Re: Galaxies disk clustering
Y.Porat
> Hi,
>
> Some kind of a proof of the BB being wrong perhaps is that the
> all galaxies in universe form a disk shape.
>
> I.e. the Big Bang first 10 minutes must have been spreading the
> energy in a total spherical manner in the developing space.
> The E=mc^2 hints this by the release with minor energies than BB.
> This is a most logical assumption of the BB. - And this assumption,
> is against the Hubble visual detection of the all galaxies cluster.
>
> So, all the galaxies in the universe form flat in a disk shape is not
> in line with this aspect of BB.
>
> One proof of BB advocates being hallucinating?
>
> LeoK
-----------------------
see the Circlon idea
at he appendix of my link::
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------------------------
LeoK
that there is no way to extrapolate what we see of the universe, and
then extrapolate that to anything that tells us anything about the
ultimate size of the universe. However, I'm open minded enough to
be willing to change my mind if you are able to explain to me how
you think this can be done. Of course, this would put you in a
class all by yourself, because no one else has been able to come up
with a way to perform such an extrapolation."
AllYou!
My gosh, how young are you really? Error after error. Are you
even 15 years of age?
NO ONE CAN GET EMPIRICAL DATA FROM OUTSIDE THE EVENT HORIZON.
AND YOU ASK ME TO DO SO.
YOU ARE NOT SERIOUS, OR JUST VERY YOUNG.
THIS IS A FACT BY NOW.
WE CAN ONLY CALCULATE BY INTERPOLATION MATH BEYOND THE
EVENT HORIZON.
SO GO AND GET YOUR COURSE IN THIS MATH.
Or ask Uncle Al, if he is willing to educate or inform this error.
LeoK
LeoK
I'll explain your error myself.
Lets assume that we have an data on x0 and nothing else.
And we search data on x2. We can't find this because the x2 data
is very hard to find, or just very small or tiny in an unknown
environment.
Suddenly we get data on x1 and can extrapolate and find the data on
x2.
We find the data on x2 now by extrapolating math AND by searching the
x2 in
the right place, area or spot. x2 is so found by extrapolating math.
Okidoki.
But we can NEVER find any x2 by extrapolating over the event horizon
because the event horizon is forever sealed. Even if we got x0 and x1
on
the right side of the event horizon. We can never tread into the
unknown
and find this x2 object, IT JUST IS SEALED FOR EVERYONE.
This is a hard fact.
And never ever ask me to do the impossible.
You just make a fool of yourself.
OK.
LeoK
LeoK
I'll explain your error myself.
Let's assume that we have a data on x0 and nothing else.
And we search data on x2. We can't find this because the
x2 data is very hard to find, or just very small or tiny
in an unknown environment.
Suddenly we get data on x1 and can extrapolate and find the
data on x2.
We find the data on X2 now by extrapolating math AND by
searching the x2 in the right place, area or spot. X2 is
LeoK
I'll explain your error myself.
Let's assume that we have a data on x0 and nothing else.
And we search data on x2. We can't find this because the
x2 data is very hard to find, or just very small or tiny
in an unknown environment.
Suddenly we get data on x1 and can extrapolate and find the
data on x2.
We find the data on x2 now by extrapolating math AND by
searching the x2 in the right place, area or spot. x2 is
LeoK
LeoK
Y.Porat
> "If you knew anything about the math of extrapolation, you'd know
> that there is no way to extrapolate what we see of the universe, and
> then extrapolate that to anything that tells us anything about the
> ultimate size of the universe.
----------
Hey Leo
take it easy slowly slowly
do you talk to me (Y.Porat)
did you at all see my link ???
i was not reffering to the size of the universe
do you know why ??
it has a little little l ittle relevance to me !!!
because there are much more relevant questions to solve first
i was reffering to the CIRCULAR SHAPE of the galaxies !!
so please go back and see my
Circlon idea
a very basic particle that moves naturally in a closed circle
(unless disturbed on its way )
imho that subparticle is ineviatble to
explain **any attraction force **
and you wil agree with me (you have no other chice0
that without knowing the secret of attraction force
you cannot go much further in physics
2
mathematics is not the leader of physics
9unfortuantely too many physicists do not realize it)
marhematic can be only the servant of physics
(it can be the masyer of mathematics but not of physics
do you know why??
because physical thinking is before mathematics !!
3
iam tone of the last ones that you can tell him
that exptrapolations cannot be all along
without limits
had you followed me in this ng
you would find that i am the greatest preacher
against blind extrapolations and interpolations as well !!
i always say:
***every physics formula or equation--- has its limits
of extrapolations ***
However, I'm open minded enough to
> be willing to change my mind if you are able to explain to me how
> you think this can be done.
see above
i was not refering at all about the size of universe
first understand the 'smaller' problems::
ie why is that circular (disk or whatever) SHAPE
of galaxies !!
the Circlon can be a good answer for that
AND FOR A LOT OF OTHER ENIGMA
---
------------------
Of course, this would put you in a
> class all by yourself
welcome (:-) there are some people who already put me there ..
---------------
, because no one else has been able to come up
> with a way to perform such an extrapolation."
> AllYou!
>
> My gosh, how young are you really? Error after error. Are you
> even 15 years of age?
