Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #707676 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-13 16:08 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-11-07 19:19 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 83 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:08 +0100
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 10:49 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 10:58 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 11:06 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:11 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:10 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:08 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 14:03 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 18:27 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 21:36 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-14 13:44 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 11:24 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 08:45 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 12:06 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 17:32 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 21:15 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 02:51 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 23:00 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 11:24 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 08:12 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 12:39 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-15 10:34 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 21:18 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-15 10:32 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 21:17 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-15 20:57 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 08:10 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 11:00 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 18:49 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-13 13:48 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 15:33 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 20:43 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 18:36 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 23:10 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 08:35 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 13:47 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 23:06 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-14 15:02 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 10:34 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 18:48 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 19:01 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 23:12 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 19:01 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 23:17 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 13:10 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 16:09 +0100
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 12:37 +0100
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 08:43 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 12:14 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 17:51 +0100
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:32 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 20:13 +0100
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 15:50 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 10:27 +0100
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 07:56 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 22:35 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 22:52 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 09:26 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 23:12 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 16:18 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 02:05 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 02:07 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 22:02 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 10:35 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 05:33 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 06:59 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 16:09 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 10:33 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-25 16:30 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 10:02 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 22:09 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 04:02 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 17:48 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 11:15 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-26 11:52 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 22:53 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 06:56 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 10:27 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 12:30 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 10:27 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-17 16:50 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 10:40 +0100
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 19:19 +0000
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 02:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqr8d1$eje$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #709542 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “And is the ratio of two-armed spiral galaxies to one-armed spiral galaxies > equal to 1:3 like the helium:hydrogen abundance? Hmmmmm, John? ” > > And are there VERY few 3-armed galaxies? > And WHAT is that BAR?? > No, not particularly. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 02:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqr8h5$eo4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #709558 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> Odd >> “And is the ratio of two-armed spiral galaxies to one-armed spiral galaxies >> equal to 1:3 like the helium:hydrogen abundance? Hmmmmm, John? ” >> >> And are there VERY few 3-armed galaxies? >> And WHAT is that BAR?? >> > > No, not particularly. > Still haven’t answered the question, John. Why carbon? Why Milky Way? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 22:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80764c73-23ea-45e4-ae0f-544621295fbd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #709560 |
