Galaxies disk clustering
LeoK
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
Mike Jr.
LeoK,
The above is not a logical argument. I will not comment further about
hallucinogens except to say, stay away from them.
Refer to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation
for an overview of the physics.
--Mike Jr
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"LeoK" <rof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:668c8942-a473-43ea...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
...
> Some kind of a proof of the BB being wrong
> perhaps is that the all galaxies in universe
> form a disk shape.
No, there are some spherical ones too. And bar shaped.
> I.e. the Big Bang first 10 minutes must have
> been spreading the energy in a total spherical
> manner in the developing space.
It was not a Bang, you know. And the energy did, and still does,
fill all space.
...
> One proof of BB advocates being hallucinating?
Not likely that "conservation of angular momentum" fails a theory
that derives from it.
David A. Smith
Sam Wormley
> Hi,
>
> Some kind of a proof of the BB being wrong perhaps is that the
> all galaxies in universe form a disk shape.
>
The majority of observed galaxies are not flat, nor
disk shaped. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
PD
No, Leo.
If you fire two projectiles in *straight* parallel paths, one slightly
faster than the other, and they also have a force of attraction
between them, they will end up rotating around each other in a plane.
The reason is that a system of two objects traveling in *straight*
parallel paths, one slightly faster than the other, already has
nonzero angular momentum. This is a freshman homework problem to show
this. You can also demonstrate it in experiment by getting two tennis-
ball launchers and tying the two tennis balls together with a length
of string, then launching them. You will see a tennis-ball disk galaxy
appear before your eyes.
pd
tadchem
> Hi,
>
> Some kind of a proof of the BB being wrong perhaps is that the
> all galaxies in universe form a disk shape.
Not true.
> 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
The BB is a universal phenomenon (by definition).
The shape that a galaxy takes is a local phenomenon.
Your position is comparable to claiming "since all grass points
upwards, a lawn cannot be flat."
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Uncle Al
>
> Hi,
>
> Some kind of a proof of the BB being wrong perhaps is that the
> all galaxies in universe form a disk shape.
Except for spherical clusters.
Hey stooopid - spin a ball of pizza dough and you get a disk.
> 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.
You are a babbling idiot. Any threading of magnetic fields in plasma
will give you swirlies.
> 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
A proof that LeoK cannot be trusted with a screwdriver.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
LeoK
The TOTAL "shape" of all galaxies in universe have been told or
presented in earlier reports to be generally shaped like a pancake -
or as a disk. I mean all galaxies included in universe. The
total galaxies geometry. I.e. following any imaginary x-y-axis plane
in any x, y and z orientation.Every other statement is FALSE
through earlier reports of this situation.
OK I can take an empirical update of these earlier reports to
now show differently - but then give any http link to show on the
contrary situation. Or is this fact swept under the carpet because
that I'm right?
Secondly, the magnetic plasma forming some time after the Bang
must also follow the universal LOGICAL laws of randomness especially
when one calculate with such a "big" amount as the total energy/mass
in the universe. I.e. the BB did hold all energy/mass that is in
space.
So, if the BB energy, plasma and magnetic forces following the origin
eruption or start must LOGICALLY tend to shape in a sphere. This
mainly or only due to the magnitude of all universal energy/mass.
And again I admit that this is more a logical and mathematical
argument. (BTW can one use physics on the BB, really?)
(One must mainly use math and logic to calculate the BB idea!!!)
(BB seems too "big" for plain physics - so it's here the witchcraft
rules.)
(You all fell in the trap - so sorry.)
But math does incorporate in physics. Or doesn't it?
Why couldn't any of you see this logical/mathematical argument
in the spirit of good physics?
And no one of you does mention these two here essential arguments.
Why?
You just deny everything resembling of common sense and sane physics.
Why?
LeoK
dlzc
On Aug 21, 12:08 pm, LeoK <roff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No one of you have commented these basic facts:
>
> The TOTAL "shape" of all galaxies in universe have
> been told or presented in earlier reports to be
> generally shaped like a pancake - or as a disk.
No, you ignored the information that disk shaped galaxies are not teh
most common.
> I mean all galaxies included in universe.
So did we.
> The total galaxies geometry. I.e. following any
> imaginary x-y-axis plane in any x, y and z
> orientation.Every other statement is FALSE
> through earlier reports of this situation.
Only in your mind.
> Or is this fact swept under the carpet because
> that I'm right?
We don't know why you keep sweeping the facts under the carpet.
> Secondly, the magnetic plasma forming some
> time after the Bang must also follow the universal
> LOGICAL laws of randomness especially
> when one calculate with such a "big" amount as
> the total energy/mass in the universe.
