA
> > > > >
> > > > >    Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that it is
> > > > >    impossible to simultaneously measure the position and
> > > > >    momentum of a particle with arbitrary precision. In our
> > > > >    everyday lives we virtually never come up against this
> > > > >    limit, hence why it seems peculiar. In this experiment a
> > > > >    laser is shone through a narrow slit onto a screen. As the
> > > > >    slit is made narrower, the spot on the screen also becomes
> > > > >    narrower. But at a certain point, the spot starts becoming
> > > > >    wider. This is because the photons of light have been so
> > > > >    localised at the slit that their horizontal momentum must
> > > > >    become less well defined in order to satisfy Heisenberg's
> > > > >    uncertainty principle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Quantum vacuum fluctuation (or Quantum Fluctuation for short)
> > > > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
> > > > >
> > > > > Quoting from the above Wikipedia page:
> > > > >
> > > > >    "In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or
> > > > >    quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary
> > > > >    change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising
> > > > >    from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
> > > > >
> > > > >    "According to one formulation of the principle, energy and
> > > > >    time can be related by the relation
> > > > >
> > > > >        ∆E · ∆t ≥ h/4π
> > > > >
> > > > >    "That means that conservation of energy can appear to be
> > > > >    violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation
> > > > >    of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The
> > > > >    effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in
> > > > >    the effective charge of the electron, different from its
> > > > >    "naked" charge.
> > > > >
> > > > >    "In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the
> > > > >    eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not
> > > > >    the same as (i.e., the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the
> > > > >    particle number operators.
> > > > >
> > > > >    "Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the
> > > > >    origin of the structure of the universe: according to the
> > > > >    model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation
> > > > >    began were amplified and formed the seed of all current
> > > > >    observed structure."
> > > > >
> > > > > Quoting from A USENET Posting by Steve Carlip (UC Davis):
> > > > >
> > > > >    "CMB fluctuations give evidence for (though not proof of)
> > > > >    inflation.
> > > > >
> > > > >    "So far, I haven't said anything about where the initial
> > > > >    density variations of the pre-recombination plasma came
> > > > >    from. There are many possibilities. We know, at least, that
> > > > >    they must be there -- even if we try to start with a
> > > > >    perfectly smooth, unvarying plasma, the Heisenberg
> > > > >    uncertainty principle tells us that there must be a minimum
> > > > >    level of quantum fluctuations.
> > > > >
> > > > >         ∆E · ∆t ≥  h/4π
> > > > >
> > > > >    "Inflationary" models propose that the very early Universe
> > > > >    -- before the time of primordial nucleosynthesis --
> > > > >    underwent a very rapid expansion. Such an expansion would
> > > > >    smooth out/dilute any earlier inhomogeneities, leaving only
> > > > >    the quantum fluctuations, which would be "stretched" in size
> > > > >    by the rapidly expanding space.
> > > > >
> > > > >    "Such models predict a special pattern of fluctuations. In
> > > > >    particular, although any particular fluctuation is random,
> > > > >    the average number at any particular scale is predictable.
> > > > >    This pattern on initial variations, in turn, should show up
> > > > >    in the details of the CMB variations. So far, observations
> > > > >    match the predictions of inflation very well. Most people in
> > > > >    the field don't consider this conclusive -- one can imagine
> > > > >    other ways of getting a similar pattern of initial
> > > > >    perturbations -- but it is suggestive."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> > > > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> > > > > community, and physics-related social issues.
> > > >
> > > > How did the inflationary period attenuate?
> > >
> > > You talk about "inflationary" as if is real...it's just a  fudge factor.
> > >
> > > It's used to add fudge to 'the big bang'.
> > >
> > > What i find strange is...
> > >
> > > that the majority of the
> > > 'scientific community'
> > > talk as
> > > believe that
> > > think that
> > > say that
> > > 'the big bang' happen.
> > >
> > > It's not even a Fact.
> > >
> > > The Big Bang is not a fact.
> > >
> > > That aside...
> > >
> > > I have a photograph
> > > that shows you what the big bang looked like
> > > a few seconds after it happen.
> > >
> > > You will see the big bang
> > > in a color photograph...
> > > and at the same time you
> > > can see what existed at the
> > > time of the big bang...
> > > what I call the stable stars...the green stars.
> > >
> > > The big bang stars are red shifted because
> > > you can see the big bang stars shooting in all
> > > directions at once...while the green stars remain stable
> > > because they existed before the big bang.
> > >
> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > >
> > > The Starmaker
> >
> > So..looking at my photo of before and after the big bang...i figured out what caused the big bang.
> >
> > What caused the big bang was the acculmulation
> > of green stable stars.
> >
> > In other words, the green stars
> > simply gave birth to more green stars,
> > and more green stars, and more green stars,
> > and more green stars, and more green stars,
> > till there were so many green stars that
> > there was no more room.
> >
> > Can you imagine how hot it got?
> >
> > The green stars were so stable they didn't die...there was
> > an over-population of green stars.
> >
> > This photo of during the big bang...was differcult to produce..
> >
> > but i do have the photo of the crowded green stars...i just didn't know why it was so crowded.
> >
> > I'll have to find time to produce that one of the crowded green stars.
> >
> > I'm sure you all like to see photographs of what caused the big bang.
> >
> > The Starmaker
> 
> In other words...
> the green stars
> created
> ...Space.
> 
> That is why you had the
> explosion of Space.
> 
> Or, what yous call a big bang.
> 
> In the process
> of this new space...
> the green stars turned
> blue.
> 
> Or, white as you see it.
> 
> I know that
> this is a level
> the 'scientific community'
> has not reached yet...
> so you won't find it in your
> wiki books.
> 
> I give the
> 'scientific community'
> another thousand years
> to catch up to me.
> 
> The Starmaker