Odd “Occasionally spiral galaxies are encountered which have three well-defined arms instead of the usual two. The kind of perturbation which would create such arms is difficult to hypothesize so this Category has been assembled as a challenge to theories of spiral structure. The clearest examples are often m” Yes- three arms is rare. Milky Way has as many arms as Carbon has electrons. I thought you’ld figure that out
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 10:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqs693$1ra6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #709571 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Occasionally spiral galaxies are encountered which have three > well-defined arms instead of the usual two. The kind of perturbation > which would create such arms is difficult to hypothesize so this Category > has been assembled as a challenge to theories of spiral structure. The > clearest examples are often m” > > Yes- three arms is rare. > > Milky Way has as many arms as Carbon has electrons. Milky Way has four arms. Pay attention, John. Most common atom in the universe has one electron. How many spiral galaxies have one arm? Next most common atom is helium. How many spiral galaxies have two arms? Ignore the annoying facts if you like. It’s your cherry-picking style. > > I thought you’ld figure that out > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 05:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0bb92d9b-6608-4ea4-8448-f49c566e98f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #709588 |
Odd “Ignore the annoying facts if you like. It’s your cherry-picking style. ” You think any 2 inch by 2 inch volume in the Universe should have the same atoms in the same ratios? A piece of quartz has twice as many Hydrogen’s as a piece of Gold? You were right about having a good imagination
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 06:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59d40a9c-6366-47ef-a396-8d048d87977b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #709593 |
Odd “Ignore the annoying facts if you like. It’s your cherry-picking style. ” Like you continue to believe in Dark Matter? Latest findings showing observable matter in galaxies to exactly correspond with their angular momentum would seem to obviate its raisin d’etre Your sky is falling, Odd. You need new books.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqspsb$11rn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #709593 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Ignore the annoying facts if you like. It’s your cherry-picking style. ” > You think any 2 inch by 2 inch volume in the Universe should have the > same atoms in the same ratios? > A piece of quartz has twice as many Hydrogen’s as a piece of Gold? > You were right about having a good imagination > So first of all, why carbon? Carbon has six electrons. Milky Way has four arms. Second, what element are you saying our local region of the universe, spanning say 10,000 galaxies, are you saying is most common? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-26 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f50e299-ec02-4df1-8f23-9ed3c991b7d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #709621 |
Odd “Second, what element are you saying our local region of the universe, spanning say 10,000 galaxies, are you saying is most common? ” Since between 1/3 and 2/3 of observable spirals have bars, and Carbon would be 3-5 arms plus a bar, I now think that our ‘expanding Universe’ might be nothing more than a few square inches of somebody’s wood fire smoke. So the answer is Carbon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 16:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqsr29$plu$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #709542 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"And is the ratio of two-armed spiral galaxies to one-armed spiral galaxies >equal to 1:3 like the helium:hydrogen abundance? Hmmmmm, John? " >And are there VERY few 3-armed galaxies? And are there VERY few 1-armed galaxies??? And why does your babble claim the Milky Way is carbon when it has only 4 arms??? Shouldn't this mean we're in some sort of cosmic beryllium atom?? Where are the 14-armed (silicon) or 26-armed (iron) galaxies??? Have any of those common elements *ever* been found as galaxies? Ever???? None whatsoever? I won't even mention such things as 82 (lead) or 92 (uranium) armed galaxies. You need to take a long break from "Little Pharma".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 10:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8911152-cfce-4571-a985-6b1d908d5436@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #709627 |
MM “And why does your babble claim the Milky Way is carbon when it has only 4 arms??? “ The bar is the first shell, containing two electrons. You do know that Carbon is on the second line of the Periodic Table, right? Here I copied this 4 u “ In an atom, the electrons spin around the center, also called the nucleus. The electrons like to be in separate shells/orbitals. Shell number one can only hold 2 electrons, shell two can hold 8, and for the first eighteen elements shell three can hold a maximum of eight electrons.“
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 22:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqtevf$776$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #709638 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM > “And why does your babble claim the Milky Way is carbon when it has only 4 > arms??? “ > The bar is the first shell, containing two electrons. > You do know that Carbon is on the second line of the Periodic Table, right? > Here I copied this 4 u > “ > In an atom, the electrons spin around the center, also called the > nucleus. The electrons like to be in separate shells/orbitals. Shell > number one can only hold 2 electrons, shell two can hold 8, and for the > first eighteen elements shell three can hold a maximum of eight electrons.“ > Wait, are you ignoring some of the electrons? First time I’ve seen you try to pull that stunt. Dance like a monkey, John. Bob and weave. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-26 04:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3f1b8a0-0c69-407d-81eb-48dc3f1803ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #709676 |
