BIG BANG
mst...@gmail.com
Even Einsten's theory of relativity breaks down near the time of the
big bang, although it holds true till then.
If u think that the big bang was by a star then how did it
originate?
Schoenfeld
Modern cosmology is founded on General Relativity, a theory which has
been massively falsified time and time again (re mising mass problem,
flat rotation curves of galaxies). Unfortunately, the historical
laughing stock of physicists (who advocate that buildings can freefall
into themselves because of waste-basket fires) insist of forcing failed
dogma onto an increasingly reluctant reality and, as a consequence,
require fantastical fairy dust entities like dark matter and a myriad
of unobservable particles that mediate all sorts of unobservable
interactions to save these theories.
Point is, "Big Bang" and many of the related notions are as likely, in
the opinion of this author, as the Heliocentrism theories of 16th
century. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it -
earth + fire + wind + water = strong + weak + electromagnetic +
gravitation.
Martin Hogbin
<mst...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1154760506.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Just before the big bang, 'Everybody stood well back'.
Martin Hogbin
donsto...@hotmail.com
Were tickets sold?
kenseto
Mechanics:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006universe.pdf
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
Since we have no observational data... and can't have data... it's
pretty hard to say... Similar problem looking into black holes...
you can't!
Billinares
dedanoe
me off and I made this machine (www.geocities.com/dedanoe/etg.html)
able to extract all from nothing. then after its stuck over flow, all
and nothing colided and the universe begun from the beginning and no
one had a clue what happened and so you're asking me once again:
dedanoe how did you managed the BB? He, he, he...
mst...@gmail.com напиша:
take a look at this one:
http://www.geocities.com/dedanoe/dedanoes_bleeding_heart.html
ain't that the story of the millenium?
Phineas T Puddleduck
<donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, first there was the "lighting of the blue touchpaper"
--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
łIt approaches the asymptote faster, the more Śpseduosą you throw in
your formulas.˛
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Phineas T Puddleduck
dedanoe <ded...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> what happened before BB is happening right now and that is: You pissed
> me off and I made this machine (www.geocities.com/dedanoe/etg.html)
> able to extract all from nothing. then after its stuck over flow, all
> and nothing colided and the universe begun from the beginning and no
> one had a clue what happened and so you're asking me once again:
> dedanoe how did you managed the BB? He, he, he...
Go back to your vegetables, sicko...
PD
The big bang was not by a star, as far as we know, so no, we don't
think that it was.
No one can tell you what happened before the big bang. In fact, there
is some doubt whether "before" means anything on the other side of the
big bang. In fact, no one quite knows what happened *at* the big bang,
though we have a pretty good idea what happened after the first
0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.
PD
T Wake
"Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154769210.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nothing of interest as always.
My filter must be broken.
T Wake
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:Nt0Bg.44560$vl5....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>
> <mst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1154760506.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Can anyone tell me what happened before the 'big bang'?
>> Even Einsten's theory of relativity breaks down near the time of the
>> big bang, although it holds true till then.
>> If u think that the big bang was by a star then how did it
>> originate?
>>
> The following link gives a description of the BB as interpreted by Model
> Mechanics:
>
Threads like this really do draw the nonsense out don't they. For some
horrific reason my filter seems to have stopped working and I am seeing
posts like this. What is the world coming to....
G=EMC^2 Glazier
this Space energy+ the intrinsic compression force of gravity = the big
bang or E+G=BB Sam I'm using this for the first big bang that took
place eons ago.that created the first universe All of the other
universes such as ours are mini-universes that came from the singularly
at the core of all black holes. Reality is when a black hole reaches the
mass of 6 trillion stars it has reached its 'critical mass" and explodes
into gamma photons,and releases its singularity into macro space. All
singularities have the blue print(DNA) of the mother universe. There
are as many universes in the cosmos as flakes of snow in an endless
storm,and they are exactly the same right down to the number of
electrons. Bert
T Wake
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29127-44...@storefull-3337.bay.webtv.net...
> Sam There was a spacetime before the big bang The equation goes like
> this Space energy+ the intrinsic compression force of gravity = the big
> bang or E+G=BB Sam I'm using this for the first big bang that took
> place eons ago.that created the first universe
What came before that?
How many of them have there been?
How big is it?
