Prev: How can the MMx math be corrected?
Next: The center of space
From: xxein on 19 Apr 2010 22:32
On Apr 19, 6:37 pm, "CENTRINO" <n...(a)ninelandia.com> wrote:
> The fact among others that universe is expanding and its expansion is
> accelerating
>
> ¿Could it be due the ever decreasing mass ?
>
> Stars are contineously burning mass, so mass decreases, and so does gravity.
>
> Loss of mass should not be for free, perhaps it has a double effect: mass
> turns into difuse radiation ... and ...  expansion becouse of constant
> decrement of gravity.
>
> ¿Has it been taken into account in usual theories?
>
> Just a dark matter working hipotessis.

xxein: Be careful how you think of this. But I can sort of agree
with your concern.

For some reason, we exist and can see what we can see and the
existence other things that we do for their movement. It does not
mean we see in a simultaneous time fashion. We see and measure as
light comes to us. We make a theory that seems to cover lightspeed
and it seems to describe how it affects things.

One such theory I attribute to Lorentz (although he had
predecessors). But there was a gravity and Einstein tried to describe
it using the Lorentian with the obvious effects of observable gravity
and how it affected things.

But where did such a mass come from? It is a long but simple story.
You will probably not WANT to understand it all. But if you are
inclined to big bang, you can probably realise this. You will have to
in order to understand the big bang at all.

How did energy/matter concentrate to produce a big bang? How did it
produce matter out of it's energy release? What is the mechanism for
gravity? Why is an Eath matter something like 10^28 in density of
energy itself compared to free energy?

You can ask me later how this comforms to the structural integrity and
transformatiom of such as our universe but I am too tired to do this
right now. Tweak it out of me tomorrow.
From: xxein on 19 Apr 2010 22:35
On Apr 19, 6:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 3:37 pm, "CENTRINO" <n...(a)ninelandia.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact among others that universe is expanding and its expansion is
> > accelerating
>
> > ¿Could it be due the ever decreasing mass ?
>
> > Stars are contineously burning mass, so mass decreases, and so does gravity.
>
> > Loss of mass should not be for free, perhaps it has a double effect: mass
> > turns into difuse radiation ... and ...  expansion becouse of constant
> > decrement of gravity.
>
> > ¿Has it been taken into account in usual theories?
>
> > Just a dark matter working hipotessis.
>
> Light energy leaves the star. The star liberated that energy from a
> little of its gasses fused mass. This is perfect.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

xxein: Perfect what??? Explain that.
From: BURT on 19 Apr 2010 22:56
On Apr 19, 7:32 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 6:37 pm, "CENTRINO" <n...(a)ninelandia.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact among others that universe is expanding and its expansion is
> > accelerating
>
> > ¿Could it be due the ever decreasing mass ?
>
> > Stars are contineously burning mass, so mass decreases, and so does gravity.
>
> > Loss of mass should not be for free, perhaps it has a double effect: mass
> > turns into difuse radiation ... and ...  expansion becouse of constant
> > decrement of gravity.
>
> > ¿Has it been taken into account in usual theories?
>
> > Just a dark matter working hipotessis.
>
> xxein:  Be careful how you think of this.  But I can sort of agree
> with your concern.
>
> For some reason, we exist and can see what we can see and the
> existence other things that we do for their movement.  It does not
> mean we see in a simultaneous time fashion.  We see and measure as
> light comes to us.  We make a theory that seems to cover lightspeed
> and it seems to describe how it affects things.
>
> One such theory I attribute to Lorentz (although he had
> predecessors).  But there was a gravity and Einstein tried to describe
> it using the Lorentian with the obvious effects of observable gravity
> and how it affected things.
>
> But where did such a mass come from?  It is a long but simple story.
> You will probably not WANT to understand it all.  But if you are
> inclined to big bang, you can probably realise this.  You will have to
> in order to understand the big bang at all.
>
> How did energy/matter concentrate to produce a big bang?  How did it
> produce matter out of it's energy release?  What is the mechanism for
> gravity?  Why is an Eath matter something like 10^28 in density of
> energy itself compared to free energy?
>
> You can ask me later how this comforms to the structural integrity and
> transformatiom of such as our universe but I am too tired to do this
> right now.  Tweak it out of me tomorrow.

How do we see what is going on if most electromagnetism is dark?

I do not think we know much of what is going on in astrophysics.

