Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #538029 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-08 10:23 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-17 22:58 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 115 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-08 10:23 -0800
There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 10:51 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 13:04 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-08 22:17 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 17:54 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-08 22:57 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-08 19:15 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 21:27 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-09 07:20 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 08:56 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-09 15:11 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:38 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:41 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 08:48 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 04:50 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 14:08 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:51 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:54 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 17:00 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 12:35 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 18:52 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 13:01 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-09 22:15 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 15:35 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 21:55 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 15:59 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:13 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-09 20:35 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:33 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 01:20 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-10 08:37 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-09 16:07 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 15:22 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 21:13 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 19:47 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 21:51 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 22:06 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 00:04 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-10 12:32 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 11:29 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 22:02 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-11 07:48 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-11 13:54 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 22:55 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-12 07:54 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 09:16 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-12 19:47 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2015-12-13 09:06 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 07:01 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 08:53 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 21:26 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:38 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:40 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:44 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:52 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 17:27 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 12:37 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 18:01 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-09 11:38 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 12:13 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-10 12:30 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 11:26 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 12:56 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 17:42 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-12-09 06:42 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-12-11 22:39 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-08 19:46 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-08 22:50 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 09:09 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 12:07 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 15:46 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-15 00:01 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 08:44 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 05:53 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:59 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-15 22:44 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 08:38 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 16:07 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 18:45 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 15:00 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 15:13 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 18:30 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 17:45 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 21:47 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:40 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-09 12:26 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 18:03 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 09:52 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 16:01 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe trudi.schwander@gmail.com - 2015-12-10 12:03 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-12-10 13:11 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 15:38 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-12-11 14:04 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 10:59 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 13:16 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 13:27 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 17:06 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 22:58 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 12:16 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:05 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 04:10 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 12:55 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 15:06 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 13:58 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 00:25 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 00:23 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 20:28 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:24 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:27 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 11:32 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 10:41 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 12:43 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 16:11 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 16:28 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 22:58 -0800
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-10 22:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <566A66FF.3DF9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #538482 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 10:05:48 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 12/9/15 9:47 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It the was never hot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Analysis of the CMB says otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph > > > > > > Alpherin 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang > > > > > > Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George > > > > > > Gamow. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias > > > > > > and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, > > > > > > New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a > > > > > > radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at > > > > > > nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave > > > > > > Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to > > > > > > find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they > > > > > > immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a > > > > > > pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one > > > > > > by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, > > > > > > Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. > > > > > > Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their > > > > > > discovery. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't say nuthin about hot... > > > > > > > > > > > > i seen the cmb photos...everyone has....doesn't look hot to me. looks > > > > like cold space. > > > > > > > > > > > > please don't come back here and say the cmb photo is after it cooled > > > > down.. > > > > > > > > > > > > It the was never hot! > > > > > > > > > > > > space is cold. it was always be cold. > > > > > > Ya know, rather than just guessing, you could look this stuff up for yourself, and not seem like such a complete idiot, over and over again... > > > > my method is How new laws are discovered, not by..."looking it up". > > > > > > > > http://www.space.com/20330-cosmic-microwave-background-explained-infographic.html > > > > > > "The CMB was created at a time in cosmic history called the Recombination Era. The universe had cooled to a temperature of about 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,700 degrees Celsius), cool enough for electrons and protons to "recombine" into hydrogen atoms. Photons were released, and today this radiation is called the CMB." > > > > > > Although it is cool now, this wasn't always the case for the CMB. > > > > It is, and was always cool....even in the cmb case. > > > > If it was hot, we wouldn't have a universe today. > > > > As I mentioned before...the big bang was an explosion of MORE space...cool space.. > > > > there was no heat in the explosion of more space.. > > i'm not even sure there was an ...explosion. ...and another thing.. this business about...singularity. According to my..picture, the universe didn't started out in a singularity. or a very small dot..singularity. I would say it was the size of our galaxy....but certaintly not a singularity. In other words, the whole universe today fitted in the size of out milky way... then there was...the big bang. But, certaintly not a singularity. You people got that all wrong. But I have a feeling where you get all your inaccurate information....you must have...'looked it up'. Is that what you girls call Science today, looking it up on the Internet????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 07:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dcv9uuFs252U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #538585 |
Am 11.12.2015 07:02, schrieb The Starmaker:
>
> ...and another thing..