Odd “Wait, are you ignoring some of the electrons? “ Like you ignore that Dark Matter has STILL not been found? Your entire story is a fairytale without it!! Why don’t you look for it? Maybe it’s in wood shavings
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-26 17:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqvk1i$1lb9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #709724 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Wait, are you ignoring some of the electrons? “ > > Like you ignore that Dark Matter has STILL not been found? > Your entire story is a fairytale without it!! > Why don’t you look for it? > Maybe it’s in wood shavings > It took four and a half decades to find the neutrino. It took five decades to find the Higgs. You do not have the stamina or fortitude for particle physics. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-26 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1eac576-547e-4a9d-b4ea-fea6c77d7130@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #709767 |
Odd “You do not have the stamina or fortitude for particle physics. ” No one does. The God Particle was the Atom. It breaks, sure. Everything breaks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-26 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9a38556-c6c3-4d5a-8244-807c9f036aa7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #709769 |
On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 11:15:16 AM UTC-7, john wrote: > Odd > “You do not have the stamina or fortitude for particle > physics. ” > No one does. > The God Particle was the Atom. > It breaks, sure. > Everything breaks. Atomics don't break. They fuse or fission.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-26 22:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pr05tl$ibg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #709769 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “You do not have the stamina or fortitude for particle > physics. ” > No one does. Taint so, John. It’s only the few like you that don’t. > The God Particle was the Atom. > It breaks, sure. > Everything breaks. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-27 06:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <115b8ba1-658a-4121-af43-d9d1ac3ac569@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #709824 |
Odd “Taint so, John. It’s only the few like you that don’t” ‘Tis so Odd. There are an infinity of particles making up the atom. The atom IS the God particle
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-26 10:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec84042a-4415-4aa5-8238-b1d75558ac41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #709638 |
MM “And why does your babble claim the Milky Way is carbon when it has only 4 arms??? “ Here, Michael- ‘A barred spiral galaxy is a spiral galaxy with a central bar-shaped structure composed of stars. Bars are found in between one third and two thirds of all spiral galaxies. Bars generally affect both the motions of stars and interstellar gas within spiral galaxies and can affect spiral arms as well.’ Okay, we know that atoms have shells: ‘In chemistry and atomic physics, an electron shell, or a principal energy level, may be thought of as an orbit followed by electrons around an atom's nucleus. The closest shell to the nucleus is called the "1 shell", followed by the "2 shell", then the "3 shell", and so on farther and farther from the nucleus. Wikipedia’ So, if the Milky Way is Carbon, it might well have four arms and a central bar structure. It could also have 3 arms or 5 arms- it has to, sometimes, to share with other atoms. Look at my representation of Benzene, and you will see that no disc has fewer than 3 or more than 5 sharing electrons at any time. This was incredibly hard to do. http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/BenzeneE.GIF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 12:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pqacf4$1m7e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #708758 |
On 10/18/2018 5:27 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 17/10/2018 20:50, benj wrote: >> On 10/17/2018 3:13 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>> I'm not keen on "new ideas" myself Benj. Been too many new ideas if >>> you ask me. Back to Euclidean Geometry and Maxwell's Theory is what i >>> want to see eh! >> >> The answer, let me encourage you, is indeed with Maxwell theory and >> Euclidean Geometry! > > Good. > >> What you are missing is that you do not have enough dimensions! Note >> that if space is to "warp" this requires MORE dimensions than those of >> the manifold being bent! > > When i said "Euclidean Geometry", i meant that old fashioned notion > of space with just 3 dimensions, and a quite separate time with just > one dimension, Benj. Like in the good old days, before Einstein eh! Then you have no hope. In science we adjust our theories to fit the evidence not our 'beliefs" to fit our theories. Denying Einstein is stupid. Relativity is real. Denying that the center of the universe is everywhere also denies the very explanations you think are wrong but are built upon your own foundation. If you want to stay stuck in the 19th century like S* then you will be as irrelevant as he is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 10:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <feee429d-541b-4258-9856-0823045f770b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #708642 |
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 12:50:15 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > On 10/17/2018 3:13 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 17/10/2018 18:32, benj wrote: > >> On 10/17/2018 12:51 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> On 17/10/2018 17:14, benj wrote: > >>>> On 10/17/2018 7:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>> On 13/10/2018 16:08, Keith Stein wrote > >>>>>> On 24/03/2018 08:36, Keith Stein wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red > >>>>>> Shifts, it > >>>>>> > occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then > >>>>>> this > >>>>>> > will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing > >>>>>> > distance, as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion > >>>>>> at all. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as > >>>>> glass, or > >>>>> water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES. > >>>>> So how is it that when light slows down traveling across > >>>>> intergalactic space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ? > >>>>> > >>>>> when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of > >>>>> the wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front > >>>>> therefore slows before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the > >>>>> rear of the wave catching up to some extent with the front. Thus > >>>>> the wave train compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES. > >>>>> > >>>>> When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, > >>>>> there is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of > >>>>> the wave train. At any one time the front and back are indeed > >>>>> traveling at the same speed, and therefore the length of the wave > >>>>> train stays constant as it travels through intergalactic space. > >>>>> > >>>>> So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is > >>>>> INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that > >>>>> light is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but > >>>>> rather that it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the > >>>>> velocity of light was higher than it is now. > >>>>> > >>>>> The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on > >>>>> distant galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as > >>>>> that on Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the > >>>>> velocity of light AT THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased > >>>>> wavelength is faithfully transmitted through space, where it is > >>>>> measured in our observatories. > >>>>> > >>>>> keith stein > >>> > >>> > >>>> Sorry Keith but this is wrong on SO many levels! > >>> > >>> No need to apologize Benj, any feedback welcome eh! > >>> > >>> Is it that you're a believer in the "Big Bang Nonsense", > >>> I'm not the only scientist who doubts that old cosmologist's tale > >>> Have you read this? > >>> > >>> http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html > >>> > >>> > >>> "The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a > >>> thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most > >>> luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average > >>> luminosity of the near and far samples. > >>> > >>> Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that > >>> the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. > >>> > >>> These results are consistent with what would be expected from > >>> ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in > >>> contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness > >>> predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis." > >> > >> I had not seen that article. It it excellent new data! I not only do > >> not "believe" in the Big Bang (science has nothing to do with belief) > >> but I long stated (here and other places) it is the biggest mistake in > >> all of physics. And the reason is that one starts with a mistake (red > >> shift is due to Doppler velocity) and then one must start piling on > >> additional mistake after mistake like "dark matter", and such to keep > >> the erroneous ideas going. > > > > Not to mention "Inflation", or the latest abomination "Dark Energy" eh! > > > > > >> As data in article notes, basic idea is not supported which makes the > >> whole cosmological house of cards fall. Important facts to note, > >> however is that Doppler shifts ARE real and cause light shifts due to > >> motion. However the majority of Red shift taken as "proof" of the > >> expansion of the universe is NOT due to velocity. And allow me to say > >> that the theory of "tired light" is wrong as well. > > > > Well the light from distant galaxies is no more tired than the light > > from your computer screen, but it seems reasonable, to me, that as the > > universe "evolves" the intergalactic medium must also "evolve". We > > know from Maxwell's Theory that the velocity of light is dependent on > > the properties of the medium, and so it is certainly not unreasonable > > to believe that the velocity of light will decrease slowly with time. > > Except that it doesn't. The light does not get "tired" over time. Aether > is a "super" material and is lossless. This prevents any decays. > > >> The true causes takes a change in the grand metaparadigms of science > >> and this is why there is such resistance to any new ideas. > > > > I'm not keen on "new ideas" myself Benj. Been too many new ideas if you > > ask me. Back to Euclidean Geometry and Maxwell's Theory is what i want > > to see eh! > > The answer, let me encourage you, is indeed with Maxwell theory and > Euclidean Geometry! What you are missing is that you do not have enough > dimensions! Note that if space is to "warp" this requires MORE > dimensions than those of the manifold being bent! I find it funny that > "modern" physics insists that space "warps" and that the center of the > universe is "everywhere", and then in the same breath totally deny that > reality has more dimensions than 3 plus time! It's a hoot. > > > > > I wrote a paper > >> explaining what really causes Red Shift on one of my websites > >> (www.hypersphere.us) But it had some problem with calculating the > >> diameter of the universe > > > > I might be able to help you with that Benj. > > Theoretically space can be considered to continue > > out to infinity, in all directions. > > and while data is still being collected we > > can say that nothing in so far would give anyone > > cause to doubt that the universe does indeed continue > > forever eh! > > Lots of cause. How does one explain the "edge" of the universe? It's the > old "sailing off the edge of the flat earth" problem! Consider an > alternative. The universe as a sphere, or more exactly a "hypersphere". > Now the edge problem is solved. Now there can be a theory that the red > shift in light is a function of the geometry and the angle the light > makes with our space. > > > so I took it down until I get it fixed. > > > > Well if that helps you to get it back up, maybe i take a look, > > but in the meantime i'm backing the light slowing in the evolving > > cosmos myself Benj. Photons never get tired Never change speed.and do not bounce.Their time is always "NOW" Their energy is shown by their wave length.Gamma high Radio Low.Thus radio waves can be very long.Gamma photons can kick electrons off a metal surface. Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web