| |
Main
Date: 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09
From: Radium
Subject: Before the Big Bang?
|
Hi:
What happened before the big bang?
Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.
Regards,
Radium
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 16:58:02
From: Phoon Hencman
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
On 2006-09-10 12:35:09 -0400, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > said:
> Hi:
>
> What happened before the big bang?
>
The big foreplay of coarse!
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 12:43:56
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Radium wrote:
> What happened before the big bang?
> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered...
...which of course won't keep it from being argued about endlessly on
Usenet. ;)
--
St. John
Invest in physics--own a piece of Dirac!
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 16:41:10
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote:
>Hi:
>
>What happened before the big bang?
>
>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.
Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of
our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of
"before" isn't easily defined. However, if theory and experiment
ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the
_cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even
if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:24:46
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com...
> On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi:
>>
>>What happened before the big bang?
>>
>>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.
>
> Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of
> our universe,
It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe!
and it began when the universe began, so the concept of
> "before" isn't easily defined.
Totally warped thinking, to think time did not exist until the Big Bang.
There was a bang, wasn't there?
What set off the bang!
Something in time.
However, if theory and experiment
> ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the
> _cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even
> if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:03:08
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Dear Mark Earnest:
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:12g9lnpcjvd7f67@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com...
>> On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi:
>>>
>>>What happened before the big bang?
>>>
>>>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet
>>>its so interesting.
>>
>> Something like this question may be answerable.
>> Time is a property of our universe,
>
> It is not! Time marches on independently of the
> universe!
Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be a property of
this Universe.
>> and it began when the universe began, so the
>> concept of "before" isn't easily defined.
>
> Totally warped thinking, to think time did not
> exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang, wasn't there?
No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried on for years.
> What set off the bang!
> Something in time.
Something OF time, yes.
David A. Smith
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:16:34
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com > wrote in
message news:Vd5Ng.2808$nL2.2441@fed1read02...
> Dear Mark Earnest:
>
> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:12g9lnpcjvd7f67@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>> news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com...
>>> On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi:
>>>>
>>>>What happened before the big bang?
>>>>
>>>>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet
>>>>its so interesting.
>>>
>>> Something like this question may be answerable.
>>> Time is a property of our universe,
>>
>> It is not! Time marches on independently of the
>> universe!
>
> Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be a property of this
> Universe.
That is like saying water is a property of what we are, when we know
water acts completely independent of us, in the way it evaporates and
condenses over our oceans.
>>> and it began when the universe began, so the
>>> concept of "before" isn't easily defined.
>>
>> Totally warped thinking, to think time did not
>> exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang, wasn't there?
>
> No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried on for years.
The running thought is that some primordial atom exploded somehow, and
became everything. All matter is hurtling from one central location,
proving
the explosion. What else could it be?
>
>> What set off the bang!
>> Something in time.
>
> Something OF time, yes.
In time, of time, both the same here.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 21:27:46
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Dear Mark Earnest:
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:12gc2jc9e60voef@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
> wrote in message news:Vd5Ng.2808$nL2.2441@fed1read02...
>> Dear Mark Earnest:
>>
>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:12g9lnpcjvd7f67@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com...
>>>> On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium"
>>>> <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi:
>>>>>
>>>>>What happened before the big bang?
>>>>>
>>>>>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet
>>>>>its so interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Something like this question may be answerable.
>>>> Time is a property of our universe,
>>>
>>> It is not! Time marches on independently of the
>>> universe!
>>
>> Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be
>> a property of this Universe.
>
> That is like saying water is a property of what we
> are, when we know water acts completely
> independent of us, in the way it evaporates and condenses over
> our oceans.
No, that is like saying "can you prove this"? Otherwise you are
wasting effort on something that cannot ever be measured.
>>>> and it began when the universe began, so the
>>>> concept of "before" isn't easily defined.
>>>
>>> Totally warped thinking, to think time did not
>>> exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang,
>>> wasn't there?
>>
>> No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried
>> on for years.
>
> The running thought is that some primordial
> atom exploded somehow,
No. There was no explosion.
> and became everything. All matter is hurtling from
> one central location, proving the explosion.
There is no unique "central location" in the direction we are
moving from. There is no unique "central location anywhere we
can see.
> What else could it be?
An inflation of spacetime, from nearly nothing to where we are
today.