Right, which is why we have filaments of sparsely populated galaxies
called "super clusters", with lots of empty space between them.
...
> (You all fell in the trap - so sorry.)
Your trap is lined with your ignorance, so it is no problem for us.
> But math does incorporate in physics. Or
> doesn't it? Why couldn't any of you see this
> logical/mathematical argument in the spirit of
> good physics?
What argument? What mathematics?
> And no one of you does mention these two
> here essential arguments. Why?
You ignored the information given. Why?
> You just deny everything resembling of
> common sense and sane physics. Why?
You just did exactly that, with information supplied. Why?
David A. Smith
LeoK
> David A. Smith
The INFORMATION given about 8-10 years ago, about year 2000 was:
The general shape of the total all galaxies shape a disk.
I did read it as I read these lines here and saw a picture of this
statement.
You are jerking with truth - obviously.
This was on the www or in some physics magazine - but now can't
be found there.
I know that local clusters and clusters form spheres, but I talk about
all galaxies totally. The geometrical sum of all clusters. Local
clusters,
clusters and super clusters all together in a total universal chart or
x,y and z map. OK.
Why?
Someone does bluff the Big Bang for real.
This is one plausible reason to hide the year 2000 information.
I know I'm right on the about year 2000 report.
LeoK
PD
> No one of you have commented these basic facts:
>
> The TOTAL "shape" of all galaxies in universe have been told or
> presented in earlier reports to be generally shaped like a pancake -
> or as a disk. I mean all galaxies included in universe. The
> total galaxies geometry. I.e. following any imaginary x-y-axis plane
> in any x, y and z orientation.Every other statement is FALSE
> through earlier reports of this situation.
>
> OK I can take an empirical update of these earlier reports to
> now show differently - but then give any http link to show on the
> contrary situation. Or is this fact swept under the carpet because
> that I'm right?
No, it's because you're simply wrong and not up to date. No one owes
you proof handed on a spoon. Now that you've been corrected, it is the
presumption that you can do a little homework yourself to find it on
your own.
>
> Secondly, the magnetic plasma forming some time after the Bang
> must also follow the universal LOGICAL laws of randomness
Can you please tell me what the logical law of randomness is?
Do not confuse "plausible" with "logical law".
> especially
> when one calculate with such a "big" amount as the total energy/mass
> in the universe. I.e. the BB did hold all energy/mass that is in
> space.
> So, if the BB energy, plasma and magnetic forces following the origin
> eruption or start must LOGICALLY tend to shape in a sphere. This
> mainly or only due to the magnitude of all universal energy/mass.
> And again I admit that this is more a logical and mathematical
> argument. (BTW can one use physics on the BB, really?)
> (One must mainly use math and logic to calculate the BB idea!!!)
> (BB seems too "big" for plain physics - so it's here the witchcraft
> rules.)
> (You all fell in the trap - so sorry.)
> But math does incorporate in physics. Or doesn't it?
> Why couldn't any of you see this logical/mathematical argument
> in the spirit of good physics?
>
> And no one of you does mention these two here essential arguments.
> Why?
Because they're not arguments. One is an assertion that is based on
erroneous or incomplete data (and you demand that the correct and full
data be spoon-fed to you), and the other is an idea that is plausible
to you and dressed up with the label "logical law".
dlzc
On Aug 21, 12:54 pm, LeoK <roff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You just did exactly that, with information supplied. Why?
>
> The INFORMATION given about 8-10 years ago,
Just now.
> about year 2000 was: The general shape of the
> total all galaxies shape a disk. I did read it as I
> read these lines here and saw a picture of this
> statement. You are jerking with truth - obviously.
Yes you are. Why?
> This was on the www or in some physics
> magazine - but now can't be found there.
Memory changes. Accept fact now.
> I know that local clusters and clusters form
> spheres,
Virgo Supercluster is not a sphere.
> but I talk about all galaxies totally.
... as you remember it, not how it is.
> The geometrical sum of all clusters. Local
> clusters, clusters and super clusters all
> together in a total universal chart or
> x,y and z map. OK.
>
> Why?
I'd say "early onset Alzheimer's", or you simply don't keep up with
current developments.
> Someone does bluff the Big Bang for real.
> This is one plausible reason to hide the
> year 2000 information.
So now you start with the "conspiracy" theory? You do know this is a
sign of a crackpot, right?
> I know I'm right on the about year 2000 report.
Look, let's think about a cluster of gas that is a little bigger than
the average galaxy. Let time evolve, and the gas starts to coalesce
under gravity. If there is no diferential momentum, it all falls to a
central core, and is boring. If there is differential momentum, then
stuff crashes about, and if there is enough of it, it will end up
forming a disk if there is even a "two body" anomaly. If there is no
"seed" anomaly, or insufficient material, it will stay globular.
