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


Groups > alt.astronomy > #279066

Re: INFINITY

Message-ID <56478FA8.F05@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
Date 2015-11-14 11:46 -0800
From The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups alt.astronomy, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity
Subject Re: INFINITY
References (8 earlier) <5644CEEF.2BAD@ix.netcom.com> <Ye2dneGJ5rgITdnLnZ2dnUU7-I2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <16d55628-f87f-4c8b-80a2-884c121b1691@googlegroups.com> <56459072.3A14@ix.netcom.com> <5646797D.6B9B@ix.netcom.com>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw


The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:47:05 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > On 11/12/15 11:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Where do you think the universe came from?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
> > > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle
> > > >    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8FTr2qMutA
> > > >
> > > >    Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that it is
> > > >    impossible to simultaneously measure the position and
> > > >    momentum of a particle with arbitrary precision. In our
> > > >    everyday lives we virtually never come up against this
> > > >    limit, hence why it seems peculiar. In this experiment a
> > > >    laser is shone through a narrow slit onto a screen. As the
> > > >    slit is made narrower, the spot on the screen also becomes
> > > >    narrower. But at a certain point, the spot starts becoming
> > > >    wider. This is because the photons of light have been so
> > > >    localised at the slit that their horizontal momentum must
> > > >    become less well defined in order to satisfy Heisenberg's
> > > >    uncertainty principle.
> > > >
> > > > Quantum vacuum fluctuation (or Quantum Fluctuation for short)
> > > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
> > > >
> > > > Quoting from the above Wikipedia page:
> > > >
> > > >    "In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or
> > > >    quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary
> > > >    change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising
> > > >    from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
> > > >
> > > >    "According to one formulation of the principle, energy and
> > > >    time can be related by the relation
> > > >
> > > >        ∆E · ∆t ≥ h/4π
> > > >
> > > >    "That means that conservation of energy can appear to be
> > > >    violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation
> > > >    of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The
> > > >    effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in
> > > >    the effective charge of the electron, different from its
> > > >    "naked" charge.
> > > >
> > > >    "In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the
> > > >    eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not
> > > >    the same as (i.e., the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the
> > > >    particle number operators.
> > > >
> > > >    "Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the
> > > >    origin of the structure of the universe: according to the
> > > >    model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation
> > > >    began were amplified and formed the seed of all current
> > > >    observed structure."
> > > >
> > > > Quoting from A USENET Posting by Steve Carlip (UC Davis):
> > > >
> > > >    "CMB fluctuations give evidence for (though not proof of)
> > > >    inflation.
> > > >
> > > >    "So far, I haven't said anything about where the initial
> > > >    density variations of the pre-recombination plasma came
> > > >    from. There are many possibilities. We know, at least, that
> > > >    they must be there -- even if we try to start with a
> > > >    perfectly smooth, unvarying plasma, the Heisenberg
> > > >    uncertainty principle tells us that there must be a minimum
> > > >    level of quantum fluctuations.
> > > >
> > > >         ∆E · ∆t ≥  h/4π
> > > >
> > > >    "Inflationary" models propose that the very early Universe
> > > >    -- before the time of primordial nucleosynthesis --
> > > >    underwent a very rapid expansion. Such an expansion would
> > > >    smooth out/dilute any earlier inhomogeneities, leaving only
> > > >    the quantum fluctuations, which would be "stretched" in size
> > > >    by the rapidly expanding space.
> > > >
> > > >    "Such models predict a special pattern of fluctuations. In
> > > >    particular, although any particular fluctuation is random,
> > > >    the average number at any particular scale is predictable.
> > > >    This pattern on initial variations, in turn, should show up
> > > >    in the details of the CMB variations. So far, observations
> > > >    match the predictions of inflation very well. Most people in
> > > >    the field don't consider this conclusive -- one can imagine
> > > >    other ways of getting a similar pattern of initial
> > > >    perturbations -- but it is suggestive."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> > > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> > > > community, and physics-related social issues.
> > >
> > > How did the inflationary period attenuate?
> >
> > You talk about "inflationary" as if is real...it's just a  fudge factor.
> >
> > It's used to add fudge to 'the big bang'.
> >
> > What i find strange is...
> >
> > that the majority of the
> > 'scientific community'
> > talk as
> > believe that
> > think that
> > say that
> > 'the big bang' happen.
> >
> > It's not even a Fact.
> >
> > The Big Bang is not a fact.
> >
> > That aside...
> >
> > I have a photograph
> > that shows you what the big bang looked like
> > a few seconds after it happen.
> >
> > You will see the big bang
> > in a color photograph...
> > and at the same time you
> > can see what existed at the
> > time of the big bang...
> > what I call the stable stars...the green stars.
> >
> > The big bang stars are red shifted because
> > you can see the big bang stars shooting in all
> > directions at once...while the green stars remain stable
> > because they existed before the big bang.
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > The Starmaker
> 
> So..looking at my photo of before and after the big bang...i figured out what caused the big bang.
> 
> What caused the big bang was the acculmulation
> of green stable stars.
> 
> In other words, the green stars
> simply gave birth to more green stars,
> and more green stars, and more green stars,
> and more green stars, and more green stars,
> till there were so many green stars that
> there was no more room.
> 
> Can you imagine how hot it got?
> 
> The green stars were so stable they didn't die...there was
> an over-population of green stars.
> 
> This photo of during the big bang...was differcult to produce..
> 
> but i do have the photo of the crowded green stars...i just didn't know why it was so crowded.
> 
> I'll have to find time to produce that one of the crowded green stars.
> 
> I'm sure you all like to see photographs of what caused the big bang.
> 
> The Starmaker