>>> What set off the bang!
>>> Something in time.
>>
>> Something OF time, yes.
>
> In time, of time, both the same here.
No. One presupposes that time is distinct from this Universe.
The other assumes that time is a product of the Universe.
David A. Smith
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 01:16:20
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com > wrote in
message news:%GqNg.2899$nL2.1584@fed1read02...
> Dear Mark Earnest:
>
> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:12gc2jc9e60voef@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
>> message news:Vd5Ng.2808$nL2.2441@fed1read02...
>>> Dear Mark Earnest:
>>>
>>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:12g9lnpcjvd7f67@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>>>> news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com...
>>>>> On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What happened before the big bang?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet
>>>>>>its so interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something like this question may be answerable.
>>>>> Time is a property of our universe,
>>>>
>>>> It is not! Time marches on independently of the
>>>> universe!
>>>
>>> Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be
>>> a property of this Universe.
>>
>> That is like saying water is a property of what we
>> are, when we know water acts completely
>> independent of us, in the way it evaporates and condenses over our
>> oceans.
>
> No, that is like saying "can you prove this"? Otherwise you are wasting
> effort on something that cannot ever be measured.
For a statement like "time is a property of the universe," to have any
meaning,
one must understand the universe is by definition all that exists.
Time certainly exists.
Further, time is linear. Examine any historical timeline.
And a line has no beginning, and no end.
So time had to continue forever before the Big Bang.
>
>>>>> and it began when the universe began, so the
>>>>> concept of "before" isn't easily defined.
>>>>
>>>> Totally warped thinking, to think time did not
>>>> exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang,
>>>> wasn't there?
>>>
>>> No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried
>>> on for years.
>>
>> The running thought is that some primordial
>> atom exploded somehow,
>
> No. There was no explosion.
What other kind of force could cause all galaxies to move away from a
central point? It must have been a superpowerful force, to motivate all
matter that exists. Only some kind of spectacular detonation seems possible
to move matter in such a forceful way.
>
>> and became everything. All matter is hurtling from
>> one central location, proving the explosion.
>
> There is no unique "central location" in the direction we are moving
> from. There is no unique "central location anywhere we can see.
I guess I am jumping the gun, then, if the central location hasn't yet been
discovered yet.
>
>> What else could it be?
>
> An inflation of spacetime, from nearly nothing to where we are today.
O.K., then maybe the universe was a cloud of vapor, that just sort of
moved out in all directions, becoming everything?
That just doesn't sound possible, since we are talking about a wispy
expansion as becoming all that exists.
>>>> What set off the bang!
>>>> Something in time.
>>>
>>> Something OF time, yes.
>>
>> In time, of time, both the same here.
>
> No. One presupposes that time is distinct from this Universe. The other
> assumes that time is a product of the Universe.
You are saying that the universe could somehow manufacture time?
Mark
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:27:45
From: Mark McIntyre
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:16:20 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Further, time is linear. Examine any historical timeline.
>And a line has no beginning, and no end.
This is rubbish. Most lines have a beginning and an end*. When was the
last time you drew an infinite line?
(*With the possible exceptions of the white lines on the Milton Keynes
ringroad of course, which form a moebius strip from my experience. )
>So time had to continue forever before the Big Bang.
You reason from false facts, so you arrive at a false conclusion, much
as pre columbian sailors said "The world is flat, therefore you cannot
sail around it. "
>> No. There was no explosion.
>
>What other kind of force could cause all galaxies to move away from a
>central point?
What galaxies? There /were/ no galaxies at the time. There was a hell
of a lot of energy, which needed no assistance to start moving apart
really really fast.
>It must have been a superpowerful force, to motivate all
>matter that exists. Only some kind of spectacular detonation seems possible
>to move matter in such a forceful way.
*sigh*
As a great writer once said, to the uninitiated, any sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. That is to say
just because ones imagination or knowledge cannot concieve of or
understand the necessary process, does not mean it does not exist.
>> There is no unique "central location" in the direction we are moving
>> from. There is no unique "central location anywhere we can see.
>I guess I am jumping the gun, then, if the central location hasn't yet been
>discovered yet.
NO, please RE READ what was said. Everything is expanding away from
everything else. There's no centre.
>> An inflation of spacetime, from nearly nothing to where we are today.