What is it about conservation of angular momentum that you think says
anything about the Big Bang, much less being contrary to it?
Keep in mind that distribution anomalies are present in the CMBR...
David A. Smith
Igor
>
> Some kind of a proof of the BB being wrong perhaps is that the
> all galaxies in universe form a disk shape.
Many of the individual galaxies are disked shaped, but their groupings
at some very large level tend to be uniformly distributed in all three
dimensions.
> I.e. the Big Bang first 10 minutes must have been spreading the
> energy in a total spherical manner in the developing space.
Indeed. And it still appears that way. Superclusters of galaxies are
distributed fairly evenly across the sky.
> The E=mc^2 hints this by the release with minor energies than BB.
What's that supposed to mean?
> This is a most logical assumption of the BB. - And this assumption,
> is against the Hubble visual detection of the all galaxies cluster.
You need to explain that one too. It's not very clear what you are
trying to say.
> So, all the galaxies in the universe form flat in a disk shape is not
> in line with this aspect of BB.
Disk shaped galaxies have that shape due to internal angular
momentum. It has absolutely nothing to do with the big bang.
> One proof of BB advocates being hallucinating?
You be the one that's being hallucinating. The physics of the big
bang is intact. Your so-called proof is severely flawed. Learn some
real physics.
LeoK
> bang is intact. Your so-called proof is severely flawed. Learn some
> real physics.
I've searched the www and found two projects that both say that the
total geometry of the universe is FLAT.
It seems that it's I who's spoon feeding you guys. Ehe...
Sorry, guys, it's not I who's hallucinating, not I.
I'm right and you are wrong - accordingly to these two projects.
I was right in this LOGICAL, E=mc^2, discrepancy.
UNIVERSE IS FLAT.
Okidoki..!!
LeoK
PD
And you take that to mean, shaped like a dinner plate?
>
> Okidoki..!!
>
> LeoK
jmfbahciv
>> You be the one that's being hallucinating. The physics of the big
>> bang is intact. Your so-called proof is severely flawed. Learn some
>> real physics.
>> Igor
>
> I've searched the www and found two projects that both say that the
> total geometry of the universe is FLAT.
>
> It seems that it's I who's spoon feeding you guys. Ehe...
>
> Sorry, guys, it's not I who's hallucinating, not I.
> I'm right and you are wrong - accordingly to these two projects.
Oh, good grief! PD mentioned one experiment you could do. If
you really tried to use your brain, you could think of all
kinds of configurations to experiment with.
PD? If a kid didn't have a tennis ball thrower, is there another
way to get those balls in the air? It would be difficult
to throw them consistently.
/BAH
PD
Sure. Put them both in a peach basket and fling them out of the peach
basket. This will demonstrate even using Leo's "logical law of
randomness" that the coupled tennis balls will end up rotating around
each other.
jmfbahciv
kewl. I wonder if you can make the "flat" be up and down. OH,
and tie 3 together, then 4. With 5 you'll probably end up with
a knot.
Ah, and stand on a merry-go-round and throw the balls. Stand on
different spots of the merry-go-round. And at different spin
rates.
Is anything else that I'm missing?
/BAH
john20,08,08
Besides the point?
He's not talking about individual galaxies,
but the (apparent) obsevation that the Universe
itself is flat, and the inconsistency of this
with the Big Bang scenario.
PD also has reading issues, but in his case it seems
to be tied to a worldview anxiety thing.
John
john220808
Besides the point?
PD
This does not mean "disk-shaped" like a dinner plate, for crying out
loud.
It means there is practically no spacetime curvature.
Sorry to confuse you with jargon.
"Flat" in general relativity means something different than it does in
5th grade science where you're making a statement about the surface of
the table.
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
> No one of you have commented these basic facts:
>
> The TOTAL "shape" of all galaxies in universe have been told or
> presented in earlier reports to be generally shaped like a pancake -
> or as a disk. I mean all galaxies included in universe. The
> total galaxies geometry. I.e. following any imaginary x-y-axis plane
> in any x, y and z orientation.Every other statement is FALSE
> through earlier reports of this situation.
>
> OK I can take an empirical update of these earlier reports to
> now show differently - but then give any http link to show on the
> contrary situation. Or is this fact swept under the carpet because
> that I'm right?
>
> when one calculate with such a "big" amount as the total energy/mass
> in the universe. I.e. the BB did hold all energy/mass that is in
> space.