>
> this business about...singularity.
>
>
> According to my..picture, the universe
> didn't started out in a singularity.
>
> or a very small dot..singularity.
>
> I would say it was the size of
> our galaxy....but certaintly not
> a singularity.
>
> In other words, the whole universe today fitted
> in the size of out milky way...
>
> then there was...the big bang.
>
> But, certaintly not a singularity.
>
>
> You people got that all wrong.
I have the impression, that physics got stuck in a dead-end road and
refuses to return.
This is because physics is also a business. Science is not just 'pure
thinking', but about (well-paid) jobs and about a lot of public attention.
Only problem: for one of these well paid jobs there are a hundred
applicants. This would make students think, it would be wise to run with
the herd.
This will not bring real progress, since the herd is not really
revolutionary.
So: where do the good ideas come from?
Usually the mainstream perpetuates, what is already known. This can
eventually lead to better understanding, but only, if the mainstream is
on the right track.
But what happens, if the heard is entering a dead end? Actually nothing,
since the way back is blocked, hence the sheeple will admire the wall
('the final frontier').
The way to that point is than modelled with a mathematical formula, but
it contains division by zero at that 'wall'. So a singularity is needed,
to renormalise infinities.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 13:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <566B4633.916@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #538482 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 10:05:48 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 12/9/15 9:47 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It the was never hot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Analysis of the CMB says otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph > > > > > > Alpherin 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang > > > > > > Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George > > > > > > Gamow. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias > > > > > > and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, > > > > > > New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a > > > > > > radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at > > > > > > nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave > > > > > > Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to > > > > > > find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they > > > > > > immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a > > > > > > pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one > > > > > > by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, > > > > > > Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. > > > > > > Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their > > > > > > discovery. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't say nuthin about hot... > > > > > > > > > > > > i seen the cmb photos...everyone has....doesn't look hot to me. looks > > > > like cold space. > > > > > > > > > > > > please don't come back here and say the cmb photo is after it cooled > > > > down.. > > > > > > > > > > > > It the was never hot! > > > > > > > > > > > > space is cold. it was always be cold. > > > > > > Ya know, rather than just guessing, you could look this stuff up for yourself, and not seem like such a complete idiot, over and over again... > > > > my method is How new laws are discovered, not by..."looking it up". > > > > > > > > http://www.space.com/20330-cosmic-microwave-background-explained-infographic.html > > > > > > "The CMB was created at a time in cosmic history called the Recombination Era. The universe had cooled to a temperature of about 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,700 degrees Celsius), cool enough for electrons and protons to "recombine" into hydrogen atoms. Photons were released, and today this radiation is called the CMB." > > > > > > Although it is cool now, this wasn't always the case for the CMB. > > > > It is, and was always cool....even in the cmb case. > > > > If it was hot, we wouldn't have a universe today. > > > > As I mentioned before...the big bang was an explosion of MORE space...cool space.. > > > > there was no heat in the explosion of more space.. > > i'm not even sure there was an ...explosion. This CMB picutre was taken when all the heat magically disapperaed. maybe it's hiding at the edge of the universe. If you put on God's eyes...you can see the edge and the center of the universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 22:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <K6ydnaOGP5lBNfbLnZ2dnUU7-aGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #538661 |
On 12/11/15 3:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > This CMB picutre was taken when all the heat magically disapperaed. The universe is expanding and cooling. The CMB is the light of decoupling at about 380,000 years after the BB cooled from say 3000 K to 2.7 K > The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph > Alpherin 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang > Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George > Gamow. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias > and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, > New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a > radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at > nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave > Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to > find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they > immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a > pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one > by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, > Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. > Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their > discovery. > > Uniform color oval representing the temperature variation across the > sky of the CMB. Today, the CMB radiation is very cold, only 2.725° > above absolute zero, thus this radiation shines primarily in the > microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and is invisible > to the naked eye. However, it fills the universe and can be detected > everywhere we look. In fact, if we could see microwaves, the entire > sky would glow with a brightness that was astonishingly uniform in > every direction. The picture at left shows a false color depiction of > the temperature (brightness) of the CMB over the full sky (projected > onto an oval, similar to a map of the Earth). The temperature is > uniform to better than one part in a thousand! This uniformity is one > compelling reason to interpret the radiation as remnant heat from the > Big Bang; it would be very difficult to imagine a local source of > radiation that was this uniform. In fact, many scientists have tried > to devise alternative explanations for the source of this radiation, > but none have succeeded. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 07:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dd1uljFhjpkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #538733 |
Am 12.12.2015 05:55, schrieb Sam Wormley: >> This CMB picutre was taken when all the heat magically disapperaed. > > > The universe is expanding and cooling. The CMB is the light of > decoupling at about 380,000 years after the BB cooled from say > 3000 K to 2.7 K This is the standard model of cosmology - and most likely wrong. Alternative explanation: CMBR is generated in real time and close proximity to our solar system. Reason: the CMBR 'sky map' contains actually, what is not expected in the remainders of the big bang. Especially unexpected is the Earth orbit and our home galaxy. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 09:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <P9ydnXHhHdbDp_HLnZ2dnUU7-SmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #538737 |
On 12/12/15 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> CMBR is generated in real time and close proximity to our solar system.
Review | Cosmic microwave background
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
> The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left
> over from the time of recombination in Big Bang cosmology. In older
> literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave
> background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation." The CMB is a cosmic
> background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology
> because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch
> of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space
> between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark.
> However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint
> background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is
> not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is
> strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The
> accidental discovery of CMB in 1964 by American radio astronomers
> Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[1][2] was the culmination of work
> initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel
> Prize.
>
> The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted
> on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows
> tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly
> different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure:
> the stars and galaxies of today.[3]
> The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage
> in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a
> landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the
> universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was
> denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot
> fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and
> the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled
> enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These
> atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the
> universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.[4]
> Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed
> as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when
> photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly
> being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as
> photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon
> decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter
> and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their
> wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely
> proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the
> source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last
> scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance
> from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from
> those points at the time of photon decoupling.
>
> Precise measurements of the CMB are critical to cosmology, since any
> proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The CMB
> has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057
> K.[5] The spectral radiance dEν/dν peaks at 160.2 GHz, in the
> microwave range of frequencies. (Alternatively if spectral radiance
> is defined as dEλ/dλ then the peak wavelength is 1.871 mm.) The glow
> is very nearly uniform in all directions, but the tiny residual
> variations show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of
> a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the
> current size of the universe. In particular, the spectral radiance at
> different angles of observation in the sky contains small
> anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the
> region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what
> would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum
> fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size
> of the observable universe we see today. This is a very active field
> of study, with scientists seeking both better data (for example, the
> Planck spacecraft) and better interpretations of the initial
> conditions of expansion. Although many different processes might
> produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other
> than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result,
> most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be
> the best explanation for the CMB.
