Groups > sci.physics > #564308 > unrolled thread

Riedt's Cosmology

Started by	Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk>
First post	2016-03-21 17:25 -0700
Last post	2016-03-23 20:16 -0500
Articles	20 on this page of 63 — 11 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

  Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 17:25 -0700
    Riedt's Cosmology HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 17:35 -0700
      Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 23:55 -0400
    Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 19:46 -0500
      Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 18:18 -0700
        Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 20:37 -0500
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 19:10 -0700
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 19:24 -0700
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 19:57 -0700
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:10 -0500
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-03-24 13:23 -0700
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 17:19 -0500
        Re: Riedt's Cosmology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 06:24 +0100
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 03:06 -0700
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 03:19 -0700
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 03:32 -0700
                Re: Riedt's Cosmology HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 03:42 -0700
                  Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 13:38 -0400
                Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:41 -0500
                  Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 07:01 -0700
                    Re: Riedt's Cosmology HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 07:21 -0700
                      Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 14:03 -0400
                    Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:54 -0500
                      Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 10:48 -0700
                        Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 13:29 -0500
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 13:35 -0400
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 08:28 -0500
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 06:39 -0700
                Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:47 -0500
    Re: Riedt's Cosmology Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-22 13:24 +0100
      Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 17:52 -0700
        Re: Riedt's Cosmology Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-23 08:31 +0100
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 00:47 -0700
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-23 13:12 +0100
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 05:33 -0700
                Re: Riedt's Cosmology HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 05:48 -0700
                  Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 11:58 -0400
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 17:15 -0700
    Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 07:32 -0500
    Re: Riedt's Cosmology xxein1@att.net - 2016-03-22 16:33 -0700
      Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 21:08 -0500
        Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 20:08 -0700
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 00:28 -0700
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 08:00 -0500
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 08:01 -0500
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 06:08 -0700
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 08:56 -0500
                Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 07:01 -0700
                  Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:15 -0500
                  Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 11:14 -0500
                    Re: Riedt's Cosmology HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 09:26 -0700
        Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 23:31 -0400
        Re: Riedt's Cosmology Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 00:15 -0700
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 03:34 -0400
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 08:23 -0500
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 06:26 -0700
                Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:00 -0500
                  Re: Riedt's Cosmology benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:15 -0400
                    Re: Riedt's Cosmology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 11:30 -0500
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:25 -0500
          Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:27 -0500
            Re: Riedt's Cosmology xxein1@att.net - 2016-03-23 17:18 -0700
              Re: Riedt's Cosmology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 20:16 -0500

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →

#564462

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-22 07:21 -0700
Message-ID	<8764cfc6-7933-45de-a290-44f79650dd01@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#564456

John
Odd 
How big is a "reference frame"? 
------------

Discussing physics with John or BJ is like asking a cat about weather.

Best to stick with what they know... Ghosts, aliens and ESP

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

#564565

From	benj <none@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-22 14:03 -0400
Message-ID	<eOfIy.96382$KS7.18297@fx06.iad>
In reply to	#564462

On 03/22/2016 10:21 AM, HVAC wrote:
> John
> Odd
> How big is a "reference frame"?
> ------------
>
> Discussing physics with John or BJ is like asking a cat about weather.
>
> Best to stick with what they know... Ghosts, aliens and ESP
>
Anyone EVER hear HVAC discuss ANY science? I never have. He's one 
hundred percent discussion of personalities. His idea of science is 
pro-wrestling and the science "journals" he reads can be found on the 
checkout line at the supermarket. He knows ALL the stars by their first 
names.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#564470

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-22 09:54 -0500
Message-ID	<ncrmc2$q9$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#564456

On 3/22/2016 9:01 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> How big is a "reference frame"?
>

See, John? You have absolutely no idea what reference frame even means.
A reference frame does not have an outer boundary.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#564557

From	john <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-22 10:48 -0700
Message-ID	<3d25b315-e4c3-46fc-993f-a32988ca35bc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#564470

Oh, but it has an inner boundary?
You see how you believe things- many
things- that are not logical?
You still think logic unimportant?