>
>O.K., then maybe the universe was a cloud of vapor, that just sort of
>moved out in all directions, becoming everything?
Its really not possible to explain this with trivial analogies.
>That just doesn't sound possible, since we are talking about a wispy
>expansion as becoming all that exists.
Again, you're essentially saying "I don't understand this mechanism,
so it can't exist".
>You are saying that the universe could somehow manufacture time?
Exactly. In the same sense that a banana manufactures yellowness, or a
frog manufactures croakiness.
--
Mark McIntyre
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:17:22
From: Mark McIntyre
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:16:34 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
>message news:Vd5Ng.2808$nL2.2441@fed1read02...
>> Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be a property of this
>> Universe.
>
>That is like saying water is a property of what we are,
No its not.....
>when we know water acts completely independent of us, in the way it evaporates and
>condenses over our oceans.
... for precisely this reason. Not to mention the analogy is so broken
its laughable.
Nevertheless: experimental evidence points to time being a fundamental
property of the universe. Theoretical models fit this idea too.
There's absolutely no evidence at all for it existing except in the
universe. There's no call to invoke such an idea to explain any known
phenomena.
>> No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried on for years.
>
>The running thought is that some primordial atom exploded somehow,
Running amongst whom? This is /not/ how actual scientists think of the
start of the universe.
>and
>became everything. All matter is hurtling from one central location,
>proving
>the explosion. What else could it be?
Nothing that hurtled from any location, for one thing.
In the instant of the creation of the universe, time and space came
into being. There was nowhere to hurtle from until then, and notime to
do it in.
>> Something OF time, yes.
>
>In time, of time, both the same here.
Hmm, that would be in the same sense that "in a crocodile" and "of a
crocodile" are the same? Or "in jail" and "of jail"?
Have you seen my handbag?
It is of the crocodile. He has eaten it.
--
Mark McIntyre
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 03:28:10
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:24:46 -0500, "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe!
I'm glad you're so confident of that. Very few physicists (myself
included) would agree, however.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:13:12
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:erl9g2h2kubm2gustsr3g0g6ko1lq3c2dc@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:24:46 -0500, "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe!
>
> I'm glad you're so confident of that. Very few physicists (myself
> included) would agree, however.
I'll try to maintain my confidence, then.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:52:35
From: Mark McIntyre
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:24:46 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote:
>> Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of
>> our universe,
>
>It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe!
Er, no.
> and it began when the universe began, so the concept of
>> "before" isn't easily defined.
>
>Totally warped thinking, to think time did not exist until the Big Bang.
>There was a bang, wasn't there?
>What set off the bang!
>Something in time.
You probably want to read up on what the big bang actually would have
been.
--
Mark McIntyre
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 20:18:58
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net > wrote in message
news:2ifbg2pn2gha6jb0ob7d80cd0ta6ue83nk@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:24:46 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of
>>> our universe,
>>
>>It is not! Time marches on independently of the universe!
>
> Er, no.
>
>
>> and it began when the universe began, so the concept of
>>> "before" isn't easily defined.
>>
>>Totally warped thinking, to think time did not exist until the Big Bang.
>>There was a bang, wasn't there?
>>What set off the bang!
>>Something in time.
>
> You probably want to read up on what the big bang actually would have
> been.
No, I run mostly counter to scientific views.
Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after landing
a man on the Moon. We should have long ago started traveling to the stars
and beyond.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:33:49
From: Mark McIntyre
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:18:58 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after landing
>a man on the Moon.
No, that would be money and politics. The US alone spends roughly 300x
more on war than on space, and whereas the defense budget grew by 35%
since 2001 the space budget has been cut. Attack the right people
please.
(figures from NASA's budget request to congress, and the White House's
website, both docs freely available on the 'net, 1.6Bn and 401Bn
respectively so if you don't like em, blow the prez not me).
>We should have long ago started traveling to the stars
>and beyond.
I agree. if you have a spare trillion dollars, sign me up.
--
Mark McIntyre
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net > wrote in message
news:e3deg2tktqegoqtlkulj657gv49tue272v@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:18:58 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after landing
>>a man on the Moon.
>
> No, that would be money and politics. The US alone spends roughly 300x
> more on war than on space, and whereas the defense budget grew by 35%
> since 2001 the space budget has been cut. Attack the right people
> please.