In other words...
the green stars
created
...Space.

That is why you had the
explosion of Space.

Or, what yous call a big bang.

In the process
of this new space...
the green stars turned
blue.

Or, white as you see it.

I know that
this is a level
the 'scientific community'
has not reached yet...
so you won't find it in your
wiki books.

I give the
'scientific community'
another thousand years
to catch up to me.

The Starmaker

Back to alt.astronomy | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-10 23:55 -0800
  Re: INFINITY HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-11 19:57 +1100
    Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 08:46 -0600
      Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 11:55 -0800
        Re: INFINITY David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-11-11 14:19 -0600
          Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 13:12 -0800
            Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-11 16:29 -0700
  Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 08:43 -0600
  Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 13:16 -0800
    Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-11 16:28 -0700
    Re: INFINITY gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-11 21:21 -0600
      Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 19:40 -0800
      Re: INFINITY je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-11-12 02:02 -0800
        Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 09:39 -0800
          Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:47 -0600
            Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 23:25 -0800
              Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 09:09 -0600
                Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 15:52 -0500
                Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 15:07 -0600
                Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 15:11 -0600
                Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 16:39 -0500
                Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 16:11 -0600
                Re: INFINITY Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-13 23:44 +0100
                Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 19:39 -0500
                Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 18:50 -0600
                Re: INFINITY kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 04:39 -0500
                Re: INFINITY Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 11:19 -0800
                Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-14 13:21 -0700
                Re: INFINITY Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 14:48 -0800
                Re: INFINITY Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 16:59 -0800
              Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-13 15:59 -0800
                Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-13 18:08 -0700
                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-14 11:46 -0800
                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-14 12:04 -0800
                Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-14 13:15 -0700
                Re: INFINITY palsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 11:34 -0800
                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 14:27 -0800
                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 15:07 -0800
                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 16:23 -0800
                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 21:56 -0800
                Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-16 08:31 -0700
                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-16 11:16 -0800
                Re: INFINITY Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:29 -0600
                Re: INFINITY dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-16 15:50 -0500
                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-16 13:48 -0800
                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-16 14:45 -0800
                Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-17 14:48 -0700
                Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-17 14:47 -0700
                Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-14 13:17 -0700
                Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-15 14:57 -0800
                Re: INFINITY Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-16 11:39 -0700
          Re: INFINITY benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 14:06 -0500
            Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 11:42 -0800
        Re: INFINITY benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 13:15 -0500
          Re: INFINITY Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 10:26 -0800
    Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 19:37 -0800
  Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-11 18:25 -0800
    Re: INFINITY David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-11-12 13:04 -0600
      Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 11:54 -0800
        Re: INFINITY The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-12 22:51 -0800

csiph-web