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

Groups > sci.physics > #676345 > unrolled thread

The Steady State Universe

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-14 11:40 -0700
    Re: The Steady State Universe "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 13:54 -0700
      Re: The Steady State Universe "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-14 16:40 -0700
      Re: The Steady State Universe "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 10:42 -0700
        Re: The Steady State Universe "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-16 14:11 -0700
    Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-14 18:24 -0700
      Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-14 21:50 -0700
        Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-15 23:33 -0700
          Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 09:21 -0700
        Re: The Steady State Universe Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 14:55 +0000
          Re: The Steady State Universe Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-17 17:17 +0000
          Re: The Steady State Universe Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 18:17 +0000
        Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-18 13:09 -0700
          Re: The Steady State Universe Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-03-19 15:03 +1100
            Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-18 22:46 -0700
              Re: The Steady State Universe Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-03-19 19:01 +1100
                Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-19 09:17 -0700
                  Re: The Steady State Universe Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-03-20 19:15 +1100
                    Re: The Steady State Universe Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-20 13:33 +0100
                    Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-20 09:54 -0700
                      Re: The Steady State Universe Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-03-21 17:31 +1100
                        Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-21 14:09 -0700
                          Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-22 23:25 -0700
            Re: The Steady State Universe J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 07:53 -0400
              Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-19 09:18 -0700
              Re: The Steady State Universe Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-20 00:44 +0100
    Re: The Steady State Universe Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-15 13:46 -0700
    Re: The Steady State Universe Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 09:08 +0000
      Re: The Steady State Universe "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-22 13:25 -0700
        Re: The Steady State Universe Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 08:43 +0100
          Re: The Steady State Universe "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-25 13:26 -0700
          Re: The Steady State Universe "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-25 13:26 -0700
            Re: The Steady State Universe Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 18:10 +0100
              Re: The Steady State Universe "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-31 19:20 -0700
    Re: The Steady State Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-19 22:52 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#677485

The Starmaker wrote on 21/03/18 03:54:
> Daniel60 wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote on 20/03/18 03:17:
>>> Daniel60 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 16:46:

<Snip>

>>>>> Is there a mistake that you see or error you can point out? Or you don't have a leg to stand on...
>>>>>
>>>> What?? You mean like the links don't seem to show what you reckon they
>>>> show?? Sure, there's an error!!
>>>
>>> Which link are you refering to and where is the error exactly? ...or are you one of those vague people with their drive by shootings...
>>>
>> Well lets start with the four links from your post from a couple of days
>> ago ....
>>
>> *Quote*
>> Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang
>> photo' looks like...sideways:
>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
>>
>> A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
>>
>> It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>
>> The green is A and the B is red.
>>
>> and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A
>> transformed to B
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
>>
>> just looking for more space:
>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
>> *End Quote*
>>
>> Your first link states it is an image of a Wormhole!!
>> Your second link shows some pretty lights on a possibly star spangled
>> background.
>> Your third link shows an orange blob on a black background that turns
>> orange.
>> Your forth link is just a copy of your first link!
>>
>> Sure, the images are pretty, but hardly cosmologically significant!!
>> IMHO, of course!!
>> --
>> Daniel
> 
> I am simply using "illustrations", that I find on the Internet to...'illustrate' to you what this
> 
> "photograph"
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> is all about.
> 
> This is a photograph (not an illustration) of what it looked like 'before and after the big bang'
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> Dictionary
> il·lus·trate
> 
> explain or make (something) clear by using examples, charts, pictures, etc.
> "the results are illustrated in Figure 7"
> synonyms:	explain, explicate, elucidate, clarify, make plain, demonstrate, show, emphasize; informalget across
> "this can be illustrated through a brief example"
> serve as an example of.
> 
> If I want to use a pair of woman's stockings to illustrate...I can. It doesn't mean the big bang is a pair of woman's stockings.
> 
> I'm illustrating
> what this
> photograph is:
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> It is a 'photograph' of moments after the big bang *and* what it looked like before the big bang. A window into both universes.
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> There is no error here, just a misunderstanding of women's stockings.
> 
"explain or make (something) clear by using examples, charts, pictures, 
etc."

You're failing in that aim!!

Plonk!!

-- 
Daniel

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

#677614

Daniel60 wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote on 21/03/18 03:54:
> > Daniel60 wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote on 20/03/18 03:17:
> >>> Daniel60 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 16:46:
> 
> <Snip>
> 
> >>>>> Is there a mistake that you see or error you can point out? Or you don't have a leg to stand on...
> >>>>>
> >>>> What?? You mean like the links don't seem to show what you reckon they
> >>>> show?? Sure, there's an error!!
> >>>
> >>> Which link are you refering to and where is the error exactly? ...or are you one of those vague people with their drive by shootings...
> >>>
> >> Well lets start with the four links from your post from a couple of days
> >> ago ....
> >>
> >> *Quote*
> >> Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang
> >> photo' looks like...sideways:
> >> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> >>
> >> A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
> >>
> >> It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
> >> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>
> >> The green is A and the B is red.
> >>
> >> and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A
> >> transformed to B
> >>
> >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> >>
> >> just looking for more space:
> >> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> >> *End Quote*
> >>
> >> Your first link states it is an image of a Wormhole!!
> >> Your second link shows some pretty lights on a possibly star spangled
> >> background.
> >> Your third link shows an orange blob on a black background that turns
> >> orange.
> >> Your forth link is just a copy of your first link!
> >>
> >> Sure, the images are pretty, but hardly cosmologically significant!!
> >> IMHO, of course!!
> >> --
> >> Daniel
> >
> > I am simply using "illustrations", that I find on the Internet to...'illustrate' to you what this
> >
> > "photograph"
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > is all about.
> >
> > This is a photograph (not an illustration) of what it looked like 'before and after the big bang'
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > Dictionary
> > il·lus·trate
> >
> > explain or make (something) clear by using examples, charts, pictures, etc.
> > "the results are illustrated in Figure 7"
> > synonyms:     explain, explicate, elucidate, clarify, make plain, demonstrate, show, emphasize; informalget across
> > "this can be illustrated through a brief example"
> > serve as an example of.
> >
> > If I want to use a pair of woman's stockings to illustrate...I can. It doesn't mean the big bang is a pair of woman's stockings.
> >
> > I'm illustrating
> > what this
> > photograph is:
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > It is a 'photograph' of moments after the big bang *and* what it looked like before the big bang. A window into both universes.
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > There is no error here, just a misunderstanding of women's stockings.
> >
> "explain or make (something) clear by using examples, charts, pictures,
> etc."
> 
> You're failing in that aim!!



Maybe it's a level too high in terms you can understand. They don't teach this stuff in school...


Let me make something clear to you ....that you failed..to understand...


pho·to·graph
'fod??graf/
noun
noun: photograph; plural noun: photographs

    1.
    a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
    synonyms:	picture, photo, snapshot, shot, image, likeness, print, slide, transparency, still, enlargement, snap; More
    informalmug shot, head shot
    "a photograph of her father"

verb
verb: photograph; 3rd person present: photographs; gerund or present participle: photographing; past tense: photographed; past participle: photographed

    1.
    take a photograph of.


