The Big Bang Theory Big Blunder: An Open Letter to Closed Minds
in [Relativity]
|
From: Albertito on 29 Sep 2009 15:13 On Sep 29, 8:06 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > f5be94af-7f2e-4aee-b04a-67ad61e2b...(a)o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com > > Empty minds were not invited here. > > Dirk Vdm Then, why is this forum full of relativists?
From: PD on 29 Sep 2009 15:51 On Sep 29, 2:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 29, 2:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 29, 11:02 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 29, 11:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 29, 10:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 29, 11:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 6:59 am, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > An Open Letter to Closed Mindshttp://www.s8int.com/bigbang2..html > > > > > > > > > I apologize for my possibly rude words, > > > > > > > > but Einstein's Relativity (both SR & GR) > > > > > > > > along with the Big Bang Theory are all > > > > > > > > > B U L L S H I T ! > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > D E F E C A T I O N ! > > > > > > > > > the biggest damage to the advance of > > > > > > > > science ever! > > > > > > > > The universe is, or the local universe is in, a jet stream. > > > > > > > MPC got tired of replying to himself and is in need of some attention. > > > > > > He won't talk to Phil Bouchard about it, either. > > > > > > The universe is not expanding. It is, or the local universe is in, a > > > > > jet stream. > > > > > Derive from your jet stream idea the value of the Hubble constant. > > > > The universe, or our local universe, has the following shape: > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates#Geodesics > > > > The magnetic plane is simply where we cannot get information from. > > > This is the event horizon of the universe, or the local universe, jet > > > stream. > > > > It appears as though the universe is expanding because everything is > > > 'expanding' relative to where we are and are moving through the jet > > > stream. > > > Notice that you didn't calculate the Hubble constant. > > I realize if something does not fit your ignorance, it is incorrect. Hmmm... looks like English, makes no sense.... > > The universe is, or the local universe is in, a jet stream. Which is a useless statement for making any predictions.
From: Glirdita on 29 Sep 2009 16:04 On Sep 29, 12:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It appears as though the universe is expanding >because everything is 'expanding' relative to where we >are and are moving through the jet stream. That is not the real reason for the red shift in the color of light coming to us from distant locations; which is taken as due to the recessional velocities of the sources wrt us. As said elsewhere in this newsgroup, the reason for the red shift is that, as the Compton effect experimentally proved, when light transits an atom all or SOME of its energy is absorbed and the rest continue on with a bit less e remaining. Therefore the further an s-d node travels and the more atoms it interacts with the less energy it will have as it continues onward in all directions until some of it eventually "fits" the pattern of the atom it happens to be transiting through. When that happens a whole quantum of energy will be absorbed and no s-d imbalance will remain. (The "quantum of energy" so absorbed is equal to hv, where h is a constant but v is the frequency of the interacting bit of light RELATIVE TO THE ATOM
From: Don Gillies on 29 Sep 2009 17:35 Mmm. I think about equally fantastical. My mind has trouble with the "always having been around". Maybe as someone else suggests here, I should have posted to a religious group. But then, not really interested in what they might have to say. (Closed mind on religion) "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ac21820$0$2851$ba620e4c(a)news.skynet.be... > Don Gillies wrote: >> Don't want to get into putdowns and abuse here, and certainly don't >> claim to know much. However, I must say that I find the idea of the >> big bang (a whole lot of stuff appearing out of nothing) just as >> fantastical as the idea that three letters of the alphabet strung >> together to spell "god" explain the creation of the universe. A bit >> more technical detail with the big bang theory, of course, but as far >> as I know, it hasn't got round the difficulty of how something (an >> incredible lot of stuff, actually) came out of nothing. I have often >> felt a bit uneasy about how astronomy books nowdays treat the big >> bang as accepted fact. There was a time, not so long ago, when books >> did present it as supposition. Not sure when the change from >> supposition to accepted dogma came about, but it does look a bit like >> everyone now feels they have to toe the party line. > > You find the idea of the universe appearing out of nothing > fantastical. Would you find the idea of the universe always > having been around (or having appeared out of *something*), > and at the same time conspiring to make us think it appeared > out of nothing, less fantastical? > > Dirk Vdm >
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 29 Sep 2009 17:43
Don Gillies <gillies.don(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message 4ac27d19$0$17749$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au [moved comment down - please do not top post - thx] > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4ac21820$0$2851$ba620e4c(a)news.skynet.be... >> Don Gillies wrote: >>> Don't want to get into putdowns and abuse here, and certainly don't >>> claim to know much. However, I must say that I find the idea of the >>> big bang (a whole lot of stuff appearing out of nothing) just as >>> fantastical as the idea that three letters of the alphabet strung >>> together to spell "god" explain the creation of the universe. A bit >>> more technical detail with the big bang theory, of course, but as far >>> as I know, it hasn't got round the difficulty of how something (an >>> incredible lot of stuff, actually) came out of nothing. I have often >>> felt a bit uneasy about how astronomy books nowdays treat the big >>> bang as accepted fact. There was a time, not so long ago, when books >>> did present it as supposition. Not sure when the change from >>> supposition to accepted dogma came about, but it does look a bit like >>> everyone now feels they have to toe the party line. >> >> You find the idea of the universe appearing out of nothing >> fantastical. Would you find the idea of the universe always >> having been around (or having appeared out of *something*), >> and at the same time conspiring to make us think it appeared >> out of nothing, less fantastical? > > Mmm. I think about equally fantastical. I personally find the latter seriously more fantastical. But I think that universe doesn't really care. > My mind has trouble with the "always > having been around". Maybe as someone else suggests here, I should have > posted to a religious group. But then, not really interested in what they > might have to say. (Closed mind on religion) Welcome to the club :-) Dirk Vdm |