No, it is scientists that are keeping us in Earth orbit. They tell us it
would take many generations to reach a nearby star, and we blindly believe
it.
Actually, with current technology...we could get to the nearest star in
about 4 weeks.
The Space Shuttle could get there if you souped up its engines, in about 4
weeks. It just could not land, unless the Centaurians allowed it to land on
one of its desert landing strips.
>
> (figures from NASA's budget request to congress, and the White House's
> website, both docs freely available on the 'net, 1.6Bn and 401Bn
> respectively so if you don't like em, blow the prez not me).
>
>>We should have long ago started traveling to the stars
>>and beyond.
>
> I agree. if you have a spare trillion dollars, sign me up.
It would not take trillions of dollars. Just a little ingenuity.
And you could go. Space travel is really very simple.
A lot simple than our scientists like to make us think.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:54:13
From: Llanzlan Klazmon
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote in
news:12genuuq2ckf389@corp.supernews.com:
>
> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:e3deg2tktqegoqtlkulj657gv49tue272v@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:18:58 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after
>>>landing a man on the Moon.
>>
>> No, that would be money and politics. The US alone spends roughly 300x
>> more on war than on space, and whereas the defense budget grew by 35%
>> since 2001 the space budget has been cut. Attack the right people
>> please.
>
> No, it is scientists that are keeping us in Earth orbit. They tell us
> it would take many generations to reach a nearby star, and we blindly
> believe it.
>
> Actually, with current technology...we could get to the nearest star in
> about 4 weeks.
So why aren't you doing it instead of shooting your mouth off about things
for which your knowlege appears to be not significantly different to zero.
Klazmon.
<SNIP >
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 06:40:37
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Get to the nearest Star in 4 weeks? I'd wonder what he's been smoking on to
think that. We don't have anything that can push us even near the SOL
muchless open a wormhole and drive threw it. Methings the guys been watching
to many sci-fi shows and beliving that they are for real.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 23:16:15
From: Mark McIntyre
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Actually, with current technology...we could get to the nearest star in
>about 4 weeks.
okay, you're officially a kook....
>The Space Shuttle could get there if you souped up its engines, in about 4
>weeks. It just could not land, unless the Centaurians allowed it to land on
>one of its desert landing strips.
... smoking herring.
>And you could go. Space travel is really very simple.
>A lot simple than our scientists like to make us think.
Whatever.
--
Mark McIntyre
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 21:08:39
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net > wrote in message
news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to the nearest star in
>>about 4 weeks.
>
> okay, you're officially a kook....
People like you are what are keeping us in Earth orbit for 37 years.
>
>>The Space Shuttle could get there if you souped up its engines, in about 4
>>weeks. It just could not land, unless the Centaurians allowed it to land
>>on
>>one of its desert landing strips.
>
> ... smoking herring.
>
>>And you could go. Space travel is really very simple.
>>A lot simple than our scientists like to make us think.
>
> Whatever.
> --
> Mark McIntyre
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 19:56:30
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Dear Mark Earnest:
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy ,
>> "Mark
>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to
>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks.
>>
>> okay, you're officially a kook....
>
> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth
> orbit for 37 years.
People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you
have no idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much
less any understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of
rocketry. It either has to be simple and cheap, or you get
frustrated and take away any funding.
If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
David A. Smith
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 22:25:59
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com > wrote in
message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02...
> Dear Mark Earnest:
>
> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to
>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks.
>>>
>>> okay, you're officially a kook....
>>
>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth
>> orbit for 37 years.
>
> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no
> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any
> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has
> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding.
>
> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of
objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate.
The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter
that force by a constant acceleration force of their own.
It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so
will
a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes
fast enough.
And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 06:56:51
From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
However, the constants of a nature is not a constant at all, a definitely as
a matter a fact.
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:12ghiuailm2gmf4@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
> message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02...
> > Dear Mark Earnest:
> >
> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com...
> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
> >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to
> >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks.
> >>>
> >>> okay, you're officially a kook....
> >>
> >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth
> >> orbit for 37 years.
> >
> > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have
no
> > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any
> > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either
has
> > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding.
> >
> > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
>
> All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature
of
> objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate.
>
> The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must
counter
> that force by a constant acceleration force of their own.
