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

Groups > sci.physics > #621483 > unrolled thread

Beyond The Big Bang

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-04 11:37 -0800
    Re: Beyond The Big Bang Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-03-04 12:45 -0800
      Re: The cosmos evaporates/sublimates/randomizes, _naturally. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-03-04 14:14 -0800
      Re: Jeff Relf wrong, once again. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-04 23:11 +0000
      Re: Beyond The Big Bang benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-04 19:01 -0500
      Re: Beyond The Big Bang "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 16:15 -0800
        Re: Beyond The Big Bang benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-06 20:07 -0500
          Re: Beyond The Big Bang Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-03-07 11:12 -0800
        Re: Beyond The Big Bang "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-03-06 17:29 -0800
        Re: Beyond The Big Bang Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-03-07 11:11 -0800
          Re: Beyond The Big Bang "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 09:50 -0700
            Re: Beyond The Big Bang "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-03-15 10:36 -0700
            Re: Beyond The Big Bang Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-03-16 14:07 -0700
              Re: Beyond The Big Bang "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 14:58 -0700
                Re: Beyond The Big Bang benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-16 20:19 -0400
                  Re: Beyond The Big Bang "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-03-16 19:03 -0700
    Re: Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-04 19:11 -0800
      Looking Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-10 10:34 -0800
        Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-10 19:03 +0000
          Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-10 12:41 -0800
            Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-11 15:18 -0800
        Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-11 15:24 -0800
          Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 16:56 -0800
            Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-11 18:19 -0800
              Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-03-11 19:00 -0800
                Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-11 22:08 -0800
                  Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 17:20 +1100
                    Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-12 00:29 -0800
                      asshole noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 00:32 -0800
                      Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 19:32 +1100
                      Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-12 01:16 -0800
                        Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 17:29 +0800
                          Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-12 12:01 -0800
                            Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 04:07 +0800
                        Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-12 12:11 -0800
          Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2017-03-11 19:27 -0800
            Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-11 22:16 -0800
              Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 00:12 -0800
                Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-12 11:26 -0800
                  l00king at photos noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 17:16 -0700
                  Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-13 11:03 -0800
                    Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-03-14 14:17 -0700
                Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 09:54 -0700
                  Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-03-15 10:24 -0700
                  Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 12:09 -0700
    Re: Beyond The Big Bang Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-05 11:37 +0000
      Re: Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-05 11:45 -0800
        Re: Beyond The Big Bang Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-03-05 21:00 +0100
          gnaBgiBdnoyeB, the noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 15:48 -0800
        Re: Beyond The Big Bang Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-05 21:47 +0000
          Re: Beyond The Big Bang The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-06 10:58 -0800
            Re: Beyond The Big Bang Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-03-07 17:15 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#622856 — Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> noTthaTguY wrote:
> >
> > because of redshifting,
> > we cannot say if universe is finite, or infinite
> 
> It is finite because you
> 
> have redshifting
> 
> and then a green layer under it,
> and the a blue layer under the green
> which is the foundation.
> 
> There is nothing under blue. So, the universe is finite.
> 
> If you understands Colors, you understand the whole universe.
> 
> Not mathematics
> Not Physics
> 
> just...Colors.
> 
> There is only one planet
> with a blue surface in the universe...Earth.
> 
> Earth is the foundation of the universe.


In other words...


Earth is the center of the universe.


Now before yous gets your panties in a wad...


I'm not saying Earth is in the center of the universe...


I'm saying "Earth is the center of the universe."

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

#623105 — Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:03:02 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > noTthaTguY wrote:
> > >
> > > because of redshifting,
> > > we cannot say if universe is finite, or infinite
> > 
> > It is finite because you
> > 
> > have redshifting
> > 
> > and then a green layer under it,
> > and the a blue layer under the green
> > which is the foundation.
> > 
> > There is nothing under blue. So, the universe is finite.
> > 
> > If you understands Colors, you understand the whole universe.
> > 
> > Not mathematics
> > Not Physics
> > 
> > just...Colors.
> > 
> > There is only one planet
> > with a blue surface in the universe...Earth.
> > 
> > Earth is the foundation of the universe.
> 
> 
> In other words...
> 
> 
> Earth is the center of the universe.
> 
> 
> Now before yous gets your panties in a wad...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying Earth is in the center of the universe...
> 
> 
> I'm saying "Earth is the center of the universe."


Greco-Roman philosophers would have agreed.

Double-A

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

#623265 — Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang

On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:12:44 AM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote:
> because of redshifting,
> we cannot say if universe is finite, or infinite

Only the brain of humankind can make a claim that that universes are infinite. It goes with my saying."THERE ARE MORE UNIVERSES THAN FLAKES OF SNOW IN AN ENDLESS STORM" TreBert