>
> The high degree of uniformity throughout the observable universe and
> its faint but measured anisotropy lend strong support for the Big
> Bang model in general and the ΛCDM ("Lambda Cold Dark Matter") model
> in particular. Moreover, the fluctuations are coherent on angular
> scales that are larger than the apparent cosmological horizon at
> recombination. Either such coherence is acausally fine-tuned, or
> cosmic inflation occurred.[6][7]
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 19:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dd38eqFrsblU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #538749 |
Am 12.12.2015 16:16, schrieb Sam Wormley: >> CMBR is generated in real time and close proximity to our solar system. > > > Review | Cosmic microwave background >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background > >> The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left >> over from the time of recombination in Big Bang cosmology. I don't think so. http://www.phys.cwru.edu/projects/mpvectors/ http://www.phys.cwru.edu/projects/mpvectors/images/paper3/map_teg_2.png The solid line is the ecliptic plain. And this ecliptic does not belong to the big-bang. Also our home galaxy is found in the CMBR map, (be removed for unknown reasons): https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept05/Gawiser2/Figures/fig3.jpg So: where is actually the big-bang in that picture? I personally see the milky-way and our Earth orbit, but no big-bang. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 09:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <km9q6b1o8umsr6bcirijkpitbvq2h6120n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #538749 |
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:16:46 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 12/12/15 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> CMBR is generated in real time and close proximity to our solar system.
>
>
> Review | Cosmic microwave background
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
>
>> The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left
>> over from the time of recombination in Big Bang cosmology. In older
>> literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave
>> background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation." The CMB is a cosmic
>> background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology
>> because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch
>> of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space
>> between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark.
>> However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint
>> background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is
>> not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is
>> strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The
>> accidental discovery of CMB in 1964 by American radio astronomers
>> Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[1][2] was the culmination of work
>> initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel
>> Prize.
>>
>> The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted
>> on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows
>> tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly
>> different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure:
>> the stars and galaxies of today.[3]
>
>> The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage
>> in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a
>> landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the
>> universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was
>> denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot
>> fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and
>> the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled
>> enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These
>> atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the
>> universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.[4]
>> Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed
>> as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when
>> photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly
>> being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as
>> photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon
>> decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter
>> and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their
>> wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely
>> proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the
>> source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last
>> scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance
>> from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from
>> those points at the time of photon decoupling.
>>
>> Precise measurements of the CMB are critical to cosmology, since any
>> proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The CMB
>> has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057
>> K.[5] The spectral radiance dE?/d? peaks at 160.2 GHz, in the
>> microwave range of frequencies. (Alternatively if spectral radiance
>> is defined as dE?/d? then the peak wavelength is 1.871 mm.) The glow
>> is very nearly uniform in all directions, but the tiny residual
>> variations show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of
>> a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the
>> current size of the universe. In particular, the spectral radiance at
>> different angles of observation in the sky contains small
>> anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the
>> region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what
>> would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum
>> fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size
>> of the observable universe we see today. This is a very active field
>> of study, with scientists seeking both better data (for example, the
>> Planck spacecraft) and better interpretations of the initial
>> conditions of expansion. Although many different processes might
>> produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other
>> than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result,
>> most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be
>> the best explanation for the CMB.
>>
>> The high degree of uniformity throughout the observable universe and
>> its faint but measured anisotropy lend strong support for the Big
>> Bang model in general and the ?CDM ("Lambda Cold Dark Matter") model
>> in particular. Moreover, the fluctuations are coherent on angular
>> scales that are larger than the apparent cosmological horizon at
>> recombination. Either such coherence is acausally fine-tuned, or
>> cosmic inflation occurred.[6][7]
There is no edge to FLAT EARTH!
The edge always moves away from you.
w.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 07:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p6dby.269550$MN.136378@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #538855 |
On 12/13/2015 03:06 AM, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:16:46 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/12/15 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> CMBR is generated in real time and close proximity to our solar system.
>>
>>
>> Review | Cosmic microwave background
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
>>
>>> The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left
>>> over from the time of recombination in Big Bang cosmology. In older
>>> literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave
>>> background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation." The CMB is a cosmic
>>> background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology
>>> because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch
>>> of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space
>>> between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark.
>>> However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint
>>> background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is
>>> not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is
>>> strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The
>>> accidental discovery of CMB in 1964 by American radio astronomers
>>> Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[1][2] was the culmination of work
>>> initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel
>>> Prize.