> So, if the BB energy, plasma and magnetic forces following the origin
> eruption or start must LOGICALLY tend to shape in a sphere. This
> mainly or only due to the magnitude of all universal energy/mass.
> And again I admit that this is more a logical and mathematical
> argument. (BTW can one use physics on the BB, really?)
> (One must mainly use math and logic to calculate the BB idea!!!)
> (BB seems too "big" for plain physics - so it's here the witchcraft
> rules.)
> (You all fell in the trap - so sorry.)
> But math does incorporate in physics. Or doesn't it?
> Why couldn't any of you see this logical/mathematical argument
> in the spirit of good physics?
>
> And no one of you does mention these two here essential arguments.
> Why?
>
> Why?
>
> LeoK
I think it's really good that you are maintaining an open position on
this. That's paramount. Anybody who wants to seal the BB as a done
deal is shorting themselves.
Angular momentum is troubling to me and others here. There are plenty
of threads discussing it. If the qualities isotropic and homogeneous
can be challenged or corrected then we might get somewhere new. Space
is not the same in all directions. The cosmologists will counter that
when you average the angular momentum of the universe it will be zero,
yet this averaging concept is a nonsensical stance. Anytime you
average antything it will come out quite flat. The very word
'isotropic' may be invalid except for pure voids. Since we are not in
a pure void this word should be discarded. Einstein hinged relativity
theory on isotropic space, but this leaves a skewed structure of three
isotropic dimensions with time an outlier. This structure is not
derived; it is assumed. Clean theoretical physics will derive three
dimensional space and unidirectional time. Then we can take another
look at the big bang theory and hopefully improve it. But if time is
zero dimensional then the abstraction to a singularity may transfer to
a concept of accumulation. There used to be an Eastern European guy
promoting a 'big shrink' model which I thought was a clever turn.
I do think that the BB is carefully constructed but in that the
foundations of physics ought to be exposed then the claim of creation
of spacetime should specify that spacetime cleanly. I think BB just
assumes this.
Another consideration is that in vortex dynamics vortices ought to be
paired in standard space. I'm not up on the details, but I've seen the
issue of eddy currents discussed for some constructions.
- Tim
G=EMC^2 Glazier
or collided head on to form the other types Wheelpool galaxy was hit
hard Bert PS did you get my house picture??
Darwin123
>
> The TOTAL "shape" of all galaxies in universe have been told or
> presented in earlier reports to be generally shaped like a pancake -
> or as a disk. I mean all galaxies included in universe. The
> total galaxies geometry. I.e. following any imaginary x-y-axis plane
> in any x, y and z orientation.Every other statement is FALSE
> through earlier reports of this situation.
>
> OK I can take an empirical update of these earlier reports to
> now show differently - but then give any http link to show on the
> contrary situation. Or is this fact swept under the carpet because
> that I'm right?
A large number of galaxies are more or less disk shaped. In
addition, the inner solar system is disk shaped. Angular momentum
seems to concentrate locally in the universe. However, the Big Bang
theory implies the total angular momentum is zero. Therefore, angular
momentum appears spread out globally.
Another way to express your question is this. If the universe
started out as a spherically symmetric distribution of mass and
energy, how come there are local pockets which are not spherically
symmetric. Where did the spherical symmetry go in these local pockets.
A system that starts out with both large scale and small scale
symmetry sometimes loses the small scale symmetry. The general name
for such phenomena is spontaneous symmetry breaking. What happens is
that very small local asymmetries get amplified by some interaction
and in time become large asymmetries. Common examples are the
formation of magnetic domains in ferromagnetic materials, and the
formation of water droplets and snowflakes in the atmosphere.
Analogy 1: You could as well have asked: If the distribution of
water vapor in the atmosphere is uniform over a large region, how come
these snowflakes are flat? The existence of flat snowflakes doesn't
prove both meteorology and thermodynamics wrong. There are
interactions between the molecules in water that favor flat crystals
under such conditions.
Analogy 2: The molecules of water are never spherically symmetric
because of certain quantum properties. If you start out mixing a
spherically symmetric distribution of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, there
will be an explosion and then there will be a mass of water molecules.
Every water molecule will be bent, corresponding to bond angles.
Analogy 3: A piece of cold iron may not be magnetic as a whole.
However, the iron is broken up into magnetic domains that are
microscopic. The total magnetic dipole may be zero and may always have
been zero since the lump of iron solidified. However, each magnetic
domain has a magnetic dipole pointing in a very definite direction.
In a similar way, interactions between gravitational bodies break the
spherical symmetry intially present in the Big Bang.