>
> It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so
> will
> a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes
> fast enough.
>
> And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 23:08:34
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
What works for the goose, works for the gander.
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com > wrote in message
news:eeak0m$ihf$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> However, the constants of a nature is not a constant at all, a definitely
> as
> a matter a fact.
>
> --
> Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
> Best Regards!
>
>
> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:12ghiuailm2gmf4@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
>> message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02...
>> > Dear Mark Earnest:
>> >
>> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
>> >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to
>> >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks.
>> >>>
>> >>> okay, you're officially a kook....
>> >>
>> >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth
>> >> orbit for 37 years.
>> >
>> > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have
> no
>> > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any
>> > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either
> has
>> > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any
>> > funding.
>> >
>> > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
>>
>> All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature
> of
>> objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate.
>>
>> The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must
> counter
>> that force by a constant acceleration force of their own.
>>
>> It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so
>> will
>> a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes
>> fast enough.
>>
>> And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
>>
>>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 07:44:27
From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
It is a just a matter of a time!
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:12ghle59s9vpg81@corp.supernews.com...
> What works for the goose, works for the gander.
>
> "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:eeak0m$ihf$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> >
> > However, the constants of a nature is not a constant at all, a
definitely
> > as
> > a matter a fact.
> >
> > --
> > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
> > Best Regards!
> >
> >
> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:12ghiuailm2gmf4@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
> >> message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02...
> >> > Dear Mark Earnest:
> >> >
> >> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com...
> >> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
> >> >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to
> >> >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> okay, you're officially a kook....
> >> >>
> >> >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth
> >> >> orbit for 37 years.
> >> >
> >> > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you
have
> > no
> >> > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any
> >> > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either
> > has
> >> > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any
> >> > funding.
> >> >
> >> > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
> >>
> >> All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the
nature
> > of
> >> objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate.
> >>
> >> The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must
> > counter
> >> that force by a constant acceleration force of their own.
> >>
> >> It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate,
so
> >> will
> >> a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially
goes
> >> fast enough.
> >>
> >> And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 00:31:05
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Thank you, Ahmed.
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com > wrote in message
news:eeamq2$j1f$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> It is a just a matter of a time!
>
> --
> Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
> Best Regards!
>
>
> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:12ghle59s9vpg81@corp.supernews.com...
>> What works for the goose, works for the gander.
>>
>> "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message
>> news:eeak0m$ihf$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>> >
>> > However, the constants of a nature is not a constant at all, a
> definitely
>> > as
>> > a matter a fact.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
>> > Best Regards!
>> >
>> >
>> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:12ghiuailm2gmf4@corp.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> >> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
>> >> message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02...
>> >> > Dear Mark Earnest:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com...
>> >> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
>> >> >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to
>> >> >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> okay, you're officially a kook....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth
>> >> >> orbit for 37 years.
>> >> >
>> >> > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you
> have
>> > no
>> >> > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any
>> >> > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It
>> >> > either
>> > has
>> >> > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any
>> >> > funding.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
>> >>
>> >> All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the
> nature
>> > of
>> >> objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate.
>> >>
>> >> The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must
>> > counter
>> >> that force by a constant acceleration force of their own.
>> >>
>> >> It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate,
> so
>> >> will
>> >> a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially
> goes
>> >> fast enough.
>> >>
>> >> And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 21:01:14
From: Art Deco
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com > wrote:
>However, the constants of a nature is not a constant at all, a definitely as
>a matter a fact.
How profound.
>
>--
>Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
>Best Regards!
>
>
>"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:12ghiuailm2gmf4@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
>> message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02...
>> > Dear Mark Earnest:
>> >
>> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
>> >>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to
>> >>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks.
>> >>>
>> >>> okay, you're officially a kook....
>> >>
>> >> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth
>> >> orbit for 37 years.
>> >
>> > People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have
>no
>> > idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any
>> > understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either
>has
>> > to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding.
>> >
>> > If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
>>
>> All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature
>of
>> objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate.
>>
>> The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must
>counter
>> that force by a constant acceleration force of their own.
>>
>> It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so
>> will
>> a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes
>> fast enough.
>>
>> And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
>>
>>
>
>
--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 21:46:23
From: Art Deco
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote:
>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
>message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02...