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

#564584

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-22 13:29 -0500
Message-ID	<ncs2ue$og3$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#564557

On 3/22/2016 12:48 PM, john wrote:
> Oh, but it has an inner boundary?

No. It doesn't have an outer boundary. It doesn't have an inner 
boundary. What other random things do you want to guess, in order to 
avoid reading up on what a reference frame actually MEANS?

> You see how you believe things- many
> things- that are not logical?

John, you can't tell whether "reference frame" is logical or illogical 
if you don't even know what it means. Do you agree with that?

> You still think logic unimportant?
>

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#564551

From	benj <none@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-22 13:35 -0400
Message-ID	<FnfIy.57956$%_.10191@fx03.iad>
In reply to	#564424

On 03/22/2016 06:19 AM, HVAC wrote:
> John
> Atoms and galaxies are identical except
> for time/size scale.
> -------------
>
> Anyone who would say this is obviously received no training at all in particle physics.
>
> John, it's not just our observations and experiments that tell us about point particles. It's all predicted with theory.
>
> I know this means nothing to you since you just don't understand, but it simply proves you to be a fool. No offense

Says the clown with no science education. There are no such things a 
"points" of zero dimensions. Total fantasy like the rest of HVAC's life. 
All math is fantasy. But to you there is no line between fantasy and 
reality. That is what medicine terms insane. No offense.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#564446

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-22 08:28 -0500
Message-ID	<ncrhac$1ngt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#564419

On 3/22/2016 5:06 AM, john wrote:
> Atoms and galaxies are identical except
> for time/size scale.
>

Notice that atoms come in particular forms, which forms drive their 
behavior in how they combine into molecules, ranging from simple 
diatomic molecules, to methane, to proteins. So you tell me about 
galaxies that bond together like carbon and hydrogen atoms do into methane.

Geez, John.

Really?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#564448

From	john <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-22 06:39 -0700
Message-ID	<2da035d8-8e72-4469-87d3-c2306518769e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#564446

Odd
Your precious "gravitational waves"
came from (allegedly- probably another
lie) two BHs coming together.
Atoms join.
Galaxies join.
You have no argument.
Try again

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

#564466

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-22 09:47 -0500
Message-ID	<ncrltb$1vvk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#564448

On 3/22/2016 8:39 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Your precious "gravitational waves"
> came from (allegedly- probably another
> lie) two BHs coming together.

Yes, merging into ONE black hole.

> Atoms join.

Atoms in molecules don't merge into one atom.

Do you remember what a molecule IS, John?

Geez, John, are you thinking AT ALL?

> Galaxies join.
> You have no argument.
> Try again
>

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#564434

From	Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat>
Date	2016-03-22 13:24 +0100
Message-ID	<pbe2fbpo0alt7stj394gloftito4tu5mid@4ax.com>
In reply to	#564308

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
<riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), in sci.physics you wrote:

>Riedt's Cosmology
>
>I. The big bang
>
>Once upon the time there was nothing and the next instant there was everything. Where did the matter and energy come from?
>

Wrong question.
I give you another example of a wrong question:
WHAT COLOR HAS A FART?

Farts are by common sense colorless gas.
The question tries to ascribe an attribute to the subject
which does not fit the category of the object.

Same applies to cosmology of the Big Bang.

>II. A more likely theory

Is what?

w.

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

#564665

From	Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk>
Date	2016-03-22 17:52 -0700
Message-ID	<e72c1a09-84ad-42d1-81e8-f38fa732ce83@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#564434

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:24:55 PM UTC+8, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), in sci.physics you wrote:
> 
> >Riedt's Cosmology
> >
> >I. The big bang
> >
> >Once upon the time there was nothing and the next instant there was everything. Where did the matter and energy come from?
> >
> 
> Wrong question.
> I give you another example of a wrong question:
> WHAT COLOR HAS A FART?
> 
> Farts are by common sense colorless gas.
> The question tries to ascribe an attribute to the subject
> which does not fit the category of the object.
> 
> Same applies to cosmology of the Big Bang.
> 
> 
> >II. A more likely theory
> 
> Is what?
> 
> w.

