New-found galaxies may be farthest back in time and space yet
Sam Wormley
New-found galaxies may be farthest back in time and space yet
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/52404/title/New-found_galaxies_may_be_farthest_back_in_time_and_space_yet
Potential finding uses data that push limits of current technology.
Mike Jr
> New-found galaxies may be farthest back in time and space yethttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/52404/title/New-found_gala...
> Potential finding uses data that push limits of current technology.
"The astronomers caution that because the galaxies they found with
Hubble are seen at only one wavelength, it’s not certain that the
bodies are extremely distant; they could just be red and faint. “We
certainly don’t have smoking gun evidence,” says study coleader
Rychard Bouwens of the University of California, Santa Cruz. “We just
have tantalizing evidence that suggests we may be identifying a few
[extremely distant] galaxies.”"
"It’s likely that none of the distant galaxy candidates can be
confirmed until the launch of Hubble’s powerful infrared successor,
the James Webb Space Telescope ...."
Got to justify that funding. :-)
--Mike Jr.
Yousuf Khan
With only 1 wavelength registering on Hubble, they're going to need more
lines from the infrared part of the spectrum to confirm any of this.
Looks like they should use Herschel.
Yousuf Khan
Ken S. Tucker
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > New-found galaxies may be farthest back in time and space yet
> > Potential finding uses data that push limits of current technology.
>
> With only 1 wavelength registering on Hubble, they're going to need more
> lines from the infrared part of the spectrum to confirm any of this.
> Looks like they should use Herschel.
> Yousuf Khan
Well the 'red-shift' should take us into the Radio frequency region
then to the 3K
cosmic background going back in time (& space) far enough, and using
an
infinite universe that's what leaks into our locality.
Ken
Sam Wormley
CMB is in the microwave band. Fist Stars come considerably
later (not as much red shift)
See: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060323.html
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
Ken S. Tucker
Hi Sam.....
Whatever religion you want Sam, General Relativity provides a
"red shift" without Doppler recession, GR doesn't need Big Bang.
But if you want a mortal universe, made in the image of orgasm,
you got lot's of company and sells books.
Ken
Sam Wormley
You know, Ken...
>
> Interview with Physicist Steven Weinberg
> <A HREF="http://www.meta-library.net/transcript/wein-body.html"><FONT COLOR=DARKBLUE>http://www.meta-library.net/transcript/wein-body.html</FONT></A>
>
> QUESTION: You have written that the more comprehensible the
> universe becomes the more pointless it seems. Could you explain
> what you mean by that?
>
> DR. WEINBERG: Years ago I wrote a book about cosmology, and near
> the end I tried to summarize the view of the expanding universe and
> the laws of nature. And I made the remark - I guess I was foolish
> enough to make the remark - <FONT COLOR=DARKRED>that the more the universe seems
> comprehensible the more it seems pointless.</FONT> And that remark has
> been quoted more than anything else I've ever said. It's even in
> Bartlett's Quotations. I think it's been the truth in the past that
> it was widely hoped that by studying nature we will find the sign
> of a grand plan, in which human beings play a particularly
> distinguished starring role. And that has not happened. I think
> that more and more the picture of nature, the outside world, has
> been one of an impersonal world governed by mathematical laws that
> are not particularly concerned with human beings, in which human
> beings appear as a chance phenomenon, not the goal toward which the
> universe is directed. And for some this has no effect on their
> religion. Their religion never looked for any kind of point in
> nature. For others this is appalling, the idea that all of the
> stars and galaxies and atoms are going about their business, and
> it's just by accident that here on this solar system the peculiar
> chemical properties of DNA acting over billions of years have
> produced these people who have been able to talk and look around
> and enjoy life. For some people that picture is antithetical to the
> view of nature and the world that their religion had given them.
>
> QUESTION: Do you believe then there is no overall point to the
> universe?