Okay, do you understand the defintion of the word...."photograph"? (which you didn't even bother to point out which is most important)

Now, I wrote: "It is a 'photograph' of moments after the big bang *and* what it looked like before the big bang. A window into both universes."


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


That is a 'photogragh',  "a picture made using a camera" of moments before and after the big bang.


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



Now, how come you missed that? Is your panties in a knot? Did you strangle yourself with your silk stockings?


This is a 'photogragh',  "a picture made using a camera" of moments before and after the big bang.


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


unretouched.



Now, take this photo and show it to your Science teacher and tell him...


"This is a unretouched photograh..made using a camera...showing moments before and after the big bang."


You know what your stupid science professor is going to say? He's gonna say..


"GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!!!"


Because your science teacher only knows whats inside a textbook.

If it ain't in a textbook, it doesn't exist inside his mind.

He's gonna say.."Nobody has taken a picture with a camera of moments before and after the big bang!!!!"


Then you show him the picture and point out and tell him...

"The Green area is the steady state universe, and the red area is moments after the big bang."

and he's gonna say..


"GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!!!"


In other words, you're not going to learn anything in skool...



This is a 'photogragh',  "a picture made using a camera" of moments before and after the big bang.


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


unretouched.

It's beyond your Science.


The Starmaker

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

#677812

palsing wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 2:08:57 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> > > > It is a 'photograph' of moments after the big bang *and* what it looked like before the big bang. A window into both universes.
> 
> So... just where was the photographer standing?


Observation will show that the phototgrapher had to be standing moments in front of the big bang...


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


If you attempted to do a image search you probably discovered Google does not have a ...similiar image.


This photo is beyond science, but within the realms of Nature.


Here are some facts about this photo of before and after the big bang..


Google doesn't have an image like it shown...but,


but...

the fact is...

this exact photo is in everybodys home on earth.


It's not shown on Google as you already discovered, but this exact photo is in
everyones home on this planet.

Of course, it's not visible as you see it, ...Nature is subtle.


But I can go into anybodys home on earth and find it..


Nature...is


sub·tle
's?dl/
adjective
adjective: subtle; comparative adjective: subtler; superlative adjective: subtlest

    (especially of a change or distinction) so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe.
    "his language expresses rich and subtle meanings"
    synonyms:	fine, fine-drawn, nice, hair-splitting
    "subtle distinctions"
        (of a mixture or effect) delicately complex and understated.
        "subtle lighting"
        synonyms:	understated, muted, subdued; More
        delicate, faint, pale, soft, indistinct
        "subtle colors"
        making use of clever and indirect methods to achieve something.
        "he tried a more subtle approach"




Puzzeling isn't it?

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

#677170

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:03:22 +1100, Daniel60
<daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:

>The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 07:09:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Before the Big Bang occurred..
>>>>>
>>>>> the universe was a Steady State Universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply put, it became unsteady.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
>>>>>
>>>>> it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
>>>>>
>>>>> but the end of a universe for a new universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on observations..
>>>>>
>>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> oh, btw...i found the Blue.
>>>>>
>>>>> but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
>>>>>
>>>>> when they both were correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>>>>
>>>> Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:
>>>>
>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...
>>>>
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
>>>>
>>>> Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>>>
>>> For example...according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
>>>
>>> " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
>>> populated by an infinite number of stars, then
>>> any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
>>> hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
>>> This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."
>>>
>>> They got this Olber thing (including Olber) ...backwards.
>>>
>>> The green area here that is...
>>>
>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>
>>> "populated by an infinite number of stars"
>>>
>>> any line of sight from Earth must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star
>>>
>>> (which is the red area you see here)
>>>
>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>>>
>>> that which you call the big bang is "the (very bright) surface of a star".
>>>
>>> Not "must end at the (very bright) surface of a star", but must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star.
>>>
>>> Where do you guys learn physics from???? Who gets all this stuff ...backwards?
>> 
>> 
>> Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang photo' looks like...sideways:
>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
>> 
>> 
>> A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
>> 
>> 
>> It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
>> 
>> 
>> The green is A and the B is red.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A transformed to B
>> 
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> just looking for more space:
>> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Actually...if you believe the universe is ...flat, then picture a flat...cone.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
>> 
>> 
>> from stupid proffesors?? oh, go back to skool, you're gonna learn a lot more, ain't you?
>> 
>Looking at those links ... it's easy to see that you have *NEVER* 
>learned any physics!!

If you are going to continue to play with Starmaker, please let the
rest of us know so we can killfile you.

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

#677196

J. Clarke wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:03:22 +1100, Daniel60
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
> 
> >The Starmaker wrote on 19/03/18 07:09:
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Before the Big Bang occurred..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the universe was a Steady State Universe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Simply put, it became unsteady.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> but the end of a universe for a new universe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Based on observations..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> oh, btw...i found the Blue.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> when they both were correct.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >>>>
> >>>> Besides this, the green area of the photograph is what is illustrated below:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is an illustration of what caused the big bang...
> >>>>
> >>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> >>>>
> >>>> Except, you guys got the paradox.... backwards.
> >>>>
> >>>> Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >>>
> >>> For example...according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
> >>>
> >>> " In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and
> >>> populated by an infinite number of stars, then
> >>> any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and
> >>> hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
> >>> This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night."
> >>>
> >>> They got this Olber thing (including Olber) ...backwards.
> >>>
> >>> The green area here that is...
> >>>
> >>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>
> >>> "populated by an infinite number of stars"
> >>>
> >>> any line of sight from Earth must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star
> >>>
> >>> (which is the red area you see here)
> >>>
> >>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>>
> >>> that which you call the big bang is "the (very bright) surface of a star".
> >>>
> >>> Not "must end at the (very bright) surface of a star", but must BEGIN at the (very bright) surface of a star.
> >>>
> >>> Where do you guys learn physics from???? Who gets all this stuff ...backwards?
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, here is an 'illustration' of what 'the before and after big bang photo' looks like...sideways:
> >> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> >>
> >>
> >> A is the steady state universe and B is the present big bang.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's this photo, but sideways illustrated.
> >> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >>
> >>
> >> The green is A and the B is red.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> and this is the illustration of what happened moments before A transformed to B
> >>
> >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> just looking for more space:
> >> http://journalofcosmology.com/images/WormHoleDiminsions66.jpg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually...if you believe the universe is ...flat, then picture a flat...cone.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Where do you guys learn physics from????
> >>
> >>
> >> from stupid proffesors?? oh, go back to skool, you're gonna learn a lot more, ain't you?
> >>
> >Looking at those links ... it's easy to see that you have *NEVER*
> >learned any physics!!
> 
> If you are going to continue to play with Starmaker, please let the
> rest of us know so we can killfile you.