Mitch Raemsch
From: xxein on 20 Apr 2010 21:57
On Apr 19, 10:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 7:32 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 6:37 pm, "CENTRINO" <n...(a)ninelandia.com> wrote:
>
> > > The fact among others that universe is expanding and its expansion is
> > > accelerating
>
> > > ¿Could it be due the ever decreasing mass ?
>
> > > Stars are contineously burning mass, so mass decreases, and so does gravity.
>
> > > Loss of mass should not be for free, perhaps it has a double effect: mass
> > > turns into difuse radiation ... and ...  expansion becouse of constant
> > > decrement of gravity.
>
> > > ¿Has it been taken into account in usual theories?
>
> > > Just a dark matter working hipotessis.
>
> > xxein:  Be careful how you think of this.  But I can sort of agree
> > with your concern.
>
> > For some reason, we exist and can see what we can see and the
> > existence other things that we do for their movement.  It does not
> > mean we see in a simultaneous time fashion.  We see and measure as
> > light comes to us.  We make a theory that seems to cover lightspeed
> > and it seems to describe how it affects things.
>
> > One such theory I attribute to Lorentz (although he had
> > predecessors).  But there was a gravity and Einstein tried to describe
> > it using the Lorentian with the obvious effects of observable gravity
> > and how it affected things.
>
> > But where did such a mass come from?  It is a long but simple story.
> > You will probably not WANT to understand it all.  But if you are
> > inclined to big bang, you can probably realise this.  You will have to
> > in order to understand the big bang at all.
>
> > How did energy/matter concentrate to produce a big bang?  How did it
> > produce matter out of it's energy release?  What is the mechanism for
> > gravity?  Why is an Eath matter something like 10^28 in density of
> > energy itself compared to free energy?
>
> > You can ask me later how this comforms to the structural integrity and
> > transformatiom of such as our universe but I am too tired to do this
> > right now.  Tweak it out of me tomorrow.
>
> How do we see what is going on if most electromagnetism is dark?
>
> I do not think we know much of what is going on in astrophysics.
>
> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

xxein: Then don't make declaratory statements about it.
From: BURT on 20 Apr 2010 22:14
On Apr 20, 6:57 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 10:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 7:32 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 19, 6:37 pm, "CENTRINO" <n...(a)ninelandia.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The fact among others that universe is expanding and its expansion is
> > > > accelerating
>
> > > > ¿Could it be due the ever decreasing mass ?
>
> > > > Stars are contineously burning mass, so mass decreases, and so does gravity.
>
> > > > Loss of mass should not be for free, perhaps it has a double effect: mass
> > > > turns into difuse radiation ... and ...  expansion becouse of constant
> > > > decrement of gravity.
>
> > > > ¿Has it been taken into account in usual theories?
>
> > > > Just a dark matter working hipotessis.
>
> > > xxein:  Be careful how you think of this.  But I can sort of agree
> > > with your concern.
>
> > > For some reason, we exist and can see what we can see and the
> > > existence other things that we do for their movement.  It does not
> > > mean we see in a simultaneous time fashion.  We see and measure as
> > > light comes to us.  We make a theory that seems to cover lightspeed
> > > and it seems to describe how it affects things.
>
> > > One such theory I attribute to Lorentz (although he had
> > > predecessors).  But there was a gravity and Einstein tried to describe
> > > it using the Lorentian with the obvious effects of observable gravity
> > > and how it affected things.
>
> > > But where did such a mass come from?  It is a long but simple story..
> > > You will probably not WANT to understand it all.  But if you are
> > > inclined to big bang, you can probably realise this.  You will have to
> > > in order to understand the big bang at all.
>
> > > How did energy/matter concentrate to produce a big bang?  How did it
> > > produce matter out of it's energy release?  What is the mechanism for
> > > gravity?  Why is an Eath matter something like 10^28 in density of
> > > energy itself compared to free energy?
>
> > > You can ask me later how this comforms to the structural integrity and
> > > transformatiom of such as our universe but I am too tired to do this
> > > right now.  Tweak it out of me tomorrow.
>
> > How do we see what is going on if most electromagnetism is dark?
>
> > I do not think we know much of what is going on in astrophysics.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> xxein:  Then don't make declaratory statements about it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Since when did I declare astrophysics xxein?

I have a theory of whole gravity. And I see that Dark Matter would
make up most of the solar system if it had a common origin at the Big
Bang.

Mitch Raemsch
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: How can the MMx math be corrected?
Next: The center of space