Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #538029 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-08 10:23 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-17 22:58 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 115 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-08 10:23 -0800
There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 10:51 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 13:04 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-08 22:17 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 17:54 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-08 22:57 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-08 19:15 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 21:27 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-09 07:20 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 08:56 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-09 15:11 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:38 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:41 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 08:48 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 04:50 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 14:08 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:51 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:54 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 17:00 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 12:35 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 18:52 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 13:01 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-09 22:15 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 15:35 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 21:55 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 15:59 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:13 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-09 20:35 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:33 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 01:20 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-10 08:37 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-09 16:07 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 15:22 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 21:13 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 19:47 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 21:51 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 22:06 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 00:04 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-10 12:32 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 11:29 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 22:02 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-11 07:48 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-11 13:54 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 22:55 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-12 07:54 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 09:16 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-12 19:47 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2015-12-13 09:06 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 07:01 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 08:53 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 21:26 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:38 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:40 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:44 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:52 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 17:27 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 12:37 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 18:01 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-09 11:38 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 12:13 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-10 12:30 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 11:26 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 12:56 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 17:42 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-12-09 06:42 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-12-11 22:39 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-08 19:46 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-08 22:50 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 09:09 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 12:07 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 15:46 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-15 00:01 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 08:44 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 05:53 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:59 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-15 22:44 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 08:38 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 16:07 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 18:45 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 15:00 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 15:13 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 18:30 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 17:45 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 21:47 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:40 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-09 12:26 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 18:03 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 09:52 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 16:01 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe trudi.schwander@gmail.com - 2015-12-10 12:03 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-12-10 13:11 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 15:38 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-12-11 14:04 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 10:59 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 13:16 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 13:27 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 17:06 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 22:58 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 12:16 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:05 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 04:10 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 12:55 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 15:06 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 13:58 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 00:25 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 00:23 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 20:28 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:24 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:27 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 11:32 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 10:41 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 12:43 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 16:11 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 16:28 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 22:58 -0800
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n49t8o$q8t$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #538246 |
Sam Wormley > On 12/9/15 11:00 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >> Nobody talks about centers, you meat head. You are weak in perception >> and signal processing. Allow me to ask you in a different way. Toward >> what direction the expanding right after big bang was performed. Heck, >> you are a meat head indeed. What is the word EXPANDING stands for? > > The expansion of space is just that (in all directions). What a honey! "All directions" does not mean "no direction". You contradict yourself like a rhinoceros. There are things which cannot be visualised, but yet fully understandable only. You are not even a newbeginner in Math and Physics, in spite of your advanced age.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 13:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WOWdndj325fr5_XLnZ2dnUU7-IUAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #538255 |
