Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #598423 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-26 22:47 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-04 09:59 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 22:47 -0700
Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:02 -0700
Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:55 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-27 09:07 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 07:16 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 09:49 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 12:16 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 10:55 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 13:25 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 11:53 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 13:19 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 16:21 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 14:46 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 17:04 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 15:42 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 16:57 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 17:58 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 19:12 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:34 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 08:24 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 14:43 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-04 18:53 -0400
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 14:52 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 14:47 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 18:58 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-03 22:18 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 05:10 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 04:37 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 07:06 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 07:23 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 08:31 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 10:57 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:04 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 11:24 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 12:28 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 13:00 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 16:56 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 00:36 +0000
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:14 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-05 17:48 -0400
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 17:06 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-06 16:06 -0400
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 16:29 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 14:09 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-05 16:01 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:39 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 12:16 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:14 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-04 19:07 -0400
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:57 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 08:04 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 10:37 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:26 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 11:43 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 10:20 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 12:49 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 13:03 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 16:27 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-04 19:04 -0400
Re: Cosmic Chaos Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 18:55 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 17:40 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos "Roger Shrubbery" <moderator@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 18:53 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 19:23 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 20:51 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 07:37 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 07:50 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:09 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 09:00 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 10:33 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 11:20 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos "Richard Cranium" <moderator@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 18:28 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 21:33 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-07 17:14 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-10-08 12:32 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 15:00 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-05 17:55 -0400
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 15:01 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 15:58 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-05 16:19 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 16:44 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-05 16:52 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 19:03 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 06:54 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 07:36 -0700
Re: You're born into this world with X dollars to gamble away. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-06 19:17 -0400
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-06 21:58 -0400
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-10-07 07:39 -0400
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-07 07:16 -0500
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-07 14:32 -0500
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 06:35 -0700
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-07 07:59 -0400
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-10-07 08:12 -0400
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-07 08:27 -0400
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-10-07 09:06 -0400
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-07 08:22 -0500
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-07 08:32 -0500
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 08:44 -0700
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-07 11:57 -0400