G=EMC^2 Glazier
dynamic part of the cosmos. It is always there. How it got there I have
only one idea on this and will post it soon. I have posted over and
over again over many Moons There are as many universes as flakes of snow
in an endless storm. The size of the cosmos can not have any boundries.
It is infinitly large. All universes are inflating and will never touch.
Reality is universes are created in pairs,and if they ever touched it
would be the cosmos biggest explosion,and create complete choas. Bert
T Wake
> T.Wake Great questions. All I can Theorize is space energy is the most
> dynamic part of the cosmos. It is always there.
Ok, here is the problem I have with this.
You are trying to explain a "time" before the Big Bang event which created
our universe. All your explaination gives is "earlier" universes from which
ours came.
It doesnt answer the question of what came before the Big Bang. Saying it
was another universe just begs the questions "what came before that."
> How it got there I have
> only one idea on this and will post it soon. I have posted over and
> over again over many Moons There are as many universes as flakes of snow
> in an endless storm. The size of the cosmos can not have any boundries.
> It is infinitly large. All universes are inflating and will never touch.
You may be correct. How can we test this?
> Reality is universes are created in pairs,
How do you know this? How have you verified it?
> and if they ever touched it
> would be the cosmos biggest explosion,and create complete choas.
What mechanism causes this? Are you scaling pair - antipair up to universal
scale?
I have no grounds to disprove your theory that universe are giant
"particles" which create spontaneously (ala pair-antipair), as we have no
way to actually test the theory. It is not really within the realms of
science.
However, it does raise one question - why dont we see anything other than
sub atomic particles created in pair-antipair?
Raymond Yohros
T Wake ha escrito:
nothing its ever created or distroyed, simply transform from one form
to another. this was true for energy and it is true for matenergy and
life as well.
just like a Gravitational Desintegration is the turning point of a
star,
a GD is the turning point of the universe.
a universe that was being coplitely crunched by gravitation and
where time almost stood still.
there have been billions of bangs across the history of spacetime
but they are all just tiny fractions of the BIG bang
i call it, the Sound Of Sounds
regards
raymond
T Wake
"Raymond Yohros" <b...@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1154979319.0...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ok, when did this BIG bang take place?
> i call it, the Sound Of Sounds
Cool.
Raymond Yohros
> > just like a Gravitational Desintegration is the turning point of a
> > star,
> > a GD is the turning point of the universe.
> > a universe that was being coplitely crunched by gravitation and
> > where time almost stood still.
> >
> > there have been billions of bangs across the history of spacetime
> > but they are all just tiny fractions of the BIG bang
>
> Ok, when did this BIG bang take place?
when do turning points happen?
when you reach a critical point in wish
things cannot continue the way they where before.
a complite collapse of the entire universe can only
happen by the mother of all black holes swollowing
spacetime to the point of a universal
gravitational desintegration
regards
>
> > i call it, the Sound Of Sounds
>
> Cool.
thanks
Phineas T PuddleDuck
"Raymond Yohros" <b...@birdband.net> wrote:
> when do turning points happen?
> when you reach a critical point in wish
> things cannot continue the way they where before.
>
> a complite collapse of the entire universe can only
> happen by the mother of all black holes swollowing
> spacetime to the point of a universal
> gravitational desintegration
You've got a long wait. There's no sign of a big crunch as the Universe seems
open.
--
Relf's Law = "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity
asymptotically approaches the odour of roses."
Raymond Yohros
Phineas T PuddleDuck ha escrito:
> In article <1154995843....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Raymond Yohros" <b...@birdband.net> wrote:
>
> > when do turning points happen?
> > when you reach a critical point in wish
> > things cannot continue the way they where before.
> >
> > a complite collapse of the entire universe can only
> > happen by the mother of all black holes swollowing
> > spacetime to the point of a universal
> > gravitational desintegration
>
> You've got a long wait. There's no sign of a big crunch as the Universe seems
> open.
>
YES.
This is a very long story that is hard to explain
with just a simple post.
regards
ray
T Wake
>T Wake ha escrito:
>> > just like a Gravitational Desintegration is the turning point of a
>> > star,
>> > a GD is the turning point of the universe.
>> > a universe that was being coplitely crunched by gravitation and
>> > where time almost stood still.