>
> Secondly, the magnetic plasma forming some time after the Bang
> must also follow the universal LOGICAL laws of randomness especially
> when one calculate with such a "big" amount as the total energy/mass
> in the universe. I.e. the BB did hold all energy/mass that is in
> space.
> So, if the BB energy, plasma and magnetic forces following the origin
> eruption or start must LOGICALLY tend to shape in a sphere. This
> mainly or only due to the magnitude of all universal energy/mass.
> And again I admit that this is more a logical and mathematical
> argument. (BTW can one use physics on the BB, really?)
> (One must mainly use math and logic to calculate the BB idea!!!)
> (BB seems too "big" for plain physics - so it's here the witchcraft
> rules.)
> (You all fell in the trap - so sorry.)
> But math does incorporate in physics. Or doesn't it?
> Why couldn't any of you see this logical/mathematical argument
> in the spirit of good physics?
cosmologist, I couldn't give a definitive answer. However, I know so
many examples of symmetry breaking in my own field that it didn't even
occur to me for a while what your question really was. It wasn't that
I saw an obvious contradiction to the Big Bang, its that so many
counterexamples of your argument came to mind that I wasn't sure what
your argument was. However, in the spirit of scientific imagination, I
will give my educated conjecture in the hopes a real astronomer could
answer you better.
The collection of angular momentum into local pockets after the
Big Bang may be a type of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Maybe what
you want to know is the interaction that caused the spontaneous
symmetry breaking.
I saw a proof that in a two body system subject to spherically
symmetric forces, the two bodies orbit in a plane. Due to geometrical
constraints, the initial configuration of two bodies has to be flat in
a plane. Draw the picture. If you have two bodies, the two velocities
define a plane not a sphere. So just the fact there are two bodies
interacting creates a bias toward a planar structure. In fact, two
bodies have to go into a planar orbit or a planar scattering
configuration. So just assuming that there are a number of discrete
particles in the universe creates a bias toward flat spinning systems.
However, this explanation presumes that the universe is already broken
up into discrete particles. Which seems to be the case right now, but
let us extrapolate backwards.
Everything is broken up into discrete particles due to quantum
mechanics. Even during the Big Bang. Right now its atoms, at an
earlier time it was quarks, etc. This is a consequence of quantum
mechanics whic hasn't yet been reconciled with general relativity. The
breakup of energy into small particles is a result of quantum
mechanics, or whatever rules the universe at a small scale. Therefore,
a fairly decent extrapolation is that even from the beginning there
were at least discrete particles (quarks, electrons, ?)
A fancy way to say this is that at the beginning of the Big Bang,
there were quantum fluctuations. However, I will just say that in the
beginning matter was broken up into submicroscopic particles and I
don't know why. It seems to be the case now that everything is broken
up into atoms. This is as good an approximation of quantum mechanics
as I want to venture in astronomy. Soon after the Big Bang, these
particles were statistically uniform. However, on a really small scale
the spherical symmetry was broken. As of yet, there were no galaxy
sized disks.
As time goes on, these particles clump to from black holes. If
the interactions were mostly two by two, these black holes will be
spinning by the argument mentioned before. When two systems come
together, they tend to form flat spinning systems. This is an example
of symmetry breaking.
Lots of spinning black holes around. Gas accumulates around them,
forming spinning disks. The spin of the black holes breaks the
spherical symmetry locally, causing a large bias toward the disk
shape. Stars form around them, in disk shaped solar systems.
Most of the universe doesn't form disks. This dark matter that
is being hypothesized doesn't form structures as disk shaped as the
glowing star stuff we see. The comet belts in our solar system are
spherically shaped. It is only the inner solar system that is disk
shaped. However, there is actually a small amount of symmetry
breaking. There are disk shaped structures that happen to stand out.
So in my view, there were small anisotropy in the universe from
the beginning caused by quantum interactions or something like quantum
interactions. Then, the gravitational interactions (no quantum
mechanics necessary) caused amplification local anisotropy. This
created spinning black holes that became disk shaped galaxies.
Astronomers most probably have computer simulations of this
process. I am pulling this model just by analogy with the solid state
systems that I know about. If you want, you can do a search for
studies where astronomers perform such calculations. However, I am
explaining why I don't jump on astronomers based on your conjectures.
>
> And no one of you does mention these two here essential arguments.
> Why?
>
> You just deny everything resembling of common sense and sane physics.
> Why?
I am a solid state physicist. I study smaller things like this all
the time. To me, spontaneous symmetry breaking is interesting but no
big deal. However, I am not an astronomer. So I can't give the final
justification for all this. I am explaining why I don't throw away the
work of astronomers just because you have a problem with it. Don't
insult me, I do think about similar things all the time. This is
probably the first time you ever thought about it, right?