Re: Trump or Hillary, it'll be fun to watch. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 10:06 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 10:37 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 11:57 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 16:44 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-08 16:49 -0400
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 14:20 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 14:31 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 15:02 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-08 19:19 -0400
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 17:08 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-08 20:53 -0400
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 19:01 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 19:37 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 20:10 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 04:04 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 04:25 -0700
Thanks for the info, Mr. hVac. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 05:18 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-09 08:40 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-06 16:16 -0400
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 13:47 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-06 16:10 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 23:34 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 23:38 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 04:17 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-07 17:20 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 15:52 -0700
Mr. hVac's trip to South America. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 04:12 -0700
Re: Mr. hVac's trip to South America. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-07 13:18 +0000
Re: Mr. hVac's trip to South America. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-07 10:20 -0700
Brazil is mighty, well and truly. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-10-07 13:05 -0700
Re: Glazier is mighty well and truly deranged. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-07 16:39 -0700
Guys speak the "Insult Dialect". Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-10-07 17:01 -0700
I think stress inflamed Mr. hVac's lymph nodes. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-10-07 17:19 -0700
I think stress inflamed Mr. hVac's lymph nodes. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 01:59 -0700
If it makes you feel better, so be it. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 04:15 -0700
Re: I think stress inflamed Mr. hVac's lymph nodes. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-08 16:58 -0400
Relf is afraid of Swine Glazier... AHAHAHAHAHA.... "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-07 18:23 -0700
Does Mr. hVac smoke ? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:07 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-06 19:23 -0400
Re: Cosmic Chaos Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 18:09 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-10-07 13:19 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:50 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-05 23:57 +0000
Re: Cosmic Chaos benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-04 18:54 -0400
Re: Cosmic Chaos Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-27 09:04 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 07:05 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 09:09 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-27 09:13 -0500
Re: Cosmic Chaos "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 10:50 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 13:03 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-03 13:47 -0700
Cosmic Chaos HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 14:36 -0700
Re: Cosmic Chaos Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-04 09:59 -0500
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 17:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt3thp$l3f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #599591 |
On 10/5/2016 4:48 PM, benj wrote: > On 10/5/2016 2:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/4/2016 2:28 PM, john wrote: >>> Odd said >>> "es that have been traveling a very long time. >>> >>> So if things have been getting further apart for a long time, with a >>> well measured expansion profile, then you also know when everything >>> was " >>> >>> You are so simplistic. >>> Billions of years is a blink of a blink >>> in Universal time. >> >> What is this "Universal time", John? It seems as fanciful as ten spatial >> dimensions, doesn't it? What is that you say? "Everyday common sense >> tells you there are three dimesions." (John Sefton) Oh, so this imagined >> "Universal time" -- what part of everyday common sense does that come >> from? What is that you say? "Some things are taken on faith." Is that >> what you say, John? >> >> Let me ask you a simple question, John. 13.8 billion years ago, >> everything in the observable universe was on top of each other. This we >> know from observations and simply tracking back. When everything is on >> top of each other, everything was incredibly dense and incredibly hot, >> far beyond any energy scales where our knowledge of the laws of physics >> hold. What explains this expansion in a way that matches measurement six >> ways to Sunday is a theory that says the expansion is in space and time >> itself, whether this makes sense to you or not. (A reminder that just >> because you don't understand it, doesn't make it nonsense. There's a TON >> of stuff you don't understand.) So here's the question: Explain how this >> "Universal time" accounts for the big thing that was going on 13.8 >> billion years ago in any way. >> >>> You're a loveable scmuck, Oddball > > Boinker you schmuck, 13.8 billion years is a big fat mistake generated > by assuming that red shift is due to velocity. Well, that redshift has been benchmarked for closer objects for which we have both distance and recessional velocity measured by means other than redshift. So I'd say that's pretty good evidence for those objects at least that the measured redshift is correlated with the recessional velocity. The facts that the match is identical to the redshift predicted by relativity, and the fact that this is further corroborated by desktop systems correlating recessional speed with Doppler shift, gives it further high confidence. Of course, this doesn't guarantee that the observed redshift for very distant objects (for which we don't have a good, independent measure of velocity) is still due to recessional velocity. But then the question emerges, at what distance (between near objects and far objects) does the redshift suddenly change from being due to recessional velocity to being due to something else entirely? And why is that distance special? > It's not. This makes that > number nonsense. Nonsense needs no explanation. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57f6aef1$0$12038$b1db1813$145976f0@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #599598 |