>
> DR. WEINBERG: I believe that there is no point in the universe that
> can be discovered by the methods of science. I believe that what we
> have found so far, an impersonal universe in which it is not
> particularly directed toward human beings is what we are going to
> continue to find. And that when we find the ultimate laws of nature
> they will have a chilling, cold impersonal quality about them.
>
> I don't think this means [however] there's no point to life.
> Usually the remark is quoted just as it stands. But if anyone read
> the next paragraph, they would see that I went on to say that if
> there is no point in the universe that we discover by the methods
> of science, there is a point that we can give the universe by the
> way we live, by loving each other, by discovering things about
> nature, by creating works of art. And that -- in a way, although we
> are not the stars in a cosmic drama, <FONT COLOR=DARKRED>if the only drama we're
> starring in is one that we are making up as we go along, it is not
> entirely ignoble that faced with this unloving, impersonal universe
> we make a little island of warmth and love and science and art for
> ourselves. That's not an entirely despicable role for us to play.</FONT>
>
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>Whatever religion you want Sam, General Relativity provides a
>"red shift" without Doppler recession, GR doesn't need Big Bang.
The observed redshift of distant objects has nothing to do with Doppler
shift. GR doesn't need the BB, but the BB is well supported by GR.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
oriel36
> No Center
The ideology of 'big bang' is a logical conclusion of an Ra/Dec
framework ,an insanity that totally disregards interpretation and
renders observations into modelling without any intellectual
restraint,basically the same as considering the Earth a greenhouse and
using carbon dioxide as a temperature dial.
The very statement you suggest of 'no center' or 'every-point-is-the-
center' was looked upon by the geocentric astronomers,at least the
ones who saw the need for planetary dynamics and a new way of
thinking, as a true horror -
"... And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at
the center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so
that the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa,astronomer and Archbishop, 1500's
Western civilization has come as close to intellectual annihilation as
it ever has by being acted upon from the inside,the dangerous
situation where people were close to having their existence controlled
on account of a minor atmospheric gas and barely escaped is enough to
treat the founding fraud of the late 17th century seriously.Never
again should humanity ever have to suffer the dishonorable junk dumped
into the celestial arena under the name of astronomy yet it all has a
beginning when one man jumped to a false conclusion based on
timekeeping averages -
"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical..." Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677
That totally bankrupt Ra/Dec statement became the 'predictive' bridge
between planetary dynamics and experimental sciences leading to the
intellectual nadir of Western civilization - the idea that humans by
some act of doing or undoing can control global temperatures within a
certain range.
Chris.B
Ken S. Tucker
Thanks for the refs (below) Sam.
A minor point I think is that we can take a gamma-ray and 'red-shift'
by either a Doppler or gravitational interaction, into the 3K
microwave
region.
Most choose Doppler with BB and then end up with a finite cosmology,
in spacetime. (I prefer GR, but that's just me).
Following Yousuf, and learning to photograph in microwave frequencies
and then seeing (image upgrade) images of galaxies very nearly
identical to those in our local region with some calculate Hubble
distance into the 10-100 billion Lyr range would raise eyebrows.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
[respectful snip]
Sam Wormley
> On Jan 4, 6:58 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No Center
>
> The ideology of 'big bang' is a logical conclusion of an Ra/Dec
The BB has nothing to do with Equatorial Coordinates, Gerald!
It has everything to do with the red shift of the expanding
cosmos.
Nucleosynthesis
CMB
etc.
For heavens sake, Gerald, do a bit of self-education!
http://edu-observatory.org/eo/cosmology.html
palsing
> The ideology of 'big bang' is a logical conclusion of an Ra/Dec
> framework...
Where, oh where, did you ever get this idea? Did this come to you
after looking at pretty picture somewhere?
"Is it possible to imagine anything so ridiculous as this miserable
and wretched creature, which is not so much as master of himself,
exposed and subject to offenses of all things; and yet dareth call
himself master and emperor of this universe in whose power it is
not to know the least part of it, much less to command the same?