If you don't know an answer to a question, deny the question.

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

#564745

From	Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat>
Date	2016-03-23 08:31 +0100
Message-ID	<sdh4fbpusa2vd516ah40sda1nqbk9dvc4t@4ax.com>
In reply to	#564665

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:52:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
<riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:24:55 PM UTC+8, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
>> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), in sci.physics you wrote:
>> 
>> >Riedt's Cosmology
>> >
>> >I. The big bang
>> >
>> >Once upon the time there was nothing and the next instant there was everything. Where did the matter and energy come from?
>> >
>> 
>> Wrong question.
>> I give you another example of a wrong question:
>> WHAT COLOR HAS A FART?
>> 
>> Farts are by common sense colorless gas.
>> The question tries to ascribe an attribute to the subject
>> which does not fit the category of the object.
>> 
>> Same applies to cosmology of the Big Bang.
>> 
>> 
>> >II. A more likely theory
>> 
>> Is what?
>> 
>> w.
>
>If you don't know an answer to a question, deny the question.

You are playing cool, eh?

Who knows the answers to question like:

>Where did the matter and energy come from?

Nobody will ever know, Mista Saint Riedt.

w.

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

#564749

From	Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk>
Date	2016-03-23 00:47 -0700
Message-ID	<6fceb6e2-d2d0-4a48-a2ef-04430b1a6c9d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#564745

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 3:31:09 PM UTC+8, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:52:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:24:55 PM UTC+8, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
> >> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> 
> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), in sci.physics you wrote:
> >> 
> >> >Riedt's Cosmology
> >> >
> >> >I. The big bang
> >> >
> >> >Once upon the time there was nothing and the next instant there was everything. Where did the matter and energy come from?
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Wrong question.
> >> I give you another example of a wrong question:
> >> WHAT COLOR HAS A FART?
> >> 
> >> Farts are by common sense colorless gas.
> >> The question tries to ascribe an attribute to the subject
> >> which does not fit the category of the object.
> >> 
> >> Same applies to cosmology of the Big Bang.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >II. A more likely theory
> >> 
> >> Is what?
> >> 
> >> w.
> >
> >If you don't know an answer to a question, deny the question.
> 
> You are playing cool, eh?
> 
> Who knows the answers to question like:
> 
> >Where did the matter and energy come from?
> 
I gave my answer: The universe existed always and evolved in four stages: 
From the pre-universe to the proto universe to the visible universe and finally to the biological universe. Five laws governed and continue to govern the process: the law of creation (evolution), the law of maintenance, the law of decay, the law of chaos and the law of order. The pre-universe was occupied by one substance, the aether. It partially changed to matter in the last three stages of the universe and continues to do so.

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

#564758

From	Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat>
Date	2016-03-23 13:12 +0100
Message-ID	<0025fb564qmego6dc44va2se69ig1r04ee@4ax.com>
In reply to	#564749