On 10/5/2016 6:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/5/2016 4:48 PM, benj wrote: >> On 10/5/2016 2:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 10/4/2016 2:28 PM, john wrote: >>>> Odd said >>>> "es that have been traveling a very long time. >>>> >>>> So if things have been getting further apart for a long time, with a >>>> well measured expansion profile, then you also know when everything >>>> was " >>>> >>>> You are so simplistic. >>>> Billions of years is a blink of a blink >>>> in Universal time. >>> >>> What is this "Universal time", John? It seems as fanciful as ten spatial >>> dimensions, doesn't it? What is that you say? "Everyday common sense >>> tells you there are three dimesions." (John Sefton) Oh, so this imagined >>> "Universal time" -- what part of everyday common sense does that come >>> from? What is that you say? "Some things are taken on faith." Is that >>> what you say, John? >>> >>> Let me ask you a simple question, John. 13.8 billion years ago, >>> everything in the observable universe was on top of each other. This we >>> know from observations and simply tracking back. When everything is on >>> top of each other, everything was incredibly dense and incredibly hot, >>> far beyond any energy scales where our knowledge of the laws of physics >>> hold. What explains this expansion in a way that matches measurement six >>> ways to Sunday is a theory that says the expansion is in space and time >>> itself, whether this makes sense to you or not. (A reminder that just >>> because you don't understand it, doesn't make it nonsense. There's a TON >>> of stuff you don't understand.) So here's the question: Explain how this >>> "Universal time" accounts for the big thing that was going on 13.8 >>> billion years ago in any way. >>> >>>> You're a loveable scmuck, Oddball >> >> Boinker you schmuck, 13.8 billion years is a big fat mistake generated >> by assuming that red shift is due to velocity. > > Well, that redshift has been benchmarked for closer objects for which we > have both distance and recessional velocity measured by means other than > redshift. So I'd say that's pretty good evidence for those objects at > least that the measured redshift is correlated with the recessional > velocity. The facts that the match is identical to the redshift > predicted by relativity, and the fact that this is further corroborated > by desktop systems correlating recessional speed with Doppler shift, > gives it further high confidence. > > Of course, this doesn't guarantee that the observed redshift for very > distant objects (for which we don't have a good, independent measure of > velocity) is still due to recessional velocity. But then the question > emerges, at what distance (between near objects and far objects) does > the redshift suddenly change from being due to recessional velocity to > being due to something else entirely? And why is that distance special? Correct surmise, Boinker. However, redshift does not "suddenly change". It is due BOTH to velocity and multidimensional geometry. It's a matter of a percentage of each not switching from one to the other. My BBB theory explains it all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt6fmr$14d8$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #599749 |
On 10/6/2016 3:06 PM, benj wrote: > On 10/5/2016 6:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/5/2016 4:48 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 10/5/2016 2:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/4/2016 2:28 PM, john wrote: >>>>> Odd said >>>>> "es that have been traveling a very long time. >>>>> >>>>> So if things have been getting further apart for a long time, with a >>>>> well measured expansion profile, then you also know when everything >>>>> was " >>>>> >>>>> You are so simplistic. >>>>> Billions of years is a blink of a blink >>>>> in Universal time. >>>> >>>> What is this "Universal time", John? It seems as fanciful as ten >>>> spatial >>>> dimensions, doesn't it? What is that you say? "Everyday common sense >>>> tells you there are three dimesions." (John Sefton) Oh, so this >>>> imagined >>>> "Universal time" -- what part of everyday common sense does that come >>>> from? What is that you say? "Some things are taken on faith." Is that >>>> what you say, John? >>>> >>>> Let me ask you a simple question, John. 13.8 billion years ago, >>>> everything in the observable universe was on top of each other. This we >>>> know from observations and simply tracking back. When everything is on >>>> top of each other, everything was incredibly dense and incredibly hot, >>>> far beyond any energy scales where our knowledge of the laws of physics >>>> hold. What explains this expansion in a way that matches measurement >>>> six >>>> ways to Sunday is a theory that says the expansion is in space and time >>>> itself, whether this makes sense to you or not. (A reminder that just >>>> because you don't understand it, doesn't make it nonsense. There's a >>>> TON >>>> of stuff you don't understand.) So here's the question: Explain how >>>> this >>>> "Universal time" accounts for the big thing that was going on 13.8 >>>> billion years ago in any way. >>>> >>>>> You're a loveable scmuck, Oddball >>> >>> Boinker you schmuck, 13.8 billion years is a big fat mistake generated >>> by assuming that red shift is due to velocity. >> >> Well, that redshift has been benchmarked for closer objects for which we >> have both distance and recessional velocity measured by means other than >> redshift. So I'd say that's pretty good evidence for those objects at >> least that the measured redshift is correlated