And the privilege, which he so fondly challengeth, to be the only
absolute creature in this huge world's frame perfectly able to know
the absolute beauty and several parts thereof, and that he is only of
power to yield the great Architect thereof due thanks for it, and
keep account both of the receipts and layings-out of the world!
Who hath sealed him this patent? Let him show us his letters of
privilege for so noble and so great a charge."
-Michael de Montaigne, An Apology of Raymond Sebond, 1568
http://abstrusegoose.com/secret-archives/psa
\Paul A
Sam Wormley
>
>> No Center
>
> The ideology of 'big bang' is a logical conclusion of an Ra/Dec
Wrong, read these!
palsing
> For heavens sake, Gerald, do a bit of self-education!
> http://edu-observatory.org/eo/cosmology.html
Not possible, Sam, Gerald is not capable of learning anything, at
least, not from anyone here... it's like talking to a brick wall...
\Paul
oriel36
The recent so-called 'climategate' is nothing compared to the
original distortions which attempted to explain the Earth's planetary
dynamics via Ra/Dec and which eventually give rise to the monstrosity
known as 'big bang'.It is even possible to view the distorted views of
the empiricists from genuine people such as John Harrison -
http://books.google.com/books?id=4k9kAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA163#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=remarks#v=onepage&q=remarks&f=false
A race that develops ideas that it can control time or global
temperatures is in deep,deep trouble yet it all comes from a very
tight set of arguments which involved switching the references for
daily and orbital motions and particularly the nondescript rotation of
the constellations around Polaris which empiricist link directly to
daily rotation in direct conflict with thousands of years of
astronomical principles.
The recent fraud is a symptom of the original 17th century one where
astronomy and Western civilization suffered a holocaust that continues
to this day -
"Holocaust has a secure place in the language when it refers to the
massive destruction of humans by other humans"
15 degrees of rotation at the equator represents 1669.8 km per hour
and an entire 40,075 km rotation in 24 hours yet the people who try to
model solar system structure and planetary dynamics using the rotation
of the constellations around Polaris refuse to accept what even a
simple world globe will tell them along with the sprawling history of
clocks and longitude.People refuse to accept the loss of planetary
information designed around 24 hours/360 degrees as the holocaust that
it actually is,they only see fragments of it in such things as hugely
distorted reasoning that turns carbon dioxide into a global
temperature dial.
palsing
Oh no, Gerald can't read these, they employ the "Scientific Method",
and Gerald just cannot abide by that...
\Paul
oriel36
The original insight of Roemer,using planetary comparisons between
Earth and Jupiter,is that a positional displacement occurs in Io for
each 186 000 mile difference in the orbital distances between the
planets.
Empiricists read lightspeed as a distance gauge directly from
observations just as they try to read rotation of the constellations
around Polaris as the planetary dynamic of daily rotation so combining
a celestial sphere Ra/Dec framework using an unrestrained view of
lightspeed (e.g. Sun is 9 minutes distant) ,surprise,surprise,they
come up with the grotesque ' every-valid-point-is-the-center-of-the-
universe'
Newton tried to model solar system structure directly from
observations by creating a hypothetical absolute space as opposed to
observations from Earth which he called relative space but retained
the calendar based predictive convenience of Ra/Dec as a bridge,the
actual method is observations followed by interpretation and then
modelling ,it stops people like you coming up with intellectual
monstrosities such as 'big bang'.
"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun. This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is
now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same,
and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun
revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun" Newton
I know all too well that none of you actually can cut through the
elaborate scheme and distortions of Newton so it is easier to show you
just how fundamentally flawed the whole scheme is right at the most
basic motion of all - the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in
24 hours.
Ice Corrs
"palsing" <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e77f2f27-6ad7-4945...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
palsing
> Only idiots argue with idiots.
But Gerald is not an idiot, just a crank...