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 00:47:45 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
<riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 3:31:09 PM UTC+8, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:52:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
>> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:24:55 PM UTC+8, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
>> >> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), in sci.physics you wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >Riedt's Cosmology
>> >> >
>> >> >I. The big bang
>> >> >
>> >> >Once upon the time there was nothing and the next instant there was everything. Where did the matter and energy come from?
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> Wrong question.
>> >> I give you another example of a wrong question:
>> >> WHAT COLOR HAS A FART?
>> >> 
>> >> Farts are by common sense colorless gas.
>> >> The question tries to ascribe an attribute to the subject
>> >> which does not fit the category of the object.
>> >> 
>> >> Same applies to cosmology of the Big Bang.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> >II. A more likely theory
>> >> 
>> >> Is what?
>> >> 
>> >> w.
>> >
>> >If you don't know an answer to a question, deny the question.
>> 
>> You are playing cool, eh?
>> 
>> Who knows the answers to question like:
>> 
>> >Where did the matter and energy come from?
>> 
>I gave my answer: The universe existed always and evolved in four stages: 
>From the pre-universe to the proto universe to the visible universe and finally to the biological universe. Five laws governed and continue to govern the process: the law of creation (evolution), the law of maintenance, the law of decay, the law of chaos and the law of order. The pre-universe was occupied by one substance, the aether. It partially changed to matter in the last three stages of the universe and continues to do so.

Your answer is worth a truckload of horseshit.


Idiot.

w.

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

#564766

From	john <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-23 05:33 -0700
Message-ID	<937e86cd-eaaf-41c0-b4ef-ca3c7898b5a0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#564758

Of course, his answer is an
extremely well thought-out position 
taken by Buddhism-
and yours is a caveman "we are the Center,
and the beginning ".
Where's your club?

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

#564769

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-23 05:48 -0700
Message-ID	<db300697-00af-41c9-848b-5f369dfc017e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#564766

john
Of course, his answer is an 
extremely well thought-out position 
taken by Buddhism- 
and yours is a caveman "we are the Center, 
and the beginning ". 
Where's your club? 
---------------

Buddhism is simply Asian kookiness.
It may appear not to be as wacky as western wackiness, but it's still belief in unreal things.

But I will stipulate to an eternal universe. But not the way simple minded people like BJ, John and Peter see it. I say the universe is eternal because the big bang was when time itself began. 

PS- We are the exact center of the universe. *I* am the exact center of the entire universe.

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

#564815

From	benj <none@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-23 11:58 -0400
Message-ID	<q2zIy.66619$uT1.13057@fx27.iad>
In reply to	#564769

On 03/23/2016 08:48 AM, HVAC wrote:
> john
> Of course, his answer is an
> extremely well thought-out position
> taken by Buddhism-
> and yours is a caveman "we are the Center,
> and the beginning ".
> Where's your club?
> ---------------
>
> Buddhism is simply Asian kookiness.
> It may appear not to be as wacky as western wackiness, but it's still belief in unreal things.
>
> But I will stipulate to an eternal universe. But not the way simple minded people like BJ, John and Peter see it. I say the universe is eternal because the big bang was when time itself began.
>
> PS- We are the exact center of the universe. *I* am the exact center of the entire universe.

Right, HVAC! YOU are the center of the universe and everyone else is a 
kook! Got it. Now let some of the other patients have some time on the 
ward computer.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#564946

From	Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk>
Date	2016-03-23 17:15 -0700
Message-ID	<edc98ad6-3283-4ad7-9341-7554344c0dd5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#564758

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 8:12:14 PM UTC+8, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 00:47:45 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 3:31:09 PM UTC+8, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:52:10 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
> >> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:24:55 PM UTC+8, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
> >> >> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), in sci.physics you wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >Riedt's Cosmology
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I. The big bang
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Once upon the time there was nothing and the next instant there was everything. Where did the matter and energy come from?
> >> >> >
> >> >> 
> >> >> Wrong question.
> >> >> I give you another example of a wrong question:
> >> >> WHAT COLOR HAS A FART?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Farts are by common sense colorless gas.
> >> >> The question tries to ascribe an attribute to the subject
> >> >> which does not fit the category of the object.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Same applies to cosmology of the Big Bang.
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> >II. A more likely theory
> >> >> 
> >> >> Is what?
> >> >> 
> >> >> w.
> >> >
> >> >If you don't know an answer to a question, deny the question.
> >> 
> >> You are playing cool, eh?
> >> 
> >> Who knows the answers to question like:
> >> 
> >> >Where did the matter and energy come from?
> >> 
> >I gave my answer: The universe existed always and evolved in four stages: 
> >From the pre-universe to the proto universe to the visible universe and finally to the biological universe. Five laws governed and continue to govern the process: the law of creation (evolution), the law of maintenance, the law of decay, the law of chaos and the law of order. The pre-universe was occupied by one substance, the aether. It partially changed to matter in the last three stages of the universe and continues to do so.
> 
> Your answer is worth a truckload of horseshit.
> w.