Hey fellow may be i am older than you ??
i am 70 years
how old are you ??
----------
>
> NO ONE CAN GET EMPIRICAL DATA FROM OUTSIDE THE EVENT HORIZON.
> AND YOU ASK ME TO DO SO.
> YOU ARE NOT SERIOUS, OR JUST VERY YOUNG.
> THIS IS A FACT BY NOW.
> ----------
thats right
but not very useful and relevant in advancing us
with our 'LITTLE PROBLEMS '''
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
AllYou!
news:db13eb7e-6368-49c0...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
LeoK <rof...@yahoo.com> mused:
> Dear AllYou!
>
> I'll explain your error myself.
>
> Let's assume that we have a data on x0 and nothing else.
> And we search data on x2. We can't find this because the
> x2 data is very hard to find, or just very small or tiny
> in an unknown environment.
>
> Suddenly we get data on x1 and can extrapolate and find the
> data on x2.
Actually, no, that's incorrect. Data from a single point cannot be
extrapolated.
[snip the balance of mindless rambling.]
LeoK
insults and chaos.
The main issue was if: universe is flat?
And, yes universe is flat.
Recent phys-projects are hinting or even stating this as
out-of-a-doubt fact. And I was right, and you were wrong.
That's it. You just can't take it..!!!
Okidoki
LeoK
LeoK
when the all energy/mass did erupt to create space and matter.
Did Big Bang erupt and create a FLAT universe..???
You know, if I had a hat.. and so on...
Big Bang is phony in this almost "thin as a sheet of a paper"
universe geometry.
As I have stated years ago:
Big Bang SUXXXXS..!!!
Big Bang advocates are hallucinating, this is almost also a FACT.
LeoK
PD
> And this FLAT universe is NOT in line with the Big Bang idea
> when the all energy/mass did erupt to create space and matter.
>
> Did Big Bang erupt and create a FLAT universe..???
> You know, if I had a hat.. and so on...
>
> Big Bang is phony in this almost "thin as a sheet of a paper"
> universe geometry.
"Flat" in cosmology does NOT mean "thin as a sheet of paper".
Idiot.
Repetitive idiot.
Incorrigibly delusional, repetitive idiot.
LeoK
Idiot.
Repetitive idiot.
Incorrigibly delusional, repetitive idiot.
Why do you call your dispute opponents "idiot"..??
You probably don't know why you use this word "idiot".
I know. Ehe...
Do you..??
Because there is a story behind this special word "idiot".
Okidoki..!!
LeoK
LeoK
You know, if I had a hat.. and so on..."
The guys with the hats have, for the moment, explanations for
the discrepancy with BB and a flat universe.
Hmm...
So they are able to "chew hat" at least...
But I don't call them "idiot" as PD and others here.
I just say that there is a discrepancy. - What the heck is it
with you guys - all this naming..??
Because there is a historical USA/Canadian 1956-1961 historical
reason for this special naming attribute as PD and other uses.
You guys are mixing with studies, obviously.
Ehe...
LeoK
AllYou!
news:6d270927-e05e-492f...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com,
LeoK <rof...@yahoo.com> mused:
> You resembles of nutcases obviously, (almost) all in for to
> create insults and chaos.
>
> The main issue was if: universe is flat?
> And, yes universe is flat.
How did you come to that conclusion? Where's the evidence? Where's
the math?
> Recent phys-projects are hinting or even stating this as
> out-of-a-doubt fact. And I was right, and you were wrong.
> That's it. You just can't take it..!!!
Those projects used the word 'flat' wrt spacetime not being curved,
and not wrt the geometric shape of the universe.
PD
> "Flat" in cosmology does NOT mean "thin as a sheet of paper".
> Idiot.
> Repetitive idiot.
> Incorrigibly delusional, repetitive idiot.
> PD
>
> Why do you call your dispute opponents "idiot"..??
It isn't a dispute. A dispute is over matters of opinion.
What you did is an outright error, mistaking two usages of the same
word to be equivalent.
*Repeating* an outright error that has been pointed out to you is an
act of idiocy.
LeoK
the discrepancy with BB and a flat universe."
Yes, they have...
Big Bang theory updated with the inflation idea into the BB. Holding
the inflaton particle or field that in theory should explain why BB
shapes the universe like a sheet of paper.
Why did no one of you mention this, PD, AllYou! or someone else?
LeoK
PD
> "The guys with the hats have, for the moment, explanations for
> the discrepancy with BB and a flat universe."
> LeoK
>
> Yes, they have...
>
> Big Bang theory updated with the inflation idea into the BB. Holding
> the inflaton particle or field that in theory should explain why BB
> shapes the universe like a sheet of paper.
Where did you read the above?
Was it in Newsweek or Discover magazine?
AllYou!
news:8b2321d4-7a14-446d...@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
LeoK <rof...@yahoo.com> mused:
For the same reason that I didn't mention that it was aliens from
Mars that drew all those pictures on cave walls. It's on the
Internet somewhere, but it's nonsense.
Leo,
Stand in one spot.
Look up.
Look to the left
Look to the right
Look forward.
Turn your head, and look behind you.
Now, look down.
If the Universe was shaped like a sheet of paper, in which of those
directions would you not have seen anything?