Sam Wormley
i.e. cracked pot, that can no longer hold any water.
Ice Corrs
not a real person...any idiot can tell.
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:EsOdnf37ItYpON_W...@mchsi.com...
Sam Wormley
> So what's the use of keeping a dialogue with a nonperson ! This gerald is
> not a real person...any idiot can tell.
>
Gerald Kelleher is a person all right, a human being like the
rest of us. However, he has never learned formal algebra, or
higher mathematics in his educational background. Since Gerald
sticks his pontifications in so many threads, we should at
least attempt to help him assuage his confusions.
Gerald is convince the astronomical community has gone to hell
in a hand basket, whereas the real problem is Gerald's lack of
education. I for one have offered to spend 23+ hours with him
timing the rotation of the earth. I still hope he accepts my
offer.
Androcles
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
"Ice Corrs" <i...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ewv0n.60327$PH1.54104@edtnps82...
Ice Corrs
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:EsOdnfz7ItYTJN_W...@mchsi.com...
Martin Brown
It doesn't affect the broader picture if everything is flying apart. If
you run things backwards in time then at some finite time in the past
everything was in the same place.
> Following Yousuf, and learning to photograph in microwave frequencies
> and then seeing (image upgrade) images of galaxies very nearly
> identical to those in our local region with some calculate Hubble
> distance into the 10-100 billion Lyr range would raise eyebrows.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
We already did. That is not what was seen.
It was the early radio astronomy survey instruments that effectively
killed Steady State cosmology stone dead. Things were different in the
early universe. Radio telescopes can see a long way back. Optical scopes
are still playing catch up. The 3C catalogue objects are now easy for
modern aperture synthesis instruments to image at high resolution.
It was very clear that early galaxies at high redshift were much more
active and powerful in the radio than their nearby counterparts. A
menagerie of VLA images in the 5-10GHz bands to at roughly comparable to
optical image resolution are online at Alan Bridles VLA page :
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~abridle/images.htm
A more complete atlas of the 85 strongest sources that have been studied
in detail at multiple wavelengths is online at:
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/atlas/
Not forgetting the canonical brightest double radio galaxy in the sky
Cygnus A which has been imaged at multiple microwave radio frequencies
with some jet detail seen in the 6cm observations.
http://mamacass.ucsd.edu:8080/people/pblanco/cyga.html
and
http://mamacass.ucsd.edu:8080/people/pblanco/cyga6cm_small.gif
It is a feeble looking thing in the optical.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
>
> It is a feeble looking thing in the optical.
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
That's a typical argument, what you (Martin) have done is made an
assumption,
then poised a bit of science to support your assumption, that's
religious.
Perhaps the alligators under your bed, could be a leaky faucet.
But once you assume you have alligators, you'll find lots of science
to
support your assumption, like water on the floor is alligator piss, so
how can a rational person argue that it's water, we have no chance.
1) As we look out the galaxies all appear to be the same age as far as
we
can see.
2) Some astronomers are constantly jumping to conclusions looking at
fuzzy pixels, I guess notoriety gets grant money.
Incidentally, I never mentioned "Steady State" cosmology, you (Martin)
did.
I find the Laws of Nature, in view of GR, respect the Law of
Conservation
of Energy. Some people like to fuck with GR and CoE but it's a waste
of
time to argue with the crazy religious people.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
oriel36
> Gerald is convince the astronomical community has gone to hell
> in a hand basket, whereas the real problem is Gerald's lack of
> education. I for one have offered to spend 23+ hours with him
> timing the rotation of the earth. I still hope he accepts my
> offer.
The world has awoken to a living nightmare,what was once thought of as
a harmless pursuit where scientists conjured up exotic scenarios and
dumped them into the celestial arena turned into a frightening
situation when a few decided that they could turn carbon dioxide into
a global temperature dial and thereby control global climate.