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

#623278 — Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang

 "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex
& an IQ of 122", & "I  know how everything works".
"Being Jewish I know this is so very true", which
goes with my plagiarized saying."THERE ARE 
MORE UNIVERSES THAN FLAKES OF SNOW 
IN AN ENDLESS STORM"
__**  "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert  **__, & 
> 
Nobody but "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>, 
the Face shitter & Criminal Graveyard Vandal complains like 
<http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017> [1] does
who wrote:
>
"When I had that tube going up my Penis and a bag on my 
leg.It was not worth living... and now  my back and legs tell 
me I'm 89.Legs are first to go. Once I'm sitting on the ground 
getting up is hard to do. Sad but true my legs are giving  out. 
>
I am too old and too weak", since Glazier claimed  to be 
terminally ill, on his Deathbed with one foot already in his 
coffin, ...but he  keeps on urinating & defecating onto his 
shoes, diaper, his grave & into s.p... even after 13-Mar-2017...

when Glazier got the shock of his waning  & remaining days,
him saying:
"An old man just collapsed here at his computer!  He started 
breathing hard and sweating, then threw up, and then fell on 
the floor!  He hit his head, passed out briefly and started 
bleeding from nose!
>
The paramedic crew from the ambulance are tending to 
him now.  He is still breathing hard!  
Oh may gosh, he is the same age age I am!"
>
The closer you get to death the older makes its time 
much shorter.Once dead time stops.That is the scary 
part since  my partner, the GOPer _ Lady _Undertaker_
will sell my carcass to GOPer "Waste-Management. Inc."
 O ya TreBert
>
hanson wrote:
Pity. Read all the gruesome details she has in store for 
Bert in <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker>

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

#624190 — Re: Looking Beyond The Big Bang

etymology is, there is only one of everything, and that is that --
isn't uncertainty about anything.

> > because of redshifting,
> > we cannot say if universe is finite, or infinite
> 
> Only the brain of humankind can make a claim that that universes are infinite. It goes with my saying."THERE ARE MORE UNIVERSES THAN FLAKES OF SNOW IN AN ENDLESS STORM" TreBert

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

#621576

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> I notice yous people have trouble getting...
> Beyond The Big Bang.

It's an unnexessary postulate, based on a failed
postulate, based on a broken postulate, based on
in invalid (and incorrect) conclusion.

You shoukd turn away. Now.

Ned

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

#621617

Ned Latham wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > I notice yous people have trouble getting...
> > Beyond The Big Bang.
> 
> It's an unnexessary postulate, based on a failed
> postulate, based on a broken postulate, based on
> in invalid (and incorrect) conclusion.
> 
> You shoukd turn away. Now.
> 
> Ned

I understand..

they tell you there is Nothing, so it is unnexessary for you to think beyond...

and they tell you the future is uncertain so it is unnexessary for you to make plans.


You're in Limbo...


you cannot think back, you cannot think forward..


how do you get out the door????


Let me help you..let me show you the Way.



Beyond The Big Bang...there is order.

beyond the future there is order.


For example, Darwin evolution appears to be random..but it's missing the beginning, the order.


If you look Beyond The Big Bang, you will find...order:


Here is a picture of the cause of the big bang while it's taking place and beyond...

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

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

#621621

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abcd.jpg

Is this a joke??

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

#621658 — gnaBgiBdnoyeB, the

only laugh, twice (00 .-)

> Is this a joke??

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

#621633

The Starmaker wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > I notice yous people have trouble getting...
> > > Beyond The Big Bang.
> >
> > It's an unnexessary postulate, based on a failed
> > postulate, based on a broken postulate, based on
> > in invalid (and incorrect) conclusion.
> >
> > You shoukd turn away. Now.
>
> I understand..

No, you dopn't.

> they tell you there is Nothing, so it is unnexessary for you
> to think beyond...

What "they" tell me is always considered, often rejected, and does
not affect my thinking.

----snip----

Ned

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

#621811

Ned Latham wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I notice yous people have trouble getting...
> > > > Beyond The Big Bang.
> > >
> > > It's an unnexessary postulate, based on a failed
> > > postulate, based on a broken postulate, based on
> > > in invalid (and incorrect) conclusion.
> > >
> > > You shoukd turn away. Now.
> >
> > I understand..
> 
> No, you dopn't.

You spel 'dope' wrong.

> 
> > they tell you there is Nothing, so it is unnexessary for you
> > to think beyond...
> 
> What "they" tell me is always considered, often rejected, and does
> not affect my thinking.
> 
> ----snip----
> 
> Ned

I would say "often rejected" is your M.O. It's a pattern with you...

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

#621977

The Starmaker wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I notice yous people have trouble getting...
> > > > > Beyond The Big Bang.
> > > >
> > > > It's an unnexessary postulate, based on a failed
> > > > postulate, based on a broken postulate, based on
> > > > in invalid (and incorrect) conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > You shoukd turn away. Now.
> > >
> > > I understand..
> >
> > No, you dopn't.
>
> You spel 'dope' wrong.

Picky, picky.

(That was me not telling you that you spelt "spell" incorrectly.)

> > > they tell you there is Nothing, so it is unnexessary for you
> > > to think beyond...
> >
> > What "they" tell me is always considered, often rejected, and does
> > not affect my thinking.
>
> I would say "often rejected" is your M.O. It's a pattern with you...

It's neither. My MO is very simple: consider, reject nonsense and
falsehood, assimilate the rest. Rejection happens about as often
as do nonsense and falsehood.

Ned

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web