Now, most people
in the 'scientific community'
don't understand what Space is.

Space is made up of Green Stars.

Green stars are stars that
are pefect stars, not to hot,
not to cold..so they last longer than
stars you see today.

Green stars can last for trillions of years
or more...

but they all disapeared when the green stars
ran out of space for new born green stars.

It just got too crowded for green stars
to a point where the green stars were
practiacally inches away from each other...
and that caused the tempature in the 'room'
to get very hot, they ran out of
breathing space and...there was an explosion..
an explosion of more space..to expand to give more
room, but it caised the green stars to turn blue
and shorten it's life span..and burn out.

Of course, I'm not sure what size the green stars were 
at the time of the big bang...they could be very big, or very small..
like the size of a molecue.

But, if you put all the green stars together
close enough....they create...Space.

Just like that stuff that makes things feel...wet.

The Starmaker

I make stars.

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

#533384

palsing wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:04:15 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > Space is made up of Green Stars.
> 
> You are an extremely slow learner...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy)

You are an extremely slow reader...


Why are you pointing to a link that doesn't exist???? When I already
mentioned that

> I know that
> this is a level
> the 'scientific community'
> has not reached yet...
> so you won't find it in your
> wiki books.
> 
> I give the
> 'scientific community'
> another thousand years
> to catch up to me.
> 
> The Starmaker


I'm here to explain Not 'what you know'...but 'what you don't know'.


Let me put it this way since I know
you have no other place to turn too...

Space consist, or is made of
little particles that give you the 
sensation you're in outersapce.


No different than what a fish
feels floating around the
ocean of water..

you don't actually believe a fish feels...wet?


Or, to make it more simplier...
what makes water is dry.

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

#533389

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:27:40 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> palsing wrote:
> > 
> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:04:15 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > > Space is made up of Green Stars.
> > 
> > You are an extremely slow learner...
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy)
> 
> You are an extremely slow reader...
> 
> 
> Why are you pointing to a link that doesn't exist????

The link exists just fine, and says this...

"In astronomy, a green star is a white or blue star that appears green due to an optical illusion. There are no truly green stars, because the color of a star is more or less given by a black-body spectrum and this never looks green."

There is no such thing as a green star, no matter how much you babble otherwise...