On 12/9/15 12:52 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: > There are things which cannot be visualised, but yet fully > understandable only. Actually the expansion of space has been observed and measured. A good value for the expansion of space is 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc > The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important > observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate > pages: > 1. 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. > 2. 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. > 3. 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]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 22:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dcrk0gFdkdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #538258 |
Am 09.12.2015 20:01, schrieb Sam Wormley: >> There are things which cannot be visualised, but yet fully >> understandable only. > > Actually the expansion of space has been observed and measured. > A good value for the expansion of space is 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc The measure for distance 'Mpc' means 3 261 563 lightyears. The centre of this measurement is actually planet Earth. This means: the universe seems to expand around us. Since this is the case for the Earth, it would be the case at any other location. Only: this would not allow the same 'big-bang' for every possible observer. > > The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important > > observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate > > pages: > > > 1. 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. > > > 2. 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. > > > 3. 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. I assume, that CMBR is produced 'real time' and in close proximity to Earth and has nothing to do with 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. The big-bang looks quite like a 'white hole'. A white hole is a black hole, but seen from the 'other side'. (Or: a black hole time reverted.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 15:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WOWdndT325cmA_XLnZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #538285 |
On 12/9/15 3:15 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > I assume, that CMBR is produced 'real time' and in close proximity to > Earth and has nothing to do with big-bang. > The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph > Alpher in 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang > Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George > Gamow. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias > and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, > New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a > radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at > nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave > Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to > find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they > immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a > pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one > by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, > Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. > Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their > discovery. -- 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]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 21:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4a811$lmc$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #538258 |
Sam Wormley > On 12/9/15 12:52 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >> There are things which cannot be visualised, but yet fully >> understandable only. > > Actually the expansion of space has been observed and measured. > A good value for the expansion of space is 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc In which direction? Man. that I need to ask. Or that number stands not for what it says it stands.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 15:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WOWdndf325euOfXLnZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #538298 |
On 12/9/15 3:55 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: > Sam Wormley > >> On 12/9/15 12:52 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >>> There are things which cannot be visualised, but yet fully >>> understandable only. >> >> Actually the expansion of space has been observed and measured. >> A good value for the expansion of space is 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc > > In which direction? Man. that I need to ask. Or that number stands not for > what it says it stands. > 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc in every direction -- Isotropy > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropy -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 22:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4a91l$n6b$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #538300 |
Sam Wormley > On 12/9/15 3:55 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >> Sam Wormley >> >>> On 12/9/15 12:52 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >>>> There are things which cannot be visualised, but yet fully >>>> understandable only. >>> >>> Actually the expansion of space has been observed and measured. >>> A good value for the expansion of space is 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc >> >> In which direction? Man. that I need to ask. Or that number stands not >> for what it says it stands. >> > 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc in every direction -- Isotropy Except the exterior direction? lol. So the Univ is not really expanding. Do you have a theory backing up the daffy incongruous sophomoric regurgitation you say?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 20:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4aoe6$m7q$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #538308 |
On 12/9/2015 4:13 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: > Sam Wormley > >> On 12/9/15 3:55 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >>> Sam Wormley >>> >>>> On 12/9/15 12:52 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >>>>> There are things which cannot be visualised, but yet fully >>>>> understandable only. >>>> >>>> Actually the expansion of space has been observed and measured. >>>> A good value for the expansion of space is 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc >>> >>> In which direction? Man. that I need to ask. Or that number stands not >>> for what it says it stands. >>> >> 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc in every direction -- Isotropy > > Except the exterior direction? lol. So the Univ is not really expanding. > Do you have a theory backing up the daffy incongruous sophomoric > regurgitation you say? > if there is no edge, then everything is in the center. If there is no edge, then the universe is not expanding, nor contracting. but there is the red shift, stuff is moving away from us. So, into where is it moving ? If there is no edge, there is no big bang, as one can measure the size of the universe via big bang theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-10 15:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4c612$2jn$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #538347 |
Il giorno mercoledì Wed, 09 Dec 2015 20:35:42 -0600, gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> ha scritto: > but there is the red shift, stuff is moving away from us. So, into > where is it moving ? If there is no edge, there is no big bang, as one > can measure the size of the universe via big bang theory. Seemingly I already just said exactly that. What do YOU think?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-10 01:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <AQ8ay.27109$NY1.11031@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #538308 |
On 12/09/2015 05:13 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote:
> Sam Wormley
>
>> On 12/9/15 3:55 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote:
>>> Sam Wormley
>>>
>>>> On 12/9/15 12:52 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote:
>>>>> There are things which cannot be visualised, but yet fully
>>>>> understandable only.
>>>>
>>>> Actually the expansion of space has been observed and measured.
>>>> A good value for the expansion of space is 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc
>>>
>>> In which direction? Man. that I need to ask. Or that number stands not
>>> for what it says it stands.
>>>
>> 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc in every direction -- Isotropy
>
> Except the exterior direction? lol. So the Univ is not really expanding.
> Do you have a theory backing up the daffy incongruous sophomoric
> regurgitation you say?