>> >
>> > there have been billions of bangs across the history of spacetime
>> > but they are all just tiny fractions of the BIG bang
>>
>> Ok, when did this BIG bang take place?
>
> when do turning points happen?
It depends. This is like asking how long is a peice of string.
You are saying the t=0 event which created this universe was a follow on to
older events all leading back to the "original" BIG bang event.
For this to hold _any_ water at all, you need to be able to estimate how
many events ensued from this BIG bang otherwise you are providing an answer
which just muddies the waters and leads to more, complicated, questions.
> when you reach a critical point in wish
> things cannot continue the way they where before.
>
> a complite collapse of the entire universe can only
> happen by the mother of all black holes swollowing
> spacetime to the point of a universal
> gravitational desintegration
Unlikely though.
T Wake
Try?
Raymond Yohros
> >> Ok, when did this BIG bang take place?
> >
> > when do turning points happen?
>
> It depends. This is like asking how long is a peice of string.
>
No is not.
turning points happen when there's an absolute need of change.
please see what i wrote before.
>
> You are saying the t=0 event which created this universe was a follow on to
> older events all leading back to the "original" BIG bang event.
>
> For this to hold _any_ water at all, you need to be able to estimate how
> many events ensued from this BIG bang otherwise you are providing an answer
> which just muddies the waters and leads to more, complicated, questions.
>
before realtime (the expanding universe we understand)
there was a time very dificult to understand where
matenergyspace compress itself at very great speed
by the force of gravity.
>
> > when you reach a critical point in wish
> > things cannot continue the way they where before.
> >
> > a complite collapse of the entire universe can only
> > happen by the mother of all black holes swollowing
> > spacetime to the point of a universal
> > gravitational desintegration
>
> Unlikely though.
in my mind, icant imagine how spacetime
can become almost 0 any other way.
regards
Jeff…Relf
the mass-energy of a closed system is constant.
And the second law says that that mass-energy spontaneously dissipates.
Gravity is a temporary reversal of entropy ( like winning the jackpot )
but it's emprisoned in a virtual casino... the house always wins in the end.
The _Hard_ facts are that Each/All Is/Are imprisoned in a virtual casino
where the house always wins in the end... not one exception has been found.
Given dark energy has negative pressure, e = m * c^2,
Omega_Total always equals 1, Omega_Lambda always equals .74,
( the first law of thermodynamics means net mass-energy is a constant ),
and w always equals -1; we get:
Pressure_Cosmos always equals: - ( .74 / .26 ) * Density_Matter * c^2
( the positive pressure of radiation is insignificant ).
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/W.PNG
Spacetime in our observable universe has always accrued exponentially.
It accrued faster when the universe was denser;
so I suspect dark energy is a property of mass-energy;
i.e. it's just spontaneous dissipation... entropy.
If it weren't so, then tons of dark energy is being spontaneously created
in violation of the first law of thermodynamics... a big no-no in my book.
( I posit that gravity is merely left-overs from the ever-denser past )
Thus black holes might be full of negative/dark energy;
i.e. a time-dilated White_Hole with great Coherence/Relativistic_Mass.
ivars.fa...@gmail.com
was in a different quality - like unborn baby.
Big bang time was the time of bifurcation when Universe appeared and
started to grow to its current shape.
Bacground radiation has nothing to do with Big bang, it is oscillations
of the surface of universe ( inside which-it has a finite thichness) we
live, as well as all spiral and other disc tipe galaxies are placed.
These oscillations act as a big forcing clock pulses which affect every
mass in the universe.
Photons in bacground radiation are actually axes of moments of masses
rotating on and in the surface; these axis do no travel instantly; it
takes time for other rotating mases to learn that monemt has changed
somewhere and adjust in order to conserve total momentum.
Phineas T PuddleDuck
JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
> Hi Raymond_Yohros, The first law of thermodynamics posits that
> the mass-energy of a closed system is constant.
> And the second law says that that mass-energy spontaneously dissipates.
> Gravity is a temporary reversal of entropy ( like winning the jackpot )
> but it's emprisoned in a virtual casino... the house always wins in the end.
> The _Hard_ facts are that Each/All Is/Are imprisoned in a virtual casino
> where the house always wins in the end... not one exception has been found.
Your crap is getting even more unscientific.