You're one of those 'do as i say, not as i do' people...

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

#677266

J.  Clarke amok-crossposted to 4 newsgroups without Followup-To (F’up2):

> If you are going to continue to play with Starmaker, please let the
> rest of us know so we can killfile you.

The same applies to mindless fullquoting and crossposting.


F’up2 poster

PointedEars
-- 
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#676508

"The Starmaker"  wrote in message news:5AA96C99.616D@ix.netcom.com... 

Before the Big Bang occurred..

the universe was a Steady State Universe.

Simply put, it became unsteady.

So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..

>>> snip nonsense <<<


... God farted ....

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

#677160

Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

     K ~= 10^-10 /year
     t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to 
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more 
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........

                        K = H = Hubble's Constant
and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

             Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
             e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t << 1/H we have:

             Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore 
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law 
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
     2. There was no "Big Bang"
     3. There was no "Inflation"
     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
     5. There is no "Dark Energy"


On 14/03/2018 18:40, The Starmaker wrote:
> Before the Big Bang occurred..
> 
> the universe was a Steady State Universe.
> 
> Simply put, it became unsteady.
> 
> So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
> 
> 
> it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
> 
> Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
> 
> but the end of a universe for a new universe.
> 
> Based on observations..
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> oh, btw...i found the Blue.
> 
> 
> but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
> 
> when they both were correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you guys learn physics from????
> 

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

#677749

"Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
>
> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
>
>     K ~= 10^-10 /year
>     t = time in years
>
> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
>
>                        K = H = Hubble's Constant
> and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
>
> which substituted in (3) gives:
>
>             Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
>
> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
>             e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
>
> So for t << 1/H we have:
>
>             Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
>
> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
>
> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
> in observatories all around the world eh!
>
> Conclusions:
>     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>     2. There was no "Big Bang"
>     3. There was no "Inflation"
>     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>     5. There is no "Dark Energy"
>
>
hanson wrote:
Very nice and cool post, Keith. Kudos!
>
All of your conclusions, except [ >     1.] are in vogue today.
Also consider that there are very many ways to skin the cat.
IOW, it's story telling about nature... It's all just theorizing.
>
Just like you using your MO above, all of this was done already
a full century ago, by folks like Hartree-Fock, etc.
<vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/courses/chem6485/pdf/Hartree-Fock>
and <http://www.shodor.org/chemviz/overview/hfa.html> , etc

and even earlier by D'alembert (for black holes), see:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_principle>
>
and by by others who were gesticulating in/with Gedanken-XPs,
using Nature's -Scaling-Laws- & it's obvious -Self-Similarity-
whose addressed domain or realm does always span many
dozens of orders of magnitudes, up or down... as exampled
>
by the great old timers of Physics such as Max Planck who
published stuff like the above in 1899... BUT then, unfortunately,
in 1905 Einstein entered and his "Juden physics" got into
the Lime-light with its immense Zionist propaganda machine......
>
... which was the beginning of the end of the golden age of
physics, which is the science of quantitatively MEASURING
items, events & processes, & it began to decay & to deteriorate
into the current free-for-all socio-physic-philosophy-palaver
that we see to day on social media, TV shows, and here
>
on Usenet by cranks and crackpots, who proudly state
that they do physics-without-math, & insist that that their
own Weltbild is the absolute truth which they try to cram
and stuff down everybody else's throat. When "dissidents"
laugh at the posted excrements of these Usenet cranks, the
cranks get vicious and criminally homicidal. The cranks
threaten to shit into the mouths of the dissidents and want
them to be murdered so that the cranks can urinate onto
their graves.
>
So much for the physics-of-the-cranks, which in a way
is reflected in the artistry of, e.g.,  the melancholy of:
<https://www.bing.com/search?q=dire+straits+lyrics+brothers+in+arms&FORM=AWRE>:
>
"There's so many different worlds -- So many different suns
And we have just one world -- But we live in different ones..."
>
Warnings about this sorry trend of real physics came early
on, out of the ivy-league of academia:
>
by John Beckman, an astronomy prof & Einstein disciple:
"The theory of relativity lives on.   Is it a true picture of reality?
That is more a matter of faith than of proof."
>
or by Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, who said:
"Einstein didn't know what he was talking about,
or that Einstein was lying, or both".
>
or Prof. Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
who wrote: "It is my firm belief that the 20th century will be
characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
>
or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, all
associated with the names of Marx,  Freud and Einstein"
>
______ The Dossier _________

So, here is a set of links which belabor such issues:
<http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe>
<http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
<http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper.html>
<http://tinyurl.com/electron-is-NOT-ZERO-sized>
<http://tinyurl.com/Pauls-composite-volume-Belief>
<http://tinyurl.com/Drapers-zero-volume-Belief>
<http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0f1a7daa49aa8cf3>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/70e4aba63b7351ba>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2753001d76037d04>
>
_____ Examples of quantifications: _______

The Proton- and Electron-mass can be expressed in terms
of their measured properties & fundamental Physics constants:
>
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
>
or the proton with mass m_p as:
>
m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)

Both of these particle masses have characteristics of nucleon-sized
Black holes. See detailed explanation for the above  in here:
>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/53371ffd43f>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4ab31e372f1dfee7>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968>
>
...of course you can make the case/conjecture that an uncharged
mini-black-hole of 1 Planck-mass having the radius of 1 Planck-length,
is manifest/has half-life of only one 1 Planck-time-unit after which
it disintegrates into exactly 1 mole of particles that consist of stable,
charged particles with the average mass of the electron. .. in which
>
their fundamental electrical charge, will endow them with
 "immortality", of a duration that vastly exceeds the life-time
span of our universe.
What "charge" is, or where it comes from, is unknown.
All we know is what the said charge does....
>
>
_____________  Up shot: ________________

"The only thing that new changes is Change itself"

>
IOW no matter how "logical", rigorous one "calculates
solutions, they are always limited to comparatives
relative to each other, at best, but mostly just only
consist of belletristic philosophical palcer.
>
The Dirty little secret, that nobody likes to admit to,
is that no, none, not a single "absolute" is known to
exist. What is advertised as "absolute/s" is/are
edicts that are arbitrated and issued by human
cabals or committee and declared to be "absolutes"
so that searches and workers  can comparatively
well communicate rationally with each other.
>
Cranks OTOH take refuge and invoke their "god"
of faith as the "real" manifest "absolute", instead of
just humbly admitting to saying: "I don't know"
>
Interestingly, faith, which is an emotional notion,
is a million times stronger than any obviously rational
logic. The force of Faith and religious beliefs are so
deep that societies and potentates have elected
to protect and enshrine Faith in societies' laws
and its constitutions, even in today's modern society.
>
>
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO

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

#678177

On 22/03/2018 20:25, hanson wrote:
> "Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
>> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
>> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
>>
>> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
>> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
>> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
>>
>>     K ~= 10^-10 /year
>>     t = time in years
>>
>> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
>> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
>> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
>>
>>                        K = H = Hubble's Constant
>> and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
>>
>> which substituted in (3) gives:
>>
>>             Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
>>
>> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
>> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
>>             e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
>>
>> So for t << 1/H we have:
>>
>>             Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
>>
>> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
>> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
>>
>> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
>> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
>> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
>> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
>> in observatories all around the world eh!
>>
>> Conclusions:
>>     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>>     2. There was no "Big Bang"
>>     3. There was no "Inflation"
>>     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>>     5. There is no "Dark Energy"
>>
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Very nice and cool post, Keith.,

Thank you very much Mr.Hanson, i really do appreciate that.
I thought it was pretty cool myself, to be honest, and have been 
surprised by the general lack of enthusiasm with which it has been 
received by sci.physics.relativity readers.
Not quite all the feedback has been negative though, HGW, who i guess 
you know, did say my conclusions where correct, and we have progressed 
on to a civilized discussion of the merits of 'photons' versus 'e-m waves'

> Kudos!