Obviously the only possible answer is the universe is expanding in the
EXTRADIMENSIONAL directions! Of course Warmley denies the existence of
higher dimensional spaces! Yeah. Sophomoric.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-10 08:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dcsoemF8gkeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #538372 |
Am 10.12.2015 07:20, schrieb benj: >>>>>> There are things which cannot be visualised, but yet fully >>>>>> understandable only. >>>>> >>>>> Actually the expansion of space has been observed and measured. >>>>> A good value for the expansion of space is 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc >>>> >>>> In which direction? Man. that I need to ask. Or that number stands not >>>> for what it says it stands. >>>> >>> 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc in every direction -- Isotropy >> >> Except the exterior direction? lol. So the Univ is not really expanding. >> Do you have a theory backing up the daffy incongruous sophomoric >> regurgitation you say? > > Obviously the only possible answer is the universe is expanding in the > EXTRADIMENSIONAL directions! Of course Warmley denies the existence of > higher dimensional spaces! Yeah. Sophomoric. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone What we SEE is light and light moves along the light-cone. We SEE stars, hence what we call 'universe' is in fact our own past light-cone. This is OUR OWN past light-cone, hence we are in the middle (centre) of 'the universe' (actually: our universe). But this universe is not really real, but a picture of what we receive from the past. So, what is real then? If we look at the Minkowski diagram with the light-cone, the 'real thing' is this 'sheet' called 'space-like'. Now the world is not flat, hence the space-like plane represents something else. This space represented by this plane could be imagined by taking three of such 'sheets' in right angle to each other, where to any plane belongs a specific 'axis of time', which is unique for that space. (Well, somehow like that...) But maybe you like to read my 'book' about this subject: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 16:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4a8o6$ntv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #538258 |
On 12/9/2015 1:01 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 12/9/15 12:52 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >> There are things which cannot be visualised, but yet fully >> understandable only. > > Actually the expansion of space has been observed and measured. > A good value for the expansion of space is 67.80 ± 0.9 km/sec/Mpc > > > The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important > > observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate > > pages: > > > 1. 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. wrong ! the big bang theory was formulated to explain the red shift, Hubbles observance. > > > 2. 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. how is that different ? > > > 3. 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. but where is it ? at the edge of the universe. > > 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. Big Bang is not a notion, not a model, but a theory. > > -- > > 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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 15:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5668B7A9.550B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #538258 |
Sam Wormley wrote: > > The early universe should have been very hot. As I mentioned before.... the big bang was the explosion of MORE space... not more heat. Actually, space is cold. You people seem to be stuck in the middle ages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 21:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <i62dnSarZ4N9cPXLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #538324 |
On 12/9/15 5:22 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > the big bang was the explosion of MORE space... > > not more heat. > > Actually, space is cold. The universe as a whole is pretty cold now. During the cosmic expansion, the universe has cooled from billions of degrees in the fist second to 2.7 K currently. 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: 1. The expansion of the universe http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_exp.html Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right. 2. The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html 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. 3. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html 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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 19:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5668F5C8.19CD@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #538354 |
Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 12/9/15 5:22 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > the big bang was the explosion of MORE space... > > > > not more heat. > > > > Actually, space is cold. > > The universe as a whole is pretty cold now. It was never hot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 21:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <i62dnSKrZ4Mma_XLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #538361 |
On 12/9/15 9:47 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > It the was never hot. > Analysis of the CMB says otherwise. > The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph > Alpherin 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang > Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George > Gamow. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias > and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, > New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a > radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at > nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave > Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to > find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they > immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a > pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one > by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, > Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. > Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their > discovery. -- 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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 22:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56691651.4C0F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #538362 |
Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 12/9/15 9:47 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > It the was never hot. > > > > Analysis of the CMB says otherwise. > > > The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph > > Alpherin 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang > > Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George > > Gamow. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias > > and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, > > New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a > > radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at > > nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave > > Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to > > find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they > > immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a > > pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one > > by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, > > Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. > > Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their > > discovery. > doesn't say nuthin about hot... i seen the cmb photos...everyone has....doesn't look hot to me. looks like cold space. please don't come back here and say the cmb photo is after it cooled down.. It the was never hot! space is cold. it was always be cold.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-10 00:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <566931FE.74D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #538367 |
pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 10:05:48 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > On 12/9/15 9:47 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It the was never hot. > > > > > > > > > > Analysis of the CMB says otherwise. > > > > > > > The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph > > > > Alpherin 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang > > > > Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George > > > > Gamow. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias > > > > and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, > > > > New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a > > > > radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at > > > > nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave > > > > Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to > > > > find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they > > > > immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a > > > > pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one > > > > by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, > > > > Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. > > > > Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their > > > > discovery. > > > > > > > > > doesn't say nuthin about hot... > > > > > > i seen the cmb photos...everyone has....doesn't look hot to me. looks > > like cold space. > > > > > > please don't come back here and say the cmb photo is after it cooled > > down.. > > > > > > It the was never hot! > > > > > > space is cold. it was always be cold. > > Ya know, rather than just guessing, you could look this stuff up for yourself, and not seem like such a complete idiot, over and over again... my method is How new laws are discovered, not by..."looking it up". > > http://www.space.com/20330-cosmic-microwave-background-explained-infographic.html > > "The CMB was created at a time in cosmic history called the Recombination Era. The universe had cooled to a temperature of about 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,700 degrees Celsius), cool enough for electrons and protons to "recombine" into hydrogen atoms. Photons were released, and today this radiation is called the CMB." > > Although it is cool now, this wasn't always the case for the CMB. It is, and was always cool....even in the cmb case. If it was hot, we wouldn't have a universe today. As I mentioned before...the big bang was an explosion of MORE space...cool space.. there was no heat in the explosion of more space..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-10 12:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4cgbl$j8g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #538375 |
On 12/10/2015 2:04 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 10:05:48 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>> >>>> On 12/9/15 9:47 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It the was never hot. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Analysis of the CMB says otherwise. >>>> >>>> > The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph >>>> > Alpherin 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang >>>> > Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George >>>> > Gamow. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias >>>> > and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, >>>> > New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a >>>> > radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at >>>> > nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave >>>> > Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to >>>> > find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they >>>> > immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a >>>> > pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one >>>> > by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, >>>> > Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. >>>> > Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their >>>> > discovery. >>>> >>> >>> >>> doesn't say nuthin about hot... >>> >>> >>> i seen the cmb photos...everyone has....doesn't look hot to me. looks >>> like cold space. >>> >>> >>> please don't come back here and say the cmb photo is after it cooled >>> down.. >>> >>> >>> It the was never hot! >>> >>> >>> space is cold. it was always be cold. >> >> Ya know, rather than just guessing, you could look this stuff up for yourself, and not seem like such a complete idiot, over and over again... > > my method is How new laws are discovered, not by..."looking it up". > > >> >> http://www.space.com/20330-cosmic-microwave-background-explained-infographic.html >> >> "The CMB was created at a time in cosmic history called the Recombination Era. The universe had cooled to a temperature of about 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,700 degrees Celsius), cool enough for electrons and protons to "recombine" into hydrogen atoms. Photons were released, and today this radiation is called the CMB." >> >> Although it is cool now, this wasn't always the case for the CMB. > > > It is, and was always cool....even in the cmb case. > > If it was hot, we wouldn't have a universe today. > > > As I mentioned before...the big bang was an explosion of MORE space...cool space.. > > there was no heat in the explosion of more space.. > idiots debating humorous
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-10 11:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5669D295.6F7B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #538375 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 10:05:48 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > > On 12/9/15 9:47 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It the was never hot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Analysis of the CMB says otherwise. > > > > > > > > > The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph > > > > > Alpherin 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang > > > > > Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George > > > > > Gamow. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias > > > > > and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, > > > > > New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a > > > > > radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at > > > > > nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave > > > > > Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to > > > > > find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they > > > > > immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a > > > > > pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one > > > > > by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, > > > > > Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. > > > > > Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their > > > > > discovery. > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't say nuthin about hot... > > > > > > > > > i seen the cmb photos...everyone has....doesn't look hot to me. looks > > > like cold space. > > > > > > > > > please don't come back here and say the cmb photo is after it cooled > > > down.. > > > > > > > > > It the was never hot! > > > > > > > > > space is cold. it was always be cold. > > > > Ya know, rather than just guessing, you could look this stuff up for yourself, and not seem like such a complete idiot, over and over again... > > my method is How new laws are discovered, not by..."looking it up". > > > > > http://www.space.com/20330-cosmic-microwave-background-explained-infographic.html > > > > "The CMB was created at a time in cosmic history called the Recombination Era. The universe had cooled to a temperature of about 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,700 degrees Celsius), cool enough for electrons and protons to "recombine" into hydrogen atoms. Photons were released, and today this radiation is called the CMB." > > > > Although it is cool now, this wasn't always the case for the CMB. > > It is, and was always cool....even in the cmb case. > > If it was hot, we wouldn't have a universe today. > > As I mentioned before...the big bang was an explosion of MORE space...cool space.. > > there was no heat in the explosion of more space.. i'm not even sure there was an ...explosion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web