Controlling global climate within a certain state is only a minor
nightmare compared to the original one where men decided that is you
move really quickly you can control time and so it all comes back to
the original setup which caused this dishonorable situation to arise
and that means tackling the original conclusion which led to the
belief that the rotation of the constellations around Polaris (what
became Ra/Dec) could represent planetary dynamics and from there into
modelling planetary dynamics and cosmological structure using
timekeeping averages.While it is a fascinating story how these things
came to be it is also tremendously debilitating for our civilization
and reducing our intellectual standards to a point where all the
world's leaders representing all nations can make a statement on
global climate control that turns the wisdom of King Canute on its
head.
You call me a madman for presenting my astronomical heritage based on
the equatorial rotation of the Earth through 1669.8 km in 1 hour and
an entire equatorial circumference in 24 hours,something so certain
that it takes gross unintelligence to argue against it yet you
can,some more others less .Newton's attempt to use Ra/Dec as a bridge
between planetary dynamics and experimental science would eventually
lead to 'big bang' or what amounts to the same observation that
horrified the geocentric astronomers,if Archbishop Cusa's words seem
strangely familiar it is because you find something acceptable that
the 15th century Cusa did not -
"... And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at
the center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so
that the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa,astronomer and Archbishop, 1500's
After the recent climate debacle,anyone who believes that the
destruction of astronomy in the late 17th century has no implications
hardly understand what happened from then to now,I do and it is truly
shocking for people who are intelligent.
Jacob Pc
on the fact that the universe is infinite.
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ueqdnejYTL4749zW...@mchsi.com...
>
> New-found galaxies may be farthest back in time and space yet
Androcles
"Jacob Pc" <jac...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hhvdu7$vce$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>I wonder what's going to happen one of these days when they finally settle
>on the fact that the universe is infinite.
Never happen, their tiny minds are finite.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" -- Albert Einstein,
and he MEANT it.
Jacob Pc
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote in message
news:ITI0n.9002$KM6....@newsfe02.ams2...
>
> "Jacob Pc" <jac...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:hhvdu7$vce$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>I wonder what's going to happen one of these days when they finally settle
>>on the fact that the universe is infinite.
>
> Never happen, their tiny minds are finite.
> "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" -- Albert Einstein,
> and he MEANT it.
Tiny minds or not, I think when the Webb scope is finally placed into orbit
and if they ever put a giant scope on the moon, they'll discover even more
galaxies at even greater distances. I personally don't think the universe
is finite.
Jacob
Sam Wormley
>
> Tiny minds or not, I think when the Webb scope is finally placed into
> orbit and if they ever put a giant scope on the moon, they'll discover
> even more galaxies at even greater distances. I personally don't think
> the universe is finite.
>
> Jacob
>
We humans already can see back to a time before the first stars and
galaxies formed. A bit of self-education on your part is warranted,
Jacob.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
-Sam Wormley
http://edu-observatory.org/eo/cosmology.html
Androcles
that way, I said their (whoever "they" are) tiny minds were finite.
If the universe is finite then it has an edge beyond which is nothing. That
opens up the possibility of another collection of galaxies (like those we
can see) that are beyond the hypothetical edge, but such a set has to be
included with and added to the set we know of.
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin universum, from neuter of universus
entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of
vertere to turn
You can rely on dorks such as Wormley to repeat/endorse pop science sold
alongside the gutter press an Superman comics, it's an industry that makes
money from the gullible.
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' - Galileo
Galilei
Sam Wormley
> I didn't say the universe wasn't infinite, all the evidence and logic points
> that way, I said their (whoever "they" are) tiny minds were finite.
> If the universe is finite then it has an edge beyond which is nothing.
Perfect example to Androcles speculating without evidence or
logic.
Androcles
Logic was provided. Perfect example of the liar Wormley's bigotry,
snipping without reading.
You can rely on dorks such as Wormley to repeat/endorse pop science sold
alongside the gutter press and Superman comics, it's an industry that makes
Sam Wormley
And here I thought you had me kill filed, Androcles... Perhaps we
can have a discussion on the pros and cons of the Bing Bang theory.