Thank you again Mr.Hanson
(when praise is in such short supply one does tent to milk it eh!)


> All of your conclusions, except [ >     1.] are in vogue today.

I am rather confused by what you say here, Mr.Hanson.
If folk are not going for "1. The speed of light... is slowing down",
and yet are rejecting the Big Bang, then what are they attributing the 
Hubble red-shifts to?

> Also consider that there are very many ways to skin the cat.
> IOW, it's story telling about nature...

I suppose so, but it's surely an improvement on "The Universe Rests on 
the Back of a Turtle" eh!

> It's all just theorizing.

You are right, but what else is theoretical physics meant to be doing, 
Mr.Hanson.

> Just like you using your MO above, all of this was done already
> a full century ago, by folks like Hartree-Fock, etc.
> <vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/courses/chem6485/pdf/Hartree-Fock>
> and <http://www.shodor.org/chemviz/overview/hfa.html> , etc
> 
> and even earlier by D'alembert (for black holes), see:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_principle>
>>
> and by by others who were gesticulating in/with Gedanken-XPs,
> using Nature's -Scaling-Laws- & it's obvious -Self-Similarity-
> whose addressed domain or realm does always span many
> dozens of orders of magnitudes, up or down... as exampled
>>
> by the great old timers of Physics such as Max Planck who
> published stuff like the above in 1899...

As you say, Mr.Hanson. Physics has a long and proud history eh!

> BUT then, unfortunately,
> in 1905 Einstein entered and his "Juden physics" got into
> the Lime-light with its immense Zionist propaganda machine......
> ... which was the beginning of the end of the golden age of
> physics, which is the science of quantitatively MEASURING
> items, events & processes, & it began to decay & to deteriorate
> into the current free-for-all socio-physic-philosophy-palaver
> that we see to day on social media, TV shows, and here

As you say, Mr.Hanson, (but i wouldn't dare to say myself :) )

> on Usenet by cranks and crackpots, who proudly state
> that they do physics-without-math, & insist that that their
> own Weltbild is the absolute truth which they try to cram
> and stuff down everybody else's throat. When "dissidents"
> laugh at the posted excrements of these Usenet cranks, the
> cranks get vicious and criminally homicidal. The cranks
> threaten to shit into the mouths of the dissidents and want
> them to be murdered so that the cranks can urinate onto
> their graves.

Yes indeed Mr.Hanson, the level of discussion on the net can be a little 
coarse eh!

> So much for the physics-of-the-cranks, which in a way
> is reflected in the artistry of, e.g.,  the melancholy of:
> <https://www.bing.com/search?q=dire+straits+lyrics+brothers+in+arms&FORM=AWRE>: 

not all your links seem to be working for me Mr.Hanson, but that's just 
as well, or it would take forever to get finished here eh!

> "There's so many different worlds -- So many different suns
> And we have just one world -- But we live in different ones..."

Yes indeed Mr.Hanson, and no pain feels half as bad as our own eh!

> Warnings about this sorry trend of real physics came early
> on, out of the ivy-league of academia:
>>
> by John Beckman, an astronomy prof & Einstein disciple:
> "The theory of relativity lives on.   Is it a true picture of reality?
> That is more a matter of faith than of proof."
>>
> or by Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, who said:
> "Einstein didn't know what he was talking about,
> or that Einstein was lying, or both".
>>
> or Prof. Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
> who wrote: "It is my firm belief that the 20th century will be
> characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
>>
> or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
> Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, all
> associated with the names of Marx,  Freud and Einstein"

If i were to pick a hero from history it would be Giordano Bruno,
who said "In the future all men will believe as I believe", and do you 
know Mr.Hanson, i rather think that about light slowing down too. I hope 
they don't burn me, like they did my hero G.B. eh!

> ______ The Dossier _________
> 
> So, here is a set of links which belabor such issues:
> <http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
> <http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper.html>
> <http://tinyurl.com/electron-is-NOT-ZERO-sized>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Pauls-composite-volume-Belief>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Drapers-zero-volume-Belief>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
> <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0f1a7daa49aa8cf3>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/70e4aba63b7351ba>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2753001d76037d04>
>>
> _____ Examples of quantifications: _______
> 
> The Proton- and Electron-mass can be expressed in terms
> of their measured properties & fundamental Physics constants:
>>
> m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
>>
> or the proton with mass m_p as:
>>
> m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
> 
> Both of these particle masses have characteristics of nucleon-sized
> Black holes. See detailed explanation for the above  in here:
>>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/53371ffd43f>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4ab31e372f1dfee7>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968>

Thank you for all your links Mr.Hanson, and i will study them in due 
course, but must get on eh!

> ...of course you can make the case/conjecture that an uncharged
> mini-black-hole of 1 Planck-mass having the radius of 1 Planck-length,
> is manifest/has half-life of only one 1 Planck-time-unit after which
> it disintegrates into exactly 1 mole of particles that consist of stable,
> charged particles with the average mass of the electron. .. in which
>>
> their fundamental electrical charge, will endow them with
> "immortality", of a duration that vastly exceeds the life-time
> span of our universe.
> What "charge" is, or where it comes from, is unknown.
> All we know is what the said charge does....

I can see you have given quite some thought to this Mr.Hanson, which 
makes your kind reception of my little piece all the more gratifying.

>>
>>
> _____________  Up shot: ________________
> 
> "The only thing that new changes is Change itself"
> 
>>
> IOW no matter how "logical", rigorous one "calculates
> solutions, they are always limited to comparatives
> relative to each other, at best, but mostly just only
> consist of belletristic philosophical palcer.
>>
> The Dirty little secret, that nobody likes to admit to,
> is that no, none, not a single "absolute" is known to
> exist. What is advertised as "absolute/s" is/are
> edicts that are arbitrated and issued by human
> cabals or committee and declared to be "absolutes"
> so that searches and workers  can comparatively
> well communicate rationally with each other.

