How Roy Masters tried to disprove the Big Bang
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Twins Paradox doesn't add up with light
Next: Terra incognita, Sacred ground, Mysterious territory.
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 13:24 On May 20, 6:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 19, 8:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 19, 5:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 19, 4:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 11:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 1:43 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 10:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 4:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 2:04 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 12:45 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem Mr. Masters has pointed out is the gravity of the first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > matter must keep it from expanding. Gerard Hooft shows the solution to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this problem set out by Roy Masters. Hooft proposed a ring Big Bang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where energy is created spread out and expansion of the universe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overcomes its original gravity. Edward Witten also proposes an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > original spread out energy but for him it was string. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Real physicists do not care what some radio guru with no remaining > > > > > > > > > > > > > brain cells says about science. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still the challenge requires resolution. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I don't think so, Mitch. > > > > > > > > > > > There are people that challenge that smoking is bad for your health. > > > > > > > > > > > Does this challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > > There are people that believe the Earth is 6600 years old. Does this > > > > > > > > > > > challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > > There are people that challenge that metals are made of atoms? Does > > > > > > > > > > > this challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the key ingredients to intelligence is knowing which challenges > > > > > > > > > > > are worth completely ignoring. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > This challenge is worth debating as it can lead science to a place of > > > > > > > > > > better understanding. > > > > > > > > > > As I said, just because it's a challenge does not make it worth > > > > > > > > > debating. > > > > > > > > > > > What we want a better understanding of is the > > > > > > > > > > Absolute Beginning of the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > "The problem in physics is to find the problem." Richard Feynmann > > > > > > > > And knowing which things are not problems. > > > > > > > > > How then does the universe expand against infinite gravity of a > > > > > > > > metterial singularity? > > > > > > > > What infinite gravity? The gravity outside even a black hole's event > > > > > > > horizon isn't infinite. > > > > > > > > > This question is worth debating. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > The sigularity is infinite gravity even according to Stephen Hawking. > > > > > > But that's at the singularity. The universe isn't expanding at the > > > > > singularity. It's expanding outside the event horizon. > > > > > But the singlarity is the entire mass of the universe and must expand > > > > against that gravity. > > > > What? No. The big bang is not a black hole. Different things entirely.. > > > Then stop comparing them. > > I haven't. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > "GR predicts its own downfall by predicting singularities." > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > I- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes you have. You compared the Big Bang to a black hole. That of course is the problem. If it is it can't expand. But there are no such things as black holes. They violate the motion laws. What we are seeing is short of a black hole but the extreme of a red shift. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 20 May 2010 13:36 On May 20, 12:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 6:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 8:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 19, 3:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 5:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 19, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 4:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 11:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 1:43 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 10:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 4:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 2:04 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 12:45 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem Mr. Masters has pointed out is the gravity of the first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > matter must keep it from expanding. Gerard Hooft shows the solution to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this problem set out by Roy Masters. Hooft proposed a ring Big Bang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where energy is created spread out and expansion of the universe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overcomes its original gravity. Edward Witten also proposes an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > original spread out energy but for him it was string. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Real physicists do not care what some radio guru with no remaining > > > > > > > > > > > > > > brain cells says about science. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still the challenge requires resolution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I don't think so, Mitch. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are people that challenge that smoking is bad for your health. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > > > There are people that believe the Earth is 6600 years old. Does this > > > > > > > > > > > > challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > > > There are people that challenge that metals are made of atoms? Does > > > > > > > > > > > > this challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the key ingredients to intelligence is knowing which challenges > > > > > > > > > > > > are worth completely ignoring. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > This challenge is worth debating as it can lead science to a place of > > > > > > > > > > > better understanding. > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, just because it's a challenge does not make it worth > > > > > > > > > > debating. > > > > > > > > > > > > What we want a better understanding of is the > > > > > > > > > > > Absolute Beginning of the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > "The problem in physics is to find the problem." Richard Feynmann > > > > > > > > > And knowing which things are not problems. > > > > > > > > > > How then does the universe expand against infinite gravity of a > > > > > > > > > metterial singularity? > > > > > > > > > What infinite gravity? The gravity outside even a black hole's event > > > > > > > > horizon isn't infinite. > > > > > > > > > > This question is worth debating. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > The sigularity is infinite gravity even according to Stephen Hawking. > > > > > > > But that's at the singularity. The universe isn't expanding at the > > > > > > singularity. It's expanding outside the event horizon. > > > > > > But the singlarity is the entire mass of the universe and must expand > > > > > against that gravity. > > > > > What? No. The big bang is not a black hole. Different things entirely. > > > > Then stop comparing them. > > > I haven't. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > "GR predicts its own downfall by predicting singularities." > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > I- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Yes you have. You compared the Big Bang to a black hole. Link to where I said that? I believe you just made that up, Mitch. Just like you made up what you thought Kip Thorne said, and you even made up page numbers for me to look up. Sure enough, you lied. Mitch, life is going to be a whole lot easier if you stop making things up and then lying that other people are saying the same thing as you. > That of > course is the problem. If it is it can't expand. But there are no such > things as black holes. They violate the motion laws. What we are > seeing is short of a black hole but the extreme of a red shift. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 20 May 2010 13:52 On May 20, 11:58 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > PD schrieb: > > > On May 20, 10:19 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > >> PD schrieb: > > >>> On May 20, 3:49 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > >>>> PD schrieb: > >>>> You know the Sierpinski triangle? That is a two dimensional fractal > >>>> pattern. Now take a triangle and treat it as a vertical cross section of > >>>> a cone. Than apply feedback. That goes in the scheme of a vortex. That > >>>> has a rotation around the axis of that cone and let the cone advance by > >>>> one step for each 'round-trip'. > >>>> The feedback stems from rotation, that turn in opposite direction and > >>>> each is represented by a quaternion, that are inverses to each other.. > >>>> Each quaternion represents a tetrahedron and we have two, that point in > >>>> opposite direction. They build a sphere, that they touch from the > >>>> inside. This has a frequency associated - due to feedback, that is > >>>> inverse to its size, of what we have a large varity. > >>>> This build a fractal pattern, if different sizes are superimposed. This > >>>> is my assumption about some kind of fundamental mechanism we find in nature. > >>>> TH > >>> Sorry, this doesn't help. I'm going to need the math. > >> There are a number of problems to be solved. One is, that this a > >> different concept than current ones. I can connect the described system > >> to various known phenomena. But the explanation is always different. > >> This is like reinventing physics and that is too much for a single person. > > > I disagree. There are a number of people who have done the work you > > say is impossible for one person to do. You just perhaps need to apply > > yourself harder and learn some of the skills you are lacking, rather > > than just pleading for help promoting a half-baked idea. > > Well, I guess You are right. > I had the idea, that this concept might be of general interest, so I > wanted to show what I've got until now. Then I suggest you approach it like a business proposition. A nice idea is fine, but until you have a business plan and a proof of concept, you will not attract investors. You actually do have to get it past the cocktail napkin stage before anyone will treat it at all seriously. Nor will anyone help you develop the business plan -- you have to learn how to do that yourself. It's fine to need help past a certain point, but you have to beef up your skills enough to get it to that certain point first. > > Greetings > > TH
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 13:52 On May 20, 10:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 20, 12:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 20, 6:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 19, 8:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 3:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 19, 5:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 19, 4:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 11:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 1:43 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 10:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 4:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 2:04 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 12:45 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem Mr. Masters has pointed out is the gravity of the first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > matter must keep it from expanding. Gerard Hooft shows the solution to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this problem set out by Roy Masters. Hooft proposed a ring Big Bang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where energy is created spread out and expansion of the universe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overcomes its original gravity. Edward Witten also proposes an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > original spread out energy but for him it was string. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Real physicists do not care what some radio guru with no remaining > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > brain cells says about science. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still the challenge requires resolution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I don't think so, Mitch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are people that challenge that smoking is bad for your health. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are people that believe the Earth is 6600 years old. Does this > > > > > > > > > > > > > challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are people that challenge that metals are made of atoms? Does > > > > > > > > > > > > > this challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the key ingredients to intelligence is knowing which challenges > > > > > > > > > > > > > are worth completely ignoring. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > This challenge is worth debating as it can lead science to a place of > > > > > > > > > > > > better understanding. > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, just because it's a challenge does not make it worth > > > > > > > > > > > debating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we want a better understanding of is the > > > > > > > > > > > > Absolute Beginning of the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > "The problem in physics is to find the problem." Richard Feynmann > > > > > > > > > > And knowing which things are not problems. > > > > > > > > > > > How then does the universe expand against infinite gravity of a > > > > > > > > > > metterial singularity? > > > > > > > > > > What infinite gravity? The gravity outside even a black hole's event > > > > > > > > > horizon isn't infinite. > > > > > > > > > > > This question is worth debating. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > The sigularity is infinite gravity even according to Stephen Hawking. > > > > > > > > But that's at the singularity. The universe isn't expanding at the > > > > > > > singularity. It's expanding outside the event horizon. > > > > > > > But the singlarity is the entire mass of the universe and must expand > > > > > > against that gravity. > > > > > > What? No. The big bang is not a black hole. Different things entirely. > > > > > Then stop comparing them. > > > > I haven't. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > "GR predicts its own downfall by predicting singularities." > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > I- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Yes you have. You compared the Big Bang to a black hole. > > Link to where I said that? I believe you just made that up, Mitch. > Just like you made up what you thought Kip Thorne said, and you even > made up page numbers for me to look up. Sure enough, you lied. > > Mitch, life is going to be a whole lot easier if you stop making > things up and then lying that other people are saying the same thing > as you. > > > > > That of > > course is the problem. If it is it can't expand. But there are no such > > things as black holes. They violate the motion laws. What we are > > seeing is short of a black hole but the extreme of a red shift. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - A singularity would have maximum if not infinite gravity. Roy Masters points out the problem that the beginning of the universe can't be like that. The solution is a Ring Big Bang that starts with space and spread out energy. Gerard Hooft advocated for a ring big bang at the time Stephen Hawking said singularity. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 20 May 2010 13:55
On May 20, 1:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 10:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 12:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 20, 6:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 8:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 19, 3:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 5:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 19, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 4:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 11:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 1:43 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 10:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 4:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 2:04 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 12:45 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem Mr. Masters has pointed out is the gravity of the first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > matter must keep it from expanding. Gerard Hooft shows the solution to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this problem set out by Roy Masters. Hooft proposed a ring Big Bang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where energy is created spread out and expansion of the universe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overcomes its original gravity. Edward Witten also proposes an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > original spread out energy but for him it was string. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Real physicists do not care what some radio guru with no remaining > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > brain cells says about science. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Still the challenge requires resolution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I don't think so, Mitch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are people that challenge that smoking is bad for your health. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are people that believe the Earth is 6600 years old. Does this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are people that challenge that metals are made of atoms? Does > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this challenge require resolution? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the key ingredients to intelligence is knowing which challenges > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are worth completely ignoring. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This challenge is worth debating as it can lead science to a place of > > > > > > > > > > > > > better understanding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, just because it's a challenge does not make it worth > > > > > > > > > > > > debating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we want a better understanding of is the > > > > > > > > > > > > > Absolute Beginning of the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > "The problem in physics is to find the problem." Richard Feynmann > > > > > > > > > > > And knowing which things are not problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > How then does the universe expand against infinite gravity of a > > > > > > > > > > > metterial singularity? > > > > > > > > > > > What infinite gravity? The gravity outside even a black hole's event > > > > > > > > > > horizon isn't infinite. > > > > > > > > > > > > This question is worth debating. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > The sigularity is infinite gravity even according to Stephen Hawking. > > > > > > > > > But that's at the singularity. The universe isn't expanding at the > > > > > > > > singularity. It's expanding outside the event horizon. > > > > > > > > But the singlarity is the entire mass of the universe and must expand > > > > > > > against that gravity. > > > > > > > What? No. The big bang is not a black hole. Different things entirely. > > > > > > Then stop comparing them. > > > > > I haven't. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > "GR predicts its own downfall by predicting singularities.." > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > I- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Yes you have. You compared the Big Bang to a black hole. > > > Link to where I said that? I believe you just made that up, Mitch. > > Just like you made up what you thought Kip Thorne said, and you even > > made up page numbers for me to look up. Sure enough, you lied. > > > Mitch, life is going to be a whole lot easier if you stop making > > things up and then lying that other people are saying the same thing > > as you. > > > > That of > > > course is the problem. If it is it can't expand. But there are no such > > > things as black holes. They violate the motion laws. What we are > > > seeing is short of a black hole but the extreme of a red shift. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > A singularity would have maximum if not infinite gravity. Roy Masters > points out the problem that the beginning of the universe can't be > like that. > > The solution is a Ring Big Bang that starts with space and spread out > energy. > Gerard Hooft advocated for a ring big bang at the time Stephen > Hawking said singularity. > > Mitch Raemsch The universe is, or the local universe is in, a jet stream. The following image is not of a singularity. The following image is of an ongoing process: http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html Superimpose the above image on the following image and that is a more correct representation of what is actually occurring: http://www.feandft.com/BlackHole.jpg |