How did you originally explain flat snowflakes? Did you think
about why snowflakes were flat, or did you take it for granted? I was
curious about it. So I thought about this type of problem a long time
before you did, although not in reference to the Big Bang.
Michael J. Strickland
news:668c8942-a473-43ea...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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.
Many (not all galaxies) are disk shaped, however they are not all
rotating in the same plane.
...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services qualitys...@verizon.net
703-560-7380
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jmfbahciv
From what I've been reading, the point is that a lot of
people don't understand angular momentum that involves more than
one object. I'm pretty sure these people also don't understand
angular momentum of one body.
> He's not talking about individual galaxies,
> but the (apparent) obsevation that the Universe
> itself is flat, and the inconsistency of this
> with the Big Bang scenario.
He has posted that he is not talking about Euclidean geometry.
Do you know the difference?
> PD also has reading issues, but in his case it seems
> to be tied to a worldview anxiety thing.
I suspect that your analysis of "reading issues" has to do with
your lack of geometry knowledge.
/BAH
>
> John
Sam Wormley
You blather old fool, Herb. What data is that.
I got a picture of yer house... listen for a knock on the door.
-Sam
G=EMC^2 Glazier
your love ones anytime. I have 4 extra rooms. The price is right Bert
AllYou!
news:b352c551-30d3-4e8a...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
dlzc <dl...@cox.net> mused:
> Dear LeoK:
>
> On Aug 21, 12:08 pm, LeoK <roff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> No one of you have commented these basic facts:
>>
>> The TOTAL "shape" of all galaxies in universe have
>> been told or presented in earlier reports to be
>> generally shaped like a pancake - or as a disk.
>
> No, you ignored the information that disk shaped galaxies are
> not teh most common.
He means that the whole of the universe is disk shaped.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:JMqdnT15pYlJLS_V...@posted.choiceonecommunications...
It isn't. Galaxies are strewn in all directions. There was some
hoo-haw about a year ago that the universe was faceted, with
20-some-odd facets.
David A. Smith
AllYou!
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <dl...@cox.net> mused:
> Dear AllYou!:
>
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:JMqdnT15pYlJLS_V...@posted.choiceonecommunications...
>> In
>> news:b352c551-30d3-4e8a...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
>> dlzc <dl...@cox.net> mused:
>>> Dear LeoK:
>>>
>>> On Aug 21, 12:08 pm, LeoK <roff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> No one of you have commented these basic facts:
>>>>
>>>> The TOTAL "shape" of all galaxies in universe have
>>>> been told or presented in earlier reports to be
>>>> generally shaped like a pancake - or as a disk.
>>>
>>> No, you ignored the information that disk shaped
>>> galaxies are not teh most common.
>>
>> He means that the whole of the universe is disk shaped.
>
> It isn't.
I believe you.
PD
> Innews:b352c551-30d3-4e8a...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
Which he got from reading in a magazine that the universe is flat, not
having the foggiest idea what that means to a physicist.
This is one of the most common vehicles for crankdom in physics:
Physical theory --> statement using a word with physics meaning -->
publication of that statement in a popular-press issue -->
reinterpretation as a statement using a word with colloquial meaning --
> conclusion that the physical theory is obviously wrong --> dreams of
revolutionizing physics.
PD
AllYou!
news:5bcefe51-b834-4cbe...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> mused:
I'd bet that when you were a child, you poo-pooed 'The Little Engine
That Could' story, didn't you.
PD
> Innews:5bcefe51-b834-4cbe...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> mused:
Actually, that was one of my favorites.
As a child.
In my training as a physicist, I was taught how to constantly tie
connections between dreams and reality checks.
But in THIS case, it's not even about dreams and reality checks. It's
about forgetting even to ask simple questions like, "Wait a second,
I'm having trouble making sense of this: what does 'flat' mean in this
context." The refusal to ask a question when something doesn't make
sense isn't the mark of a dreamer, it's the mark of the arrogant.
PD
Raghar
> 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.
Current galaxy has two black holes, an interaction between forces it
into disk shape.
AllYou!
news:262577ac-fd40-479e...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com,
LeoK <rof...@yahoo.com> mused:
>> You be the one that's being hallucinating. The physics of the
>> big bang is intact. Your so-called proof is severely flawed.
>> Learn some real physics.
>> Igor
>
> I've searched the www and found two projects that both say that
> the total
> geometry of the universe is FLAT.
>
>
> Sorry, guys, it's not I who's hallucinating, not I.
> I'm right and you are wrong - accordingly to these two projects.
>
>
> UNIVERSE IS FLAT.