Socrates put it like this:
	"I KNOW THAT I KNOW NOTHING,
	and in this i know more than any other man"

Whereas i put it like this:
	"I KNOW THAT I DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER THAN YOU,
	and in this i know more than Socrates eh""

> Cranks OTOH take refuge and invoke their "god"
> of faith as the "real" manifest "absolute", instead of
> just humbly admitting to saying: "I don't know"
>>
> Interestingly, faith, which is an emotional notion,
> is a million times stronger than any obviously rational
> logic. The force of Faith and religious beliefs are so
> deep that societies and potentates have elected
> to protect and enshrine Faith in societies' laws
> and its constitutions, even in today's modern society.
>>
>>
> hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO


I really don't know Mr.Hanson,
what does ROTFLMAO mean ?

keith stein
P.S. Remember this?
The Big Bang Myth ... Keith Stein - Mountain Man's News Archive
www.mountainman.com.au/news97_9.html
Date: 22 Feb 1997 06:57:03 +0000. From: Keith Stein Organization: My 
Organisation Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.electromag. 
Subject: THE BIG BANG MYTH ...

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

#678241

Yo!, "Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com>, Kudos!:
 I appreciated and agree with all of your incisive & poignant
comments.
>
If it tickles your fancy, belabor the mentioned link to the
concatenated ***** 1234-cosmic envelope**** expression.
(note the sequence of its exponents)
>
***  c^(1) = (GM/R)^(1/2) = (GMH)^(1/3) = (GM*b_r)^(1/4)
>
wherein the term **b_r** may confirm, bolster and give
support to your conclusion that "c may slow down", since
that b_r appears to be part of a multiple of Sommerfeld's
Finestructure constant (a), and been in use,  in many of
the venerable deSitter models, since ca. 1926.
>
To clarify my stance on (E) Experimental physics vs. (T)
Theoretical physics: Both types, E & T,  have arisen since
physics, in the broadest sense, is a social enterprise, incl.
a scathing view in <http://tinyurl.com/Best-posting-of-the-year>
>
My organization has devoted its efforts to the E-type which
has provided many hundreds of folks with a financially great
and intellectually satisfying living. I will leave the current thread
now, as I regard the issues discussed here to be a thing of the
past. But by all means, Keith, do carry on with your T-mission.
>
Your question as to what ROTFLMAO means is hilarious as
it made me "Roll On The Floor, Laughing My Ass Off".

PS: Poster "HGW" appears to be Aussie "Henry G Wilson"??
>
Take care, Keith,
-- hanson
>
>

"Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/03/2018 20:25, hanson wrote:
>> "Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
>>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
>>> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
>>> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
>>>
>>> Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
>>> I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
>>> and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
>>>
>>> K ~= 10^-10 /year
>>> t = time in years
>>>
>>> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
>>> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
>>> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
>>>
>>> K = H = Hubble's Constant
>>> and t = -t ( so times past become +ve)
>>>
>>> which substituted in (3) gives:
>>>
>>> Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
>>>
>>> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
>>> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
>>> e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
>>>
>>> So for t << 1/H we have:
>>>
>>> Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
>>>
>>> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
>>> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
>>>
>>> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
>>> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
>>> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
>>> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
>>> in observatories all around the world eh!
>>>
>>> Conclusions:
>>> 1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>>> 2. There was no "Big Bang"
>>> 3. There was no "Inflation"
>>> 4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>>> 5. There is no "Dark Energy"
>>>
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Very nice and cool post, Keith.,
>
> Thank you very much Mr.Hanson, i really do appreciate that.
> I thought it was pretty cool myself, to be honest, and have been surprised
> by the general lack of enthusiasm with which it has been received by
> sci.physics.relativity readers.
> Not quite all the feedback has been negative though, HGW, who i guess you
> know, did say my conclusions where correct, and we have progressed on to a
> civilized discussion of the merits of 'photons' versus 'e-m waves'
>
>> Kudos!
>
> Thank you again Mr.Hanson
> (when praise is in such short supply one does tent to milk it eh!)
>
>
>> All of your conclusions, except [ > 1.] are in vogue today.
>
> I am rather confused by what you say here, Mr.Hanson.
> If folk are not going for "1. The speed of light... is slowing down",
> and yet are rejecting the Big Bang, then what are they attributing the
> Hubble red-shifts to?
>
>> Also consider that there are very many ways to skin the cat.
>> IOW, it's story telling about nature...
>
> I suppose so, but it's surely an improvement on "The Universe Rests on the
> Back of a Turtle" eh!
>
>> It's all just theorizing.
>
> You are right, but what else is theoretical physics meant to be doing,
> Mr.Hanson.
>
>> Just like you using your MO above, all of this was done already
>> a full century ago, by folks like Hartree-Fock, etc.
>> <vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/courses/chem6485/pdf/Hartree-Fock>
>> and <http://www.shodor.org/chemviz/overview/hfa.html> , etc
>>
>> and even earlier by D'alembert (for black holes), see:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_principle>
>>>
>> and by by others who were gesticulating in/with Gedanken-XPs,
>> using Nature's -Scaling-Laws- & it's obvious -Self-Similarity-
>> whose addressed domain or realm does always span many
>> dozens of orders of magnitudes, up or down... as exampled
>>>
>> by the great old timers of Physics such as Max Planck who
>> published stuff like the above in 1899...
>
> As you say, Mr.Hanson. Physics has a long and proud history eh!
>
>> BUT then, unfortunately,
>> in 1905 Einstein entered and his "Juden physics" got into
>> the Lime-light with its immense Zionist propaganda machine......
>> ... which was the beginning of the end of the golden age of
>> physics, which is the science of quantitatively MEASURING
>> items, events & processes, & it began to decay & to deteriorate
>> into the current free-for-all socio-physic-philosophy-palaver
>> that we see to day on social media, TV shows, and here
>
> As you say, Mr.Hanson, (but i wouldn't dare to say myself :) )
>
>> on Usenet by cranks and crackpots, who proudly state
>> that they do physics-without-math, & insist that that their
>> own Weltbild is the absolute truth which they try to cram
>> and stuff down everybody else's throat. When "dissidents"
>> laugh at the posted excrements of these Usenet cranks, the
>> cranks get vicious and criminally homicidal. The cranks
>> threaten to shit into the mouths of the dissidents and want
>> them to be murdered so that the cranks can urinate onto
>> their graves.
>
> Yes indeed Mr.Hanson, the level of discussion on the net can be a little
> coarse eh!
>
>> So much for the physics-of-the-cranks, which in a way
>> is reflected in the artistry of, e.g., the melancholy of:
>> <https://www.bing.com/search?q=dire+straits+lyrics+brothers+in+arms&FORM=AWRE>:
>
> not all your links seem to be working for me Mr.Hanson, but that's just as
> well, or it would take forever to get finished here eh!
>
>> "There's so many different worlds -- So many different suns
>> And we have just one world -- But we live in different ones..."
>
> Yes indeed Mr.Hanson, and no pain feels half as bad as our own eh!
>
>> Warnings about this sorry trend of real physics came early
>> on, out of the ivy-league of academia:
>>>
>> by John Beckman, an astronomy prof & Einstein disciple:
>> "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
>> That is more a matter of faith than of proof."
>>>
>> or by Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, who said:
>> "Einstein didn't know what he was talking about,
>> or that Einstein was lying, or both".
>>>
>> or Prof. Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
>> who wrote: "It is my firm belief that the 20th century will be
>> characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
>>>
>> or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
>> Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, all
>> associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
>
> If i were to pick a hero from history it would be Giordano Bruno,
> who said "In the future all men will believe as I believe", and do you
> know Mr.Hanson, i rather think that about light slowing down too. I hope
> they don't burn me, like they did my hero G.B. eh!
>
>> ______ The Dossier _________
>>
>> So, here is a set of links which belabor such issues:
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
>> <http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper.html>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/electron-is-NOT-ZERO-sized>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Pauls-composite-volume-Belief>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Drapers-zero-volume-Belief>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0f1a7daa49aa8cf3>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/70e4aba63b7351ba>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2753001d76037d04>
>>>
>> _____ Examples of quantifications: _______
>>
>> The Proton- and Electron-mass can be expressed in terms
>> of their measured properties & fundamental Physics constants:
>>>
>> m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
>>>
>> or the proton with mass m_p as:
>>>
>> m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
>>
>> Both of these particle masses have characteristics of nucleon-sized
>> Black holes. See detailed explanation for the above in here:
>>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/53371ffd43f>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4ab31e372f1dfee7>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968>
>
> Thank you for all your links Mr.Hanson, and i will study them in due
> course, but must get on eh!
>
>> ...of course you can make the case/conjecture that an uncharged
>> mini-black-hole of 1 Planck-mass having the radius of 1 Planck-length,
>> is manifest/has half-life of only one 1 Planck-time-unit after which
>> it disintegrates into exactly 1 mole of particles that consist of stable,
>> charged particles with the average mass of the electron. .. in which
>>>
>> their fundamental electrical charge, will endow them with
>> "immortality", of a duration that vastly exceeds the life-time
>> span of our universe.
>> What "charge" is, or where it comes from, is unknown.
>> All we know is what the said charge does....
>
> I can see you have given quite some thought to this Mr.Hanson, which makes
> your kind reception of my little piece all the more gratifying.
>
>>>
>>>
>> _____________ Up shot: ________________
>>
>> "The only thing that new changes is Change itself"
>>
>>>
>> IOW no matter how "logical", rigorous one "calculates
>> solutions, they are always limited to comparatives
>> relative to each other, at best, but mostly just only
>> consist of belletristic philosophical palcer.
>>>
>> The Dirty little secret, that nobody likes to admit to,
>> is that no, none, not a single "absolute" is known to
>> exist. What is advertised as "absolute/s" is/are
>> edicts that are arbitrated and issued by human
>> cabals or committee and declared to be "absolutes"
>> so that searches and workers can comparatively
>> well communicate rationally with each other.
>
> Socrates put it like this:
> "I KNOW THAT I KNOW NOTHING,
> and in this i know more than any other man"
>
> Whereas i put it like this:
> "I KNOW THAT I DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER THAN YOU,
> and in this i know more than Socrates eh""
>
>> Cranks OTOH take refuge and invoke their "god"
>> of faith as the "real" manifest "absolute", instead of
>> just humbly admitting to saying: "I don't know"
>>>
>> Interestingly, faith, which is an emotional notion,
>> is a million times stronger than any obviously rational
>> logic. The force of Faith and religious beliefs are so
>> deep that societies and potentates have elected
>> to protect and enshrine Faith in societies' laws
>> and its constitutions, even in today's modern society.
>>>
>>>
>> hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO
>
>
> I really don't know Mr.Hanson,
> what does ROTFLMAO mean ?
>
> keith stein
> P.S. Remember this?
> The Big Bang Myth ... Keith Stein - Mountain Man's News Archive
> www.mountainman.com.au/news97_9.html
> Date: 22 Feb 1997 06:57:03 +0000. From: Keith Stein Organization: My
> Organisation Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.electromag.
> Subject: THE BIG BANG MYTH ...