>>>
>>> The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted
>>> on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows
>>> tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly
>>> different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure:
>>> the stars and galaxies of today.[3]
>>
>>> The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage
>>> in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a
>>> landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the
>>> universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was
>>> denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot
>>> fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and
>>> the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled
>>> enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These
>>> atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the
>>> universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.[4]
>>> Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed
>>> as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when
>>> photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly
>>> being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as
>>> photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon
>>> decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter
>>> and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their
>>> wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely
>>> proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the
>>> source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last
>>> scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance
>>> from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from
>>> those points at the time of photon decoupling.
>>>
>>> Precise measurements of the CMB are critical to cosmology, since any
>>> proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The CMB
>>> has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057
>>> K.[5] The spectral radiance dE?/d? peaks at 160.2 GHz, in the
>>> microwave range of frequencies. (Alternatively if spectral radiance
>>> is defined as dE?/d? then the peak wavelength is 1.871 mm.) The glow
>>> is very nearly uniform in all directions, but the tiny residual
>>> variations show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of
>>> a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the
>>> current size of the universe. In particular, the spectral radiance at
>>> different angles of observation in the sky contains small
>>> anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the
>>> region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what
>>> would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum
>>> fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size
>>> of the observable universe we see today. This is a very active field
>>> of study, with scientists seeking both better data (for example, the
>>> Planck spacecraft) and better interpretations of the initial
>>> conditions of expansion. Although many different processes might
>>> produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other
>>> than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result,
>>> most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be
>>> the best explanation for the CMB.
>>>
>>> The high degree of uniformity throughout the observable universe and
>>> its faint but measured anisotropy lend strong support for the Big
>>> Bang model in general and the ?CDM ("Lambda Cold Dark Matter") model
>>> in particular. Moreover, the fluctuations are coherent on angular
>>> scales that are larger than the apparent cosmological horizon at
>>> recombination. Either such coherence is acausally fine-tuned, or
>>> cosmic inflation occurred.[6][7]
>
>
> There is no edge to FLAT EARTH!
> The edge always moves away from you.
You are wrong Helmut!
The flat Earth HAS an edge, obviously!
The answer is the edge of the Earth is EVERYWHERE!
It's simple physics thinking!
Just BELIEVE and repeat, Helmut. This is the "thinking" of modern physics!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 08:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <63d7d66e-85c4-4ced-bdd9-07a273a5ade8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #538212 |
On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 11:41:31 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 12/9/15 10:38 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: > > Sam Wormley > > > >> On 12/8/15 4:57 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: > >>> I mean normal to the edge, but normal to the other side. Very few in > >>> Relativity are thinking at this shocking truth. > >> > >> There is no edge as is shown by these first two links: > >> > >> No Center > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > > > You are insignificant. Trying to change the subject. You are not familiar > > in Math Gymnastics as I can see. > > > Human senses are easily fooled. You wish, Sam. How many human senses do you have Sam Worm Liar? -- Mahipal "IPMM..."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 21:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <AYGdne66PrjHAvrLnZ2dnUU7-VudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #538078 |
On 12/8/15 4:17 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote:
> If the light seen coming from the edge of the Universe, is the old light
> generated at the time of Big Bang, then that light must be travelling
> outside this Universe, at least as far as it is from here to that edge.
> Just toward the opposite direction. This is remarkably, but exceedingly
> and surpassingly.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 16:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n49ldh$4ni$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #538130 |
Sam Wormley > On 12/8/15 4:17 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >> If the light seen coming from the edge of the Universe, is the old >> light generated at the time of Big Bang, then that light must be >> travelling outside this Universe, at least as far as it is from here to >> that edge. Just toward the opposite direction. This is remarkably, but >> exceedingly and surpassingly. > > > No Center > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Does not matter, prafessar. Nobody mentioned any center any particular place. However the selfcontainess of this Universe is obvious (see the theory of Big Bang). Hence a Normal vector oriented outside must be present. And in fact there are proofs and indicators that it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 10:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WOWdnav325cXxPXLnZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #538208 |
On 12/9/15 10:38 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: > Hence a Normal vector oriented outside must be > present. There ain't no "outside", Bubba. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 16:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n49lon$4ni$5@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #538211 |
Sam Wormley > On 12/9/15 10:38 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >> Hence a Normal vector oriented outside must be present. > > There ain't no "outside", Bubba. Since you are snipping the juicy stuff, you must be fucking stupid. And apparently you really are, even without snipping stuff considered to be juicy. You are weak in Tensors and Manifolds. Proceed an upgrade immediately.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 10:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WOWdnaT325fOwfXLnZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #538213 |
On 12/9/15 10:44 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: > Sam Wormley > >> On 12/9/15 10:38 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >>> Hence a Normal vector oriented outside must be present. >> >> There ain't no "outside", Bubba. > > Since you are snipping the juicy stuff, you must be fucking stupid. And > apparently you really are, even without snipping stuff considered to be > juicy. You are weak in Tensors and Manifolds. Proceed an upgrade > immediately. > <smiling> -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 17:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n49oaq$eoj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #538217 |
Sam Wormley > On 12/9/15 10:44 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >> Sam Wormley >> >>> On 12/9/15 10:38 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >>>> Hence a Normal vector oriented outside must be present. >>> >>> There ain't no "outside", Bubba. >> >> Since you are snipping the juicy stuff, you must be fucking stupid. And >> apparently you really are, even without snipping stuff considered to be >> juicy. You are weak in Tensors and Manifolds. Proceed an upgrade >> immediately. > > <smiling> "The normal vector, often simply called the "normal," to a surface is a vector which is perpendicular to the surface at a given point. When normals are considered on closed surfaces, the inward-pointing normal (pointing towards the interior of the surface) and outward-pointing normal are usually distinguished." See also Heat and Diffusion Equation. (ie bacteria growth model, etc)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 12:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WOWdnd3325d76fXLnZ2dnUU7-IUAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #538225 |
On 12/9/15 11:27 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote:
> "The normal vector, often simply called the "normal," to a surface...
What surface? There is now edge, no surface of the universe.
To help you visualize, Bubba:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 18:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <wjJ9y.17707$NY1.2476@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #538042 |
On 12/08/2015 02:04 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/8/15 12:23 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> "There Is No Edge To The Universe".
>> How many times have you heard that?
>
>
> It is not the number of times you hear it that makes it so,
> but the consistency between observations and theory that
> make "no edge" logical and compelling.
Sammy, you are totally ignorant of science. Professors have assured me
that the more times you hear something repeated the more true is is. For
example the "consensus" among scientists that man-made CO2 causes global
warming clearly makes it irrefutable and anyone who tries to say that
science isn't done by democratic vote is clearly a "Denier".
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 11:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n49oqd$st8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #538042 |
On 12/8/2015 1:04 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 12/8/15 12:23 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> "There Is No Edge To The Universe". >> How many times have you heard that? > > > It is not the number of times you hear it that makes it so, > but the consistency between observations and theory that > make "no edge" logical and compelling. > > > So just so we're clear here where is that consistency in your climate theories? only idiots will debate other idiots and more often than not expose their idiocy such as you did here Hoisted by your own petard.... Karma at its very best
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 12:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56688B4F.E43@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #538227 |
David Staup wrote: > > On 12/8/2015 1:04 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 12/8/15 12:23 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >> "There Is No Edge To The Universe". > >> How many times have you heard that? > > > > > > It is not the number of times you hear it that makes it so, > > but the consistency between observations and theory that > > make "no edge" logical and compelling. > > > > > > > So just so we're clear here > > where is that consistency in your climate theories? > > only idiots will debate other idiots > > and more often than not expose their idiocy such as you did here > > Hoisted by your own petard.... Karma at its very best "Karma"??? Is that like 'a force' that travels in the air like a boomberang???? Comes alllllll theeee wayyyyyyyy around and hits you on the head, is that right? I once did a test and observation on "Karma", doesn't work, it's wrong..whatever you think it is, it's wrong, doesn't work. There is no Karma.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web