Are you aware of ramifications of the BB theory such as the observed
abundance of hydrogen and helium... or the CMB?
Androcles
> On 1/5/10 10:35 AM, Androcles wrote:
>> "Sam Wormley"<swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:D-CdnauG__A_9d7W...@mchsi.com...
>>> On 1/5/10 9:51 AM, Androcles wrote:
>>>
>>>> I didn't say the universe wasn't infinite, all the evidence and logic
>>>> points
>>>> that way, I said their (whoever "they" are) tiny minds were finite.
>>>> If the universe is finite then it has an edge beyond which is nothing.
>>>
>>> Perfect example to Androcles speculating without evidence or
>>> logic.
>>
>> Logic was provided. Perfect example of the liar Wormley's bigotry,
>> snipping without reading.
>>
>> You can rely on dorks such as Wormley to repeat/endorse pop science sold
>> alongside the gutter press and Superman comics, it's an industry that
>> makes
>> money from the gullible.
>>
>> 'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' -
>> Galileo
>> Galilei
>>
>
> And here I thought you had me kill filed, Androcles...
Housecleaning, Wormley. It won't take much to killfile you again, though.
> Perhaps we
> can have a discussion on the pros and cons of the Bing Bang theory.
Only if you can behave yourself and respond sensibly instead of snipping,
I have no interest in lectures.
> Are you aware of ramifications of the BB theory such as the observed
> abundance of hydrogen and helium... or the CMB?
Yes, I am.
Are you aware of the ramifications of the Easter Bunny theory such as
the observed abundance of chocolate eggs... or the pretty boxes they
come in?
Sam Wormley
> "Sam Wormley"<swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> Are you aware of ramifications of the BB theory such as the observed
>> abundance of hydrogen and helium... or the CMB?
>
> Yes, I am.
> Are you aware of the ramifications of the Easter Bunny theory such as
> the observed abundance of chocolate eggs... or the pretty boxes they
> come in?
Are you talking about that fellow they called, Jesus?
Androcles
>>> On 1/5/10 9:51 AM, Androcles wrote:
>>>
>>>> I didn't say the universe wasn't infinite, all the evidence and logic
>>>> points
>>>> that way, I said their (whoever "they" are) tiny minds were finite.
>>>> If the universe is finite then it has an edge beyond which is nothing.
>>>
>>> Perfect example to Androcles speculating without evidence or
>>> logic.
>>
>> Logic was provided. Perfect example of the liar Wormley's bigotry,
>> snipping without reading.
>>
>> You can rely on dorks such as Wormley to repeat/endorse pop science sold
>> alongside the gutter press and Superman comics, it's an industry that
>> makes
>> money from the gullible.
>>
>> 'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' -
>> Galileo
>> Galilei
>>
>
> And here I thought you had me kill filed, Androcles...
Housecleaning, Wormley. It won't take much to killfile you again, though.
> Perhaps we
> can have a discussion on the pros and cons of the Bing Bang theory.
Only if you can behave yourself and respond sensibly instead of snipping,
I have no interest in lectures.
> Are you aware of ramifications of the BB theory such as the observed
> abundance of hydrogen and helium... or the CMB?
Yes, I am.
Are you aware of the ramifications of the Easter Bunny theory such as
the observed abundance of chocolate eggs... or the pretty boxes they
come in?
Now that I've put back what you snipped, perhaps we can have a
discussion on the pros and cons of the Easter Bunny theory.
Sam Wormley
> Are you aware of the ramifications of the Easter Bunny theory such as
> the observed abundance of chocolate eggs... or the pretty boxes they
> come in?
>
> Now that I've put back what you snipped, perhaps we can have a
> discussion on the pros and cons of the Easter Bunny theory.
>
Are you talking about that fellow they called, Jesus?