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

#678242

Yo!, "Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com>, Kudos!:
 I appreciated and agree with all of your incisive & poignant
comments.
>
If it tickles your fancy, belabor the mentioned link to the
concatenated ***** 1234-cosmic envelope**** expression.
(note the sequence of its exponents)
>
***  c^(1) = (GM/R)^(1/2) = (GMH)^(1/3) = (GM*b_r)^(1/4)
>
wherein the term **b_r** may confirm, bolster and give
support to your conclusion that "c may slow down", since
that b_r appears to be part of a multiple of Sommerfeld's
Finestructure constant (a), and been in use,  in many of
the venerable deSitter models, since ca. 1926.
>
To clarify my stance on (E) Experimental physics vs. (T)
Theoretical physics: Both types, E & T,  have arisen since
physics, in the broadest sense, is a social enterprise, incl.
a scathing view in <http://tinyurl.com/Best-posting-of-the-year>
>
My organization has devoted its efforts to the E-type which
has provided many hundreds of folks with a financially great
and intellectually satisfying living. I will leave the current thread
now, as I regard the issues discussed here to be a thing of the
past. But by all means, Keith, do carry on with your T-mission.
>
Your question as to what ROTFLMAO means is hilarious as
it made me "Roll On The Floor, Laughing My Ass Off".