Are you referring to the universe, or the observable universe?
AllYou!
news:03baa88f-04c5-4eca...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
LeoK <rof...@yahoo.com> mused:
>> You be the one that's being hallucinating. The physics of the
>> big bang is intact. Your so-called proof is severely flawed.
>> Learn some real physics.
>> Igor
>
> I've searched the www and found two projects that both say that
> the total geometry of the universe is FLAT.
>
>
> Sorry, guys, it's not I who's hallucinating, not I.
> I'm right and you are wrong - accordingly to these two projects.
>
> I was right in this LOGICAL, E=mc^2, discrepancy.
>
> UNIVERSE IS FLAT.
Did you mean to use the word "flat" in the following sense?
"To astronomers, flat means that the usual rules of geometry are
observed - light not being bent by gravity travels in straight
lines, not curves. But since Albert Einstein proposed that the
Universe may be 'curved', the debate has been open."
jmfbahciv
It would be better to talk about his use of E=mc^2. It shows
that he doesn't know the entire formula nor that it's a
special case.
/BAH
AllYou!
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> mused:
Obviously, you don't have to answer if you don't wish to do so, but
it would help me to understand your position if you could explain
that when you say that the universe is flat, if you are talking
about the whole of the universe, or if you are talking about the
observable universe.
I would also like you to clarify that when you use the word 'flat',
if you are talking about 'non-curved', or if you are talking about
'2 dimensional'. You don't have to clarify that either, although it
would help me to understand what your objection is all about.
LeoK
> if you are talking about 'non-curved', or if you are talking about
> '2 dimensional'. You don't have to clarify that either, although it
> would help me to understand what your objection is all about.
Physics is mainly or historically based on Euclidean geometry.
Until Einstein did show or prove that real space-physics is non-
Euclidean. Einstein showed this non-Euclidean geometry by the
behaviour of light in conjunction with gravity.
So Einstein's space time geometry is based on the behaviour of light.
And now you ask me if I mean flat, and also what geometry I relate?
Universe is seen as FLAT through two recent projects, this I know.
What geometry was used in these project I don't know. But when
I suspect that these project both where made by cosmologists the
Euclidean geometry must probably have been used. Or the cosmologists
was involved in the part when the geometry of universe was up for
to be estimated. And they probably used their professional
frames of geometry.
But if real space is measured with non-Euclidean geometry,
accordingly to Einstein, one can question the result of a
FLAT universe in the projects, if they used Euclidean.
Universe is FLAT in Euclidean geometry.
But may not be so in non-Euclidean frames.
LeoK
Eric Gisse
> > I would also like you to clarify that when you use the word 'flat',
> > if you are talking about 'non-curved', or if you are talking about
> > '2 dimensional'. You don't have to clarify that either, although it
> > would help me to understand what your objection is all about.
> > AllYou
>
> Physics is mainly or historically based on Euclidean geometry.
Wrong, mostly wrong.
[snip]
Androcles
> I would also like you to clarify that when you use the word 'flat',
> if you are talking about 'non-curved', or if you are talking about
> '2 dimensional'. You don't have to clarify that either, although it
> would help me to understand what your objection is all about.
> AllYou
Physics is mainly or historically based on Euclidean geometry.
Until Einstein did show or prove that real space-physics is non-
Euclidean. Einstein showed this non-Euclidean geometry by the
behaviour of light in conjunction with gravity.
======================================
You ignorant bullshitting bastard.
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Your answer goes here:
________________________________________________________
Other answers have been:
According to Ian Parker:
"We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory." -- Idiot Ian Parker.
______________________________________________________
According to cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
"Easy: he did NOT say that."
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
______________________________________________________
According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
______________________________________________________
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
______________________________________________________
According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.
______________________________________________________
According to Dork Bruere
"I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."
______________________________________________________
According to Spirit of Truth:
that math is correct but WRONG
______________________________________________________
According to constipated Eric Gisse
"I don't give a shit (fill in the blank ____________)."
______________________________________________________
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
Uncle Al
Indeed. Physics is mostly all about breaking free of Euclid. Euclid
is an infinitesimally local horribly deficient approximation to the
way things really are - whatever that may be.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Indeed. Physics is mostly all about breaking free of Euclid. Euclid
> is an infinitesimally local horribly deficient approximation to the
> way things really are - whatever that may be.
It works fine for limited surveying. Which is the origin of geometry.
The root Greek words in geometry, mean earth measurement or surveying.
The Greeks learned geometry from the Egyptians who developed surveying to
1. reset land boundries after the flooding of the Nile
2. build big tombs (pyramids) for dead Pharoes.