Phineas T PuddleDuck
JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
> Spacetime in our observable universe has always accrued exponentially.
> It accrued faster when the universe was denser;
> so I suspect dark energy is a property of mass-energy;
> i.e. it's just spontaneous dissipation... entropy.
Stick to living as a crack addict.
hanson
<herbert...@webtv.net> explains his seminal theory in message
news:29127-44...@storefull-3337.bay.webtv.net...
ahahahaha... wow, Herbie, listen. The dearly departed and once semi
beautiful Golda Meir would say to you now her famous quote and smile
upon you with: "Hebie, don't be so humble, you are not that important".
However, I say that your equations are indeed humble:
> "Space energy+ the intrinsic compression force of gravity = the big
> of the mother universe"
yet, WOW!, your equations are really VERY important too, because,
Hebie, that must be some kind of a mother, huh? However, Herbie, even
more important and profound is your simple & elegant "G=EMC^2", a
pearl, which you have thrown so carelessly before this undeserving world.
Do you realize that, Hebie?,... But, even if you don't see that....
You are still impressive, Herbie
Thanks for the laughs, .... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....
ahahaha... ahahanson
Raymond Yohros
> ahahahaha... wow, Herbie, listen. The dearly departed and once semi
> beautiful Golda Meir would say to you now her famous quote and smile
> upon you with: "Hebie, don't be so humble, you are not that important".
> However, I say that your equations are indeed humble:
> > "Space energy+ the intrinsic compression force of gravity = the big
> > bang or E+G=BB" and that "singularities have the blue print(DNA)
> > of the mother universe"
> yet, WOW!, your equations are really VERY important too, because,
> Hebie, that must be some kind of a mother, huh? However, Herbie, even
> more important and profound is your simple & elegant "G=EMC^2", a
> pearl, which you have thrown so carelessly before this undeserving world.
>
I think G=EMc2 is a brilliant insight. what i do not understand is
why Einstein didnt think of this?
i know he had trouble imagining singularities but
the view he had on gravity was right on.
i also believe black holes carry the dna of spacetime
and before the BIG bang they where all spinning
into eachother.
regards
ray
hanson
w/i news:1155434761....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
[hanson]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/351589e27cf954d9
>> [hanson to The great Zionist Cosmologist Herbie Glaser aka
>> "G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net>]
>> ahahahaha... wow, Herbie, listen. The dearly departed and once semi
>> beautiful Golda Meir would say to you now her famous quote and smile
>> upon you with: "Hebie, don't be so humble, you are not that important".
>> However, I say that your equations are indeed humble:
>ZH > bang or E+G=BB" and that "singularities have the blue print(DNA)
>ZH > of the mother universe"
>> yet, WOW!, your equations are really VERY important too, because,
>> Hebie, that must be some kind of a mother, huh? However, Herbie, even
>> more important and profound is your simple & elegant "G=EMC^2", a
>> pearl, which you have thrown so carelessly before this undeserving world.
>>
> I think G=EMc2 is a brilliant insight. what i do not understand is
> why Einstein didnt think of this?
> i know he had trouble imagining singularities but
> the view he had on gravity was right on.
> i also believe black holes carry the dna of spacetime
> and before the BIG bang they where all spinning into eachother.
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... That is too much!... ahahaha... But Ray,
I trust that you realize that we are talking here about the Big Bang
and NOT about your Big Bong... & that your adoration for Einstein
AND Zion-Herbie puts you into a different but rare class aka
a Dingleberry's Dingleberry... a righteous classification which you
re-enforce by your belief that G=EMC^2 has to do with Gravity.
Zion-Herbie himself said that G stands for God, but more accurately
it's an acronym for "Glaser = Emotional, Mentally Confused Cripple".
.... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahanson
T Wake
>T Wake wrote:
>> >> Ok, when did this BIG bang take place?
>> >
>> > when do turning points happen?
>>
>> It depends. This is like asking how long is a peice of string.
>>
>
> No is not.
> turning points happen when there's an absolute need of change.
> please see what i wrote before.
>
Again, the length of a peice of string depends on the need when you cut it.
You are asking when an event happens without any grounding on what "causes"
the event. What defines the "absolute need of change" and what changes?
>>
>> You are saying the t=0 event which created this universe was a follow on
>> to
>> older events all leading back to the "original" BIG bang event.