PS: Poster "HGW" appears to be Aussie "Henry G Wilson"??
>
Take care, Keith,
-- hanson
>
"Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/03/2018 20:25, hanson wrote:
>> "Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
>>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
>>> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
>>> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
>>>
>>> Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
>>> I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
>>> and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
>>>
>>> K ~= 10^-10 /year
>>> t = time in years
>>>
>>> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
>>> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
>>> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
>>>
>>> K = H = Hubble's Constant
>>> and t = -t ( so times past become +ve)
>>>
>>> which substituted in (3) gives:
>>>
>>> Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
>>>
>>> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
>>> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
>>> e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
>>>
>>> So for t << 1/H we have:
>>>
>>> Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
>>>
>>> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
>>> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
>>>
>>> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
>>> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
>>> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
>>> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
>>> in observatories all around the world eh!
>>>
>>> Conclusions:
>>> 1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>>> 2. There was no "Big Bang"
>>> 3. There was no "Inflation"
>>> 4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>>> 5. There is no "Dark Energy"
>>>
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Very nice and cool post, Keith.,
>
> Thank you very much Mr.Hanson, i really do appreciate that.
> I thought it was pretty cool myself, to be honest, and have been surprised
> by the general lack of enthusiasm with which it has been received by
> sci.physics.relativity readers.
> Not quite all the feedback has been negative though, HGW, who i guess you
> know, did say my conclusions where correct, and we have progressed on to a
> civilized discussion of the merits of 'photons' versus 'e-m waves'
>
>> Kudos!
>
> Thank you again Mr.Hanson
> (when praise is in such short supply one does tent to milk it eh!)
>
>
>> All of your conclusions, except [ > 1.] are in vogue today.
>
> I am rather confused by what you say here, Mr.Hanson.
> If folk are not going for "1. The speed of light... is slowing down",
> and yet are rejecting the Big Bang, then what are they attributing the
> Hubble red-shifts to?
>
>> Also consider that there are very many ways to skin the cat.
>> IOW, it's story telling about nature...
>
> I suppose so, but it's surely an improvement on "The Universe Rests on the
> Back of a Turtle" eh!
>
>> It's all just theorizing.
>
> You are right, but what else is theoretical physics meant to be doing,
> Mr.Hanson.
>
>> Just like you using your MO above, all of this was done already
>> a full century ago, by folks like Hartree-Fock, etc.
>> <vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/courses/chem6485/pdf/Hartree-Fock>
>> and <http://www.shodor.org/chemviz/overview/hfa.html> , etc
>>
>> and even earlier by D'alembert (for black holes), see:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_principle>
>>>
>> and by by others who were gesticulating in/with Gedanken-XPs,
>> using Nature's -Scaling-Laws- & it's obvious -Self-Similarity-
>> whose addressed domain or realm does always span many
>> dozens of orders of magnitudes, up or down... as exampled
>>>
>> by the great old timers of Physics such as Max Planck who
>> published stuff like the above in 1899...
>
> As you say, Mr.Hanson. Physics has a long and proud history eh!
>
>> BUT then, unfortunately,
>> in 1905 Einstein entered and his "Juden physics" got into
>> the Lime-light with its immense Zionist propaganda machine......
>> ... which was the beginning of the end of the golden age of
>> physics, which is the science of quantitatively MEASURING
>> items, events & processes, & it began to decay & to deteriorate
>> into the current free-for-all socio-physic-philosophy-palaver
>> that we see to day on social media, TV shows, and here
>
> As you say, Mr.Hanson, (but i wouldn't dare to say myself :) )
>
>> on Usenet by cranks and crackpots, who proudly state
>> that they do physics-without-math, & insist that that their
>> own Weltbild is the absolute truth which they try to cram
>> and stuff down everybody else's throat. When "dissidents"
>> laugh at the posted excrements of these Usenet cranks, the
>> cranks get vicious and criminally homicidal. The cranks
>> threaten to shit into the mouths of the dissidents and want
>> them to be murdered so that the cranks can urinate onto
>> their graves.
>
> Yes indeed Mr.Hanson, the level of discussion on the net can be a little
> coarse eh!
>
>> So much for the physics-of-the-cranks, which in a way
>> is reflected in the artistry of, e.g., the melancholy of:
>> <https://www.bing.com/search?q=dire+straits+lyrics+brothers+in+arms&FORM=AWRE>:
>
> not all your links seem to be working for me Mr.Hanson, but that's just as
> well, or it would take forever to get finished here eh!
>
>> "There's so many different worlds -- So many different suns
>> And we have just one world -- But we live in different ones..."
>
> Yes indeed Mr.Hanson, and no pain feels half as bad as our own eh!
>
>> Warnings about this sorry trend of real physics came early
>> on, out of the ivy-league of academia:
>>>
>> by John Beckman, an astronomy prof & Einstein disciple:
>> "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
>> That is more a matter of faith than of proof."
>>>
>> or by Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, who said:
>> "Einstein didn't know what he was talking about,
>> or that Einstein was lying, or both".
>>>
>> or Prof. Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
>> who wrote: "It is my firm belief that the 20th century will be
>> characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
>>>
>> or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
>> Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, all
>> associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
>
> If i were to pick a hero from history it would be Giordano Bruno,
> who said "In the future all men will believe as I believe", and do you
> know Mr.Hanson, i rather think that about light slowing down too. I hope
> they don't burn me, like they did my hero G.B. eh!
>
>> ______ The Dossier _________
>>
>> So, here is a set of links which belabor such issues:
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
>> <http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper.html>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/electron-is-NOT-ZERO-sized>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Pauls-composite-volume-Belief>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Drapers-zero-volume-Belief>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0f1a7daa49aa8cf3>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/70e4aba63b7351ba>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2753001d76037d04>
>>>
>> _____ Examples of quantifications: _______
>>
>> The Proton- and Electron-mass can be expressed in terms
>> of their measured properties & fundamental Physics constants:
>>>
>> m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
>>>
>> or the proton with mass m_p as:
>>>
>> m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
>>
>> Both of these particle masses have characteristics of nucleon-sized
>> Black holes. See detailed explanation for the above in here:
>>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/53371ffd43f>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4ab31e372f1dfee7>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968>
>
> Thank you for all your links Mr.Hanson, and i will study them in due
> course, but must get on eh!
>
>> ...of course you can make the case/conjecture that an uncharged
>> mini-black-hole of 1 Planck-mass having the radius of 1 Planck-length,
>> is manifest/has half-life of only one 1 Planck-time-unit after which
>> it disintegrates into exactly 1 mole of particles that consist of stable,
>> charged particles with the average mass of the electron. .. in which
>>>
>> their fundamental electrical charge, will endow them with
>> "immortality", of a duration that vastly exceeds the life-time
>> span of our universe.
>> What "charge" is, or where it comes from, is unknown.
>> All we know is what the said charge does....
>
> I can see you have given quite some thought to this Mr.Hanson, which makes
> your kind reception of my little piece all the more gratifying.
>
>>>
>>>
>> _____________ Up shot: ________________
>>
>> "The only thing that new changes is Change itself"
>>
>>>
>> IOW no matter how "logical", rigorous one "calculates
>> solutions, they are always limited to comparatives
>> relative to each other, at best, but mostly just only
>> consist of belletristic philosophical palcer.
>>>
>> The Dirty little secret, that nobody likes to admit to,
>> is that no, none, not a single "absolute" is known to
>> exist. What is advertised as "absolute/s" is/are
>> edicts that are arbitrated and issued by human
>> cabals or committee and declared to be "absolutes"
>> so that searches and workers can comparatively
>> well communicate rationally with each other.
>
> Socrates put it like this:
> "I KNOW THAT I KNOW NOTHING,
> and in this i know more than any other man"
>
> Whereas i put it like this:
> "I KNOW THAT I DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER THAN YOU,
> and in this i know more than Socrates eh""
>
>> Cranks OTOH take refuge and invoke their "god"
>> of faith as the "real" manifest "absolute", instead of
>> just humbly admitting to saying: "I don't know"
>>>
>> Interestingly, faith, which is an emotional notion,
>> is a million times stronger than any obviously rational
>> logic. The force of Faith and religious beliefs are so
>> deep that societies and potentates have elected
>> to protect and enshrine Faith in societies' laws
>> and its constitutions, even in today's modern society.
>>>
>>>
>> hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO
>
>
> I really don't know Mr.Hanson,
> what does ROTFLMAO mean ?
>
> keith stein
> P.S. Remember this?
> The Big Bang Myth ... Keith Stein - Mountain Man's News Archive
> www.mountainman.com.au/news97_9.html
> Date: 22 Feb 1997 06:57:03 +0000. From: Keith Stein Organization: My
> Organisation Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.electromag.
> Subject: THE BIG BANG MYTH ...