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

#533400

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:27:40 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > palsing wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:04:15 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > > Space is made up of Green Stars.
> > >
> > > You are an extremely slow learner...
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy)
> >
> > You are an extremely slow reader...
> >
> >
> > Why are you pointing to a link that doesn't exist????
> 
> The link exists just fine, and says this...
> 
> "In astronomy, a green star is a white or blue star that appears green due to an optical illusion. There are no truly green stars, because the color of a star is more or less given by a black-body spectrum and this never looks green."
> 
> There is no such thing as a green star, no matter how much you babble otherwise...


My mistake, I copied an incomplete link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_%28astronomy%29



But, I was refering to 'green stars' that existed BEFORE the big bang:


Don't you see the color green? Don't you see Green Stars?
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg



The Starmaker

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

#533417

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 3:07:39 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > My mistake, I copied an incomplete link:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_%28astronomy%29
> >
> >
> >
> > But, I was refering to 'green stars' that existed BEFORE the big bang:
> >
> >
> > Don't you see the color green? Don't you see Green Stars?
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> I'm going to suggest that perhaps you are colorblind.
> 
> I'm also going to suggest that before the big bang there was nothing... but any answer to that question is doomed to be just speculation, in any case...

What question are you refering to?


Just imagine for a moment...
(try thinking on your own)

You take a camera..
and stand right where
the big bang took place..
take a picture
just before the big bang...
what will you see?

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

#533455

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 4:23:28 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 3:07:39 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > > My mistake, I copied an incomplete link:
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_%28astronomy%29
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But, I was refering to 'green stars' that existed BEFORE the big bang:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Don't you see the color green? Don't you see Green Stars?
> > > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > >
> > > I'm going to suggest that perhaps you are colorblind.
> > >
> > > I'm also going to suggest that before the big bang there was nothing... but any answer to that question is doomed to be just speculation, in any case...
> >
> > What question are you refering to?
> 
> Why, the question of "what existed before the big bang". Having a little trouble with comprehension, are we?
> 
> > Just imagine for a moment...
> > (try thinking on your own)
> >
> > You take a camera..
> > and stand right where
> > the big bang took place..
> > take a picture
> > just before the big bang...
> > what will you see?
> 
> Nothing at all. Why, what do YOU think you would see?


“My god, it’s full of green stars”

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

#533559

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 4:23:28 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 3:07:39 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My mistake, I copied an incomplete link:
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_%28astronomy%29
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But, I was refering to 'green stars' that existed BEFORE the big bang:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you see the color green? Don't you see Green Stars?
> > > > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > > >
> > > > I'm going to suggest that perhaps you are colorblind.
> > > >
> > > > I'm also going to suggest that before the big bang there was nothing... but any answer to that question is doomed to be just speculation, in any case...
> > >
> > > What question are you refering to?
> >
> > Why, the question of "what existed before the big bang". Having a little trouble with comprehension, are we?
> >
> > > Just imagine for a moment...
> > > (try thinking on your own)
> > >
> > > You take a camera..
> > > and stand right where
> > > the big bang took place..
> > > take a picture
> > > just before the big bang...
> > > what will you see?
> >
> > Nothing at all. Why, what do YOU think you would see?
> 
> “My god, it’s full of green stars”


I'll explain again what caused the big bang...since I see
most of yous intelligence is 'bounded' by the internet.

The big bang was not an explosion of space as others will have you
believe. The big bang was an explosion of MORE space.

The green stars that existed before the big bang got to a point in time
where new born green stars lacked room in the bounds of it's universe.

It got so crowded of green stars it took just one more green star to
be born to set off the explosion....the explosion of 'more' space..an expansion.

In the process, the stars got so hot, it turned white...blue hot.

And all, new law of physics were added to accomadate the new space and expansion.

You don't have to be a rocet scientist to know this stuff...you just have to
go beyond the bounds of the internet....pass the few books in the book store...
you have to learn to...think for yourself. 

The Starmaker


I have to come up with a new publication: TRUE ASTRONOMY: What Really Caused The Big Bang!...a Starmaker Publication.


Did you read my other science publications? 
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abcd.jpg

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

#533566

On 11/16/15 1:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The big bang was not an explosion of space as others will have you
> believe. The big bang was an explosion of MORE space.


   No Center
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

   Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

   WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
     http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

   WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
     http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html



-- 

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]

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web