>> Dear Mark Earnest:
>>
>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
>>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to
>>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks.
>>>>
>>>> okay, you're officially a kook....
>>>
>>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth
>>> orbit for 37 years.
>>
>> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no
>> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any
>> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has
>> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding.
>>
>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
>
>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of
>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate.
>
>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter
>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own.
>
>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so
>will
>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes
>fast enough.
>
>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
In your dreams, perhaps.
--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 23:03:12
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Art Deco" <erfc@netcabal.com > wrote in message
news:130920062146230863%erfc@netcabal.com...
> Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
>>message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02...
>>> Dear Mark Earnest:
>>>
>>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
>>>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to
>>>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> okay, you're officially a kook....
>>>>
>>>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth
>>>> orbit for 37 years.
>>>
>>> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have
>>> no
>>> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any
>>> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either
>>> has
>>> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding.
>>>
>>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
>>
>>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature
>>of
>>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate.
>>
>>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must
>>counter
>>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own.
>>
>>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so
>>will
>>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes
>>fast enough.
>>
>>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
>
> In your dreams, perhaps.
Dreams are where it all starts.
Einstein was a dreamer.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 10:44:46
From: Daedalus
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:46:23 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@netcabal.com >
wrote:
>Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
>>message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02...
>>> Dear Mark Earnest:
>>>
>>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
>>>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to
>>>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> okay, you're officially a kook....
>>>>
>>>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth
>>>> orbit for 37 years.
>>>
>>> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no
>>> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any
>>> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has
>>> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding.
>>>
>>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
>>
>>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of
>>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate.
>>
>>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter
>>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own.
>>
>>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so
>>will
>>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes
>>fast enough.
>>
>>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
>
>In your dreams, perhaps.
It takes me at least three years to get to Alpha Centauri and I take
the Van Allen expressway.
Jade
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 20:36:02
From: Art Deco
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Daedalus <jade@netk00ks.org > wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:46:23 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@netcabal.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
>>>message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02...
>>>> Dear Mark Earnest:
>>>>
>>>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
>>>>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to
>>>>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> okay, you're officially a kook....
>>>>>
>>>>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth
>>>>> orbit for 37 years.
>>>>
>>>> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you have no
>>>> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any
>>>> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either has
>>>> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any funding.
>>>>
>>>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
>>>
>>>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of
>>>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate.
>>>
>>>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter
>>>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own.
>>>
>>>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so
>>>will
>>>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes
>>>fast enough.
>>>
>>>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
>>
>>In your dreams, perhaps.
>
>It takes me at least three years to get to Alpha Centauri and I take
>the Van Allen expressway.
I've never tried that -- what is the traffic like?
--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 22:23:55
From: honestjohn
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Art Deco" <erfc@netcabal.com > wrote in message
news:140920062036021730%erfc@netcabal.com...
> Daedalus <jade@netk00ks.org> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:46:23 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@netcabal.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
> >>>message news:yx3Og.3008$nL2.2203@fed1read02...
> >>>> Dear Mark Earnest:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:12ghecsho8c3de9@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:kn0hg219vs9imjf58r3vj6s8i2b4bvno8i@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:59:19 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
> >>>>>> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Actually, with current technology...we could get to
> >>>>>>>the nearest star in about 4 weeks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> okay, you're officially a kook....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> People like you are what are keeping us in Earth
> >>>>> orbit for 37 years.
> >>>>
> >>>> People like you are what destroyed the space program, because you
have no
> >>>> idea how difficult it is to even get into space, much less any
> >>>> understanding of Newton and/or the basic laws of rocketry. It either
has
> >>>> to be simple and cheap, or you get frustrated and take away any
funding.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
> >>>
> >>>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the
nature of
> >>>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate.
> >>>
> >>>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must
counter
> >>>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own.
> >>>
> >>>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate,
so
> >>>will
> >>>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially
goes
> >>>fast enough.
> >>>
> >>>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
> >>
> >>In your dreams, perhaps.
> >
> >It takes me at least three years to get to Alpha Centauri and I take
> >the Van Allen expressway.
>
> I've never tried that -- what is the traffic like?
>
You would like it, slower traffic gets rammed in the butt.
OJ
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 20:40:58
From: mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
> > >>>will
> > >>>a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially
> goes
> > >>>fast enough.