with the recessional >> velocity. The facts that the match is identical to the redshift >> predicted by relativity, and the fact that this is further corroborated >> by desktop systems correlating recessional speed with Doppler shift, >> gives it further high confidence. >> >> Of course, this doesn't guarantee that the observed redshift for very >> distant objects (for which we don't have a good, independent measure of >> velocity) is still due to recessional velocity. But then the question >> emerges, at what distance (between near objects and far objects) does >> the redshift suddenly change from being due to recessional velocity to >> being due to something else entirely? And why is that distance special? > > Correct surmise, Boinker. However, redshift does not "suddenly change". > It is due BOTH to velocity and multidimensional geometry. It's a matter > of a percentage of each not switching from one to the other. My BBB > theory explains it all. > You don't have BBB model. You have something that you claim is unfinished because you were not allowed to work on it while you were employed by someone else, and have somehow been prevented from completing it now that you are self-employed. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 14:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb79973b-5727-4b97-883a-b2fde128d0b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #599425 |
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 12:28:18 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > Odd said > "es that have been traveling a very long time. > > So if things have been getting further apart for a long time, with a > well measured expansion profile, then you also know when everything was " > > You are so simplistic. > Billions of years is a blink of a blink > in Universal time. > You're a loveable scmuck, Oddball My id and Treb tells me "First came chaos" Now its 50% chaos,Humankind goes with the other 50%.However we will create chaos and wipe out reality. TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 16:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nt40qu$6bn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #599582 |
"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: > My id-iocy and Treb tells me "First came <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine> that became the <http://tinyurl.com/Recalcitrant-Swine-Glazier>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc1de6b9-2574-4a6c-b4ff-1238a7d75042@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #599390 |
john HVAC SAid " The fact that there is no cause, no 'before', is only concerning to those with small, unimaginative, undisciplined minds. You, BJ, John and a few others insist upon a religious/paranormal start to the universe.... That's just silly " You are the one trying to conceive of a Beginning of the Universe. That's just silly. ----------- The beginning of the OBSERVABLE universe. Beyond that our physics breaks down much as it does beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Of course this only bolsters the case for the big bang. Accept it. It's reality. "Once upon a time, shit happened" I know you hate it. Lol good
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8695e70-233a-4642-b651-3d1527841c48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #599409 |
HVAC "y. "Once upon a time, shit happened" I know you hate it. Lol good " I hate stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 13:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt3ftc$1rgi$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #599423 |
On 10/4/2016 2:16 PM, john wrote: > > I know you hate it. Lol good " > > I hate stupid. > Yeah, but John, you say anyone who doesn't think like you is stupid. So, self-inflate much? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 19:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57f43634$0$28936$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #599409 |
On 10/4/2016 12:39 PM, HVAC wrote: > john > HVAC SAid > " > The fact that there is no cause, no 'before', is only concerning to those with small, unimaginative, undisciplined minds. You, BJ, John and a few others insist upon a religious/paranormal start to the universe.... That's just silly " > > You are the one trying to conceive > of a Beginning of the Universe. > That's just silly. > ----------- > > The beginning of the OBSERVABLE universe. Beyond that our physics breaks down much as it does beyond the event horizon of a black hole. > > Of course this only bolsters the case for the big bang. Accept it. It's reality. > > "Once upon a time, shit happened" > > I know you hate it. Lol good > Just "believe"? Sounds like religion and not science to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt5onu$1d50$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #599409 |
On 10/4/2016 11:39 AM, HVAC wrote: > The beginning of the OBSERVABLE universe. Beyond that our physics breaks down > much as it does beyond the event horizon of a black hole. > > Of course this only bolsters the case for the big bang. Accept it. It's reality. > > "Once upon a time, shit happened" > > I know you hate it. Lol good John really struggles with words sometimes. He is uncomfortable with the word "smallest" because there is the word "smaller". He is uncomfortable with the words "first" or "beginning" (even though the Bible starts with "In the beginning...") because of the word "before". He is uncomfortable with the word "zero" because he senses it would threaten the words "exists" or "one". He is uncomfortable with the word "boundless" because of the word "boundary". So he has just made CHOICES about the words he prefers. No smallest, only smaller. No first or beginning, only before. No zero, only one. No boundless, only bounds. The world just seems to make more sense to him by using some words and avoiding others. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 08:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5670dffe-6142-4511-9818-561f65745a21@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #599679 |