All great things, have humble beginnings.
Bob Kolker
>
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:CJOdnYNdUJhkySnV...@posted.choiceonecommunications...
...
> Obviously, you don't have to answer if you don't
> wish to do so, but it would help me to understand
> your position if you could explain that when you
> say that the universe is flat, if you are talking about the
> whole of the universe, or if you are
> talking about the observable universe.
Let me give it a stab. "The Observable Universe" is like the
salt flats in California. Globallly the salt flats (Universe)
are flat, with local deviations from flat (scrub, tire tracks,
stuff like that).
The observable Universe has been surveyed, and it is flat
globally. "The entire Universe" is not accessible for
measurement as you know, but if we are not "in a special place",
then the entire Universe should be much like we see here / now.
> I would also like you to clarify that when you
> use the word 'flat', if you are talking about
> 'non-curved', or if you are talking about '2
> dimensional'.
He means that the Universe at large scales is 'non-curved' in
space. Objects have no tendency to be "distorted" into appearing
in one section of sky, or have unusual tendency to large
anomalous red/blue shifting in any particular direction
(factoring out our "real" kinetic motion wrt the Universe at
large).
David A. Smith
jmfbahciv
I didn't write that. Note the prefixing.
<snip>
/BAH
AllYou!
news:07fd526f-52a6-47a9...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
LeoK <rof...@yahoo.com> mused:
In terms of the information that you said you found on the www, that
information uses the word 'flat' based upon curved spacetime.
Therefore, if you do not regard the notion of curved spacetime as a
valid one, it's not valid to then take something that is said in
that context, and apply it Euclidean geometry. There are no
projects, and is no evidence, that the universe is flat in a
Euclidean geometry sense.
You also failed to answer my first question as to whether or not the
you were talking about the whole universe, or the observable
universe. The whole of the universe is not observable, and so there
is no way to assess what it's shape is. But because what we can
observe of the universe is far from two dimensional, it seems that
any claim that it is two dimensional is an invalid one.
LeoK
you were talking about the whole universe, or the observable
universe. The whole of the universe is not observable, and so there
is no way to assess what it's shape is. But because what we can
observe of the universe is far from two dimensional, it seems that
any claim that it is two dimensional is an invalid one."
Any x, y and about 10-20 % of x, gives a FLAT universe in any
plane orientation.
A slice of bread, a pancake or a web with galaxy clusters caught in
the web in any orientation.
You don't seem to get the idea. Why..??
Hallucinating..??
LeoK
AllYou!
news:b88185d4-a9d6-47bf...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
LeoK <rof...@yahoo.com> mused:
Well, for one thing, I don't understand why you'd have to resort to
insults. Do you always do that when debating someone? But to
answer your question, even though you've not addressed mine, no, I
don't understand what point you're trying to make. In order to know
what shape the whole of the universe has taken, you'd have to be
able to observe the whole of the universe in some way. You'd have
to be able to measure it in some way.
But there is no way of observing, or otherwise measuring, the whole
of the universe in any one of the infinite number of directions. No
matter in what direction we look, or in what direction we try to
measure, we have yet to know that we have approached the boundary of
the universe. Therefore, there is no way of knowing what shape it
takes.
Any article you're read on the www which proposes that the universe
is 'flat' is either ignoring the fact that I've mentioned above, or
it's using the term "flat" in the sense that the universe is not
curved, and not in the sense of its geometric shape in a Euclidean
sense.
LeoK
of the universe in any one of the infinite number of directions. No
matter in what direction we look, or in what direction we try to
measure, we have yet to know that we have approached the boundary of
the universe. Therefore, there is no way of knowing what shape it
takes."
Perhaps Uncle Al can guide you about the interpolation
math of the still visible universe.
Go and get some common sense before posting further.
(I'm not insulting. - You just made a logical and mathematical
and therefore also a physical error that perhaps can be
explained by your urge for plain discussing, or whatever.)
LeoK
AllYou!
news:d43ecd3e-0c65-4af1...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
LeoK <rof...@yahoo.com> mused:
> "But there is no way of observing, or otherwise measuring, the
> whole of the universe in any one of the infinite number of
> directions. No matter in what direction we look, or in what
> direction we try to measure, we have yet to know that we have
> approached the boundary of the universe. Therefore, there is no
> way of knowing what shape it takes."
>
> Perhaps Uncle Al can guide you about the interpolation
> math of the still visible universe.
>
> Go and get some common sense before posting further.
> (I'm not insulting. - You just made a logical and mathematical
> explained by your urge for plain discussing, or whatever.)
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. 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.
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.
>
> 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."
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.
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
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
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?