>>
>> For this to hold _any_ water at all, you need to be able to estimate how
>> many events ensued from this BIG bang otherwise you are providing an
>> answer
>> which just muddies the waters and leads to more, complicated, questions.
>>
>
> before realtime (the expanding universe we understand)
> there was a time very dificult to understand where
> matenergyspace compress itself at very great speed
> by the force of gravity.
>
Ok. For this to be a scientific theory we need some way to either test it,
or at least determine what predictions it makes.
Can you let me know if there is a way we can test it? Failing that, what
predictions for the future does it give us?
Coming up with vague phrases like "very dificult to understand" is a cop
out.
Your ideas create many, many more questions than they answer.
>>
>> > when you reach a critical point in wish
>> > things cannot continue the way they where before.
>> >
>> > a complite collapse of the entire universe can only
>> > happen by the mother of all black holes swollowing
>> > spacetime to the point of a universal
>> > gravitational desintegration
>>
>> Unlikely though.
>
> in my mind, icant imagine how spacetime
> can become almost 0 any other way.
That doesn't change anything. The forces of nature are not constrained by
what people can imagine or think of. They act in the manner they do. The
best we can hope for is to be able to create an accurate model which allows
us to get a feel for how it all works.
Raymond Yohros
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... That is too much!... ahahaha... But Ray,
> I trust that you realize that we are talking here about the Big Bang
> and NOT about your Big Bong...
>& that your adoration for Einstein
> AND Zion-Herbie puts you into a different but rare class aka
> a Dingleberry's Dingleberry... a righteous classification which you
> re-enforce by your belief that G=EMC^2 has to do with Gravity.
> Zion-Herbie himself said that G stands for God, but more accurately
> it's an acronym for "Glaser = Emotional, Mentally Confused Cripple".
> .... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahanson
>
it is not my fault if you fail to understand.
you sound like an ordinary person and this is
not at all an ordinary conversation.
the force gravity is always proportional to matenery
and that very simple idea was what inspired sir isac newton
to write his laws.
sometimes truth can be right in front of us but we
are always so lost in our personal views that
we fail to see it.
regards
raymond
Raymond Yohros
Hi T Wake
i have answers for all this questions.
i have almost finish a theory that unifies
genetics with physics in a way that could
be put to the test of reality.
what is a good place to go for publication?
a place where the theory can be debugged by profesionals?
regards
ray
T Wake
Amazing. If your theory holds water you will do well. That is a big if.
> what is a good place to go for publication?
Well, submit to any journal.
> a place where the theory can be debugged by profesionals?
Any decent journal will do that. If you are thick skinned post on USENET,
but the theory better be _very_ sound before you do that.
hanson
[hanson ha escrito:]
>> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... That is too much!... ahahaha... But Ray,
>> I trust that you realize that we are talking here about the Big Bang
>> and NOT about your Big Bong...
>> a Einstein Dingleberry... a righteous classification which you
>> re-enforce by your belief that G=EMC^2 has to do with Gravity.
>> Zion-Herbie himself said that G stands for God, but more accurately
>> it's an acronym for "Glaser = Emotional, Mentally Confused Cripple".
>> .... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahanson
>
> it is not my fault if you fail to understand.
> you sound like an ordinary person and this is
> not at all an ordinary conversation.
>
ahahaha... ahahaha.. AHAHAHAHA... strike what I said about
your Big Bong. Either you are an absolute artist of being funny
or the language barrier created here a situation that makes this
indeed "not at all an ordinary conversation".... ahahaha....
[dingbat&birdbrain]
> the force gravity is always proportional to matenery
> and that very simple idea was what inspired sir isac newton
> to write his laws. sometimes truth can be right in front of us
> but we are always so lost in our personal views that we fail to see it.
> regards, raymond
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... Hey you are right, Ray.
It happens all the time when the matenery switches over to the
catenary on a detour to the batenary in the ratenary, illuminated
by a latenary under the hatenary of the patenary. Your profound
and seminal insight puts you way above Zion Glaser's vatenary
and miles ahead of Einstein's datenary. Your publication is
earnestly in demand for the sake of improving humankind.
Please post your theory right here. Please, please, please.
Thanks for the laughs, Ray...... ahahaha....
ahahaha... ahahanson