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

#679155

On 25/03/2018 21:26, hanson wrote:
> Yo!, "Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com>, Kudos!:
> I appreciated and agree with all of your incisive & poignant
> comments.
>>
> If it tickles your fancy, belabor the mentioned link to the
> concatenated ***** 1234-cosmic envelope**** expression.
> (note the sequence of its exponents)
>>
> ***  c^(1) = (GM/R)^(1/2) = (GMH)^(1/3) = (GM*b_r)^(1/4)
>>
> wherein the term **b_r** may confirm, bolster and give
> support to your conclusion that "c may slow down",
c=3.00E8 m/s
G=6.7E-37 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
M=Mass of universe ? =4/3(pi*R^3)*density of universe kg
= 4/3(pi*5.36E24^3)*10^-26 kg = 1.54E74 * 3.14 * 1.33 * 10^-26
  = 6.43E48 kg
R= radius of universe ?=c/H m = 3E8 / 5.6E-17 =5.36E24 m
H=1/(13.6E9*365*60*60) s^-1 = 5.6E-17 s^-1

(GM/R)^(1/2)=(m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 kg / m)^.5 = m/s = c m/s

=(6.7E-37 * 6.43E48 / 5.36E24)^.5 ~= (7.5E-11)^.5 = 8.7E-6 m/s

As this is not c, i must of made a mistake, or is it you Mr.Hanson?


(GMH)^(1/3)=(m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 kg s^-1)^(1/3) = m/s

(6.7E-37 * 6.43E48 * 5.6E*17)1/3 = (2.4E30)^(1/3) = 1.3E10 m/s

This is not c either, but closer than before eh!

perhaps Mr.Hanson, or indeed anyone, would be kind enough to correct my 
errors.

keith stein






























































































































6

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

#679336

"Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote;
> hanson wrote:
>> Yo!, "Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com>, Kudos!:
>> I appreciated and agree with all of your incisive & poignant
>> comments.
>>>
>> If it tickles your fancy, belabor the mentioned link to the
>> concatenated ***** 1234-cosmic envelope**** expression.
>> (note the sequence of its exponents)
>>>
>> *** c^(1) = (GM/R)^(1/2) = (GMH)^(1/3) = (GM*b_r)^(1/4)
>>>
>> wherein the term **b_r** may confirm, bolster and give
>> support to your conclusion that "c may slow down",
>> <see previous posts, as Keith snipped relevant text>
>
 hanson wrote:
Keith, what are you fishing and finagling with "c" (m/s)
for in your  __ Keith's miscalculation___ below?:
>
I clearly referred to  the term **b_r** which has the
dim of an *** acceleration (m/s^2)*** (NOT a speed: m/s)
c^(1) = (GM*b_r)^(1/4) ---> c^4 = GM*b_r
b_r = c^4/(GM) ::dim:: = m^4*s^-4*m^-3*s^2 = m*s^-2
>
Now, Keith, use THAT **acceleration** and apply it to
your method in your scenario and you will see that 
you have a valid case for your s/elected conditions.
Like said: Keith I am out of here. I will not respond.
>
>
----------   Keith's miscalculation: ---------------
> c=3.00E8 m/s
> G=6.7E-37 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
> M=Mass of universe ? =4/3(pi*R^3)*density of universe kg
> = 4/3(pi*5.36E24^3)*10^-26 kg = 1.54E74 * 3.14 * 1.33 * 10^-26
>  = 6.43E48 kg
> R= radius of universe ?=c/H m = 3E8 / 5.6E-17 =5.36E24 m
> H=1/(13.6E9*365*60*60) s^-1 = 5.6E-17 s^-1
> 
> (GM/R)^(1/2)=(m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 kg / m)^.5 = m/s = c m/s
> 
> =(6.7E-37 * 6.43E48 / 5.36E24)^.5 ~= (7.5E-11)^.5 = 8.7E-6 m/s
> 
> As this is not c, i must of made a mistake, or is it you Mr.Hanson?
> 
> 
> (GMH)^(1/3)=(m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 kg s^-1)^(1/3) = m/s
> 
> (6.7E-37 * 6.43E48 * 5.6E*17)1/3 = (2.4E30)^(1/3) = 1.3E10 m/s
> 
> This is not c either, but closer than before eh!
> 
> perhaps Mr.Hanson, or indeed anyone, would be kind enough to correct my 
> errors.
> 
> keith stein
> 
> 

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

#677300

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 11:40:34 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Before the Big Bang occurred..
> >
> > the universe was a Steady State Universe.
> >
> > Simply put, it became unsteady.
> >
> > So, if you want to know what caused the Big Bang..
> >
> >
> > it was simply the end of a Steady State Universe.
> >
> > Not the end of a theory for a new theory...
> >
> > but the end of a universe for a new universe.
> >
> > Based on observations..
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > oh, btw...i found the Blue.
> >
> >
> > but yous guys (including albert einstein) made a big mistake of dropping one theory for another theory,
> >
> > when they both were correct.
> >
> >
> >
> > Where do you guys learn physics from????
> 
> A lot of input into Expanding Universe
> (or why big bang) is these days or
> recently in astronomical terms that the
> entire yet visible universe was part of
> a large jet or LaniaKea on the overall
> scale of the universe in terms of instruments.
> 
> The universe is somehow both Big Bang and
> Steady State, or for example Big Bang and
> the universe is much, much older than the
> yesterday's measurements result over time.
> 
> It kind of like the universe or the "frame"
> of space-time as both flat and curved.  For
> local projections as relativistic effects it's
> curved, but overall it's flat.
> 
> It is also for example similar to particle and
> wave in the equality or conflation or the
> otherwise duality the projection for example
> to a point or out to space, the particle or
> wave (and particle and wave).
> 
> So, science is busy figuring out how to make it
> so that beyond theoretically the corrections in
> the practical build up reconciliation of prediction
> or estimate between for example different theories
> of quantum gravity or mechanics, or for example
> the frame mechanics.
> 
> (This is of course where all in the classical that
> it all works out the same.)


Based on observations right here of this unedited photograph of the before and moments after the big bang...
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg

observations are, (and observations is all you need to gather the truth of science) observations are..

the current universe, the big bang and the before the big bang.. 'the steady state universe' are all the same universe.

So that means the age of the universe goes into the ...trillions. (or more)..or, it has no age.


i hope you are not sending your kids to skool...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web