Odd misrepresented- again- "John really struggles with words sometimes. He is uncomfortable with the word "smallest" because there is the word "smaller". He is uncomfortable with the words "first" or "beginning" (even though the Bible starts with "In the beginning...") because of the word "before". He is uncomfortable with the word "zero" because he senses it would threaten the words "exists" or "one". He is uncomfortable with the word "boundless" because of the word "boundary". So he has just made CHOICES about the words he prefers. No smallest, only smaller. No first or beginning, only before. No zero, only one. No boundless, only bounds. The world just seems to make more sense to him by using some words and avoiding others. " No, Odd. You need to take some math classes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 10:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt5r3a$1ksp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #599680 |
On 10/6/2016 10:04 AM, john wrote: > Odd misrepresented- again- > "John really struggles with words sometimes. > He is uncomfortable with the word "smallest" because there is the word > "smaller". > He is uncomfortable with the words "first" or "beginning" (even though > the Bible starts with "In the beginning...") because of the word "before". > He is uncomfortable with the word "zero" because he senses it would > threaten the words "exists" or "one". > He is uncomfortable with the word "boundless" because of the word > "boundary". > > So he has just made CHOICES about the words he prefers. > No smallest, only smaller. > No first or beginning, only before. > No zero, only one. > No boundless, only bounds. > > The world just seems to make more sense to him by using some words and > avoiding others. " > > No, Odd. > You need to take some math classes. > LOL, what information from your math classes do you think is relevant? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7875399e-b7e0-42b3-bf46-f905d1298a98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #599684 |
Odd " LOL, what information from your math classes do you think is relevant? " Maybe review the difference between open and closed sets?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 11:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt5v00$ba$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #599690 |
On 10/6/2016 11:26 AM, john wrote: > Odd > " > LOL, what information from your math classes do you think is relevant? " > Maybe review the difference > between open and closed sets? > Yes, I'm familiar with them. Go on. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 10:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a929c0d-a166-4035-99e8-137933046ee8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #599693 |
There is a SMALLEST, in a closed set.There is also a first, a biggest; all the superlatives. The Universe is not a closed set. Now, do you understand? You need to be able to discriminate, Odd. QM makes pronouncements about "over all space and Time" that have the same value as some fundamentalist religion- NONE. QM has value. Book keepers are necessary- especially when there is no model. Have you considered galaxies as a model for atoms?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 12:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt62rs$btv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #599700 |
On 10/6/2016 12:20 PM, john wrote: > There is a SMALLEST, in a closed set.There is also a first, a biggest; all the superlatives. That's an odd statement. The set of 8-bit colors is a closed set. Which is the smallest, biggest, first, last, and best? Here are other examples of closed sets: - Atlantic, Arctic, Southern, Indian, Pacific -- which one is first? - The set of integers -- which one is first, which one is biggest? - The set of amino acids -- which is smallest, which is first? > The Universe is not a closed set. Prove that. Mathematically, if you'd like. > Now, do you understand? > You need to be able to discriminate, Odd. > > QM makes pronouncements about > "over all space and Time" that > have the same value as some > fundamentalist religion- NONE. > > QM has value. Of course it does. Scientific value. > Book keepers are necessary- especially > when there is no model. Already discussed, John. You have a nonscientific meaning for "model". > > Have you considered galaxies as > a model for atoms? Not with any scientific value, no. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a79bab5-3550-4c67-9285-01136b27cb89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #599709 |
You're funny, Odd. You should consider the Galaxy Model.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt6fk8$14d8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #599746 |
On 10/6/2016 3:03 PM, john wrote: > You're funny, Odd. > You should consider the Galaxy Model. > Why? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 19:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57f435a1$0$28936$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #599379 |
On 10/4/2016 10:23 AM, HVAC wrote: > Maple Loops says > The fact of the bb is without question. As to the initial conditions >> the question may be irrelevant or unanswerable. Suffice it to say >> that the big bang has ALWAYS been banging. > > There exists nothing that is unquestionable. Period. Suffice banging nothing. > --------- > > You can question the big bang all you like. I do on a weekly basis. However this in no way negates is reality as confirmed by many experiments and observations. > > The fact that there is no cause, no 'before', is only concerning to those with small, unimaginative, undisciplined minds. You, BJ, John and a few others insist upon a religious/paranormal start to the universe.... That's just silly > The BB is religious paranormal "beginning" that you believe in. (maybe John too) I say science says there is no religious need for everything to have a beginning and end. You are pressing your own religious views onto the universe. IT doesn't have to listen to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 18:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <g-CdncfP67LP3GnKnZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #599379 |
Problem with that is that if the Bang arose from a vacuum fluctuation, it's just as likely that the Universe formed just now in exactly its present state as it is that it formed fourteen-odd billion years ago and evolved into its present state. In fact neither is the case: I can state without fear or favor that the universe formed on April 3, 1958 at about 6am. -- Goat On 10/04/2016 09:23, HVAC wrote: > However this in no way negates is reality as confirmed by many experiments and observations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web