Instead of ad hom answer part IV of my post.

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

#564435

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-22 07:32 -0500
Message-ID	<ncre05$1hdv$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#564308

On 3/21/2016 7:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Riedt's Cosmology
>
> I. The big bang
>
> Once upon the time there was nothing and the next instant there was everything. Where did the matter and energy come from?

I don't think that's a good description of the Big Bang theory, Peter.
What have you read?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#564655

From	xxein1@att.net
Date	2016-03-22 16:33 -0700
Message-ID	<27de6bde-b3c7-45cc-8fff-c68cde82d997@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#564308

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:26:02 PM UTC-4, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Riedt's Cosmology
> 
> I. The big bang
> 
> Once upon the time there was nothing and the next instant there was everything. Where did the matter and energy come from?
> 
> II. A more likely theory
> 
> The universe existed always and evolved in four stages:
> From the pre-universe to the proto universe to the visible universe and finally to the biological universe. Five laws governed and continue to govern the process: the law of creation (evolution), the law of maintenance, the law of decay, the law of chaos and the law of order. The pre-universe was occupied by one substance, the aether. It partially changed to matter in the last three stages of the universe and continues to do so.
> 
> III.
> In the third stage, about 14 billion years ago, large matter aggregations (stars) started to radiate light which was visible to life forms in the fourth stage, the biological universe. Before a star was able to radiate light, it had to be formed over a period of time which may have also been billions of years.
> 
> A star has two functions; to generate radiation which creates and maintains life and secondly to generate the force which powers the motion of celestial objects by gravity. 
>  
> IV.
> Every star system is a closed system in respect of gravity. The mass of a star determines the total gravitational force which it can generate and apply to all matter within its gravity sphere. In the solar system the energy exerted by the sun to keep the nine planets in orbit can be calculated by the formula E = GM*mpl/(2*dm):
> 
> 	    GM	            mpl 	         dm	      E=GM*mpl/(2*d)
> MER 	1.3271E+20	3.3022E+23	   57,909,231,029	  3.7839E+32
> VEN 	1.3271E+20	4.8685E+24	  108,209,525,401	  2.9855E+33
> EAR 	1.3271E+20	5.9736E+24	  149,598,319,494	  2.6497E+33
> MAR 	1.3271E+20	6.4185E+23	  227,943,771,564	  1.8685E+32
> JUP 	1.3271E+20	1.8986E+27	  778,342,761,465	  1.6186E+35
> SAT 	1.3271E+20	5.6846E+26	1,426,714,892,866	  2.6439E+34
> URA 	1.3271E+20	8.6810E+25	2,870,633,540,862	  2.0067E+33
> NEP 	1.3271E+20	1.0243E+26	4,498,393,012,162	  1.5110E+33
> PLU 	1.3271E+20	1.2500E+22	5,906,438,090,764	  1.4043E+29
> 				
> 			                   Total energy in Joules 1.9802E+35 
> 
> Peter Riedt

xxein:  There is no idea of how or why I created anything.

Oh hell (again).  All I did was create one imagination.  That imagination is all there is.  It disappoints me.  It acts unruly. I think I will make it cease to exist.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →

csiph-web

Riedt's Cosmology

Contents

#564462

#564565

#564470

#564557

#564584

#564551

#564446

#564448

#564466

#564434

#564665

#564745

#564749

#564758

#564766

#564769

#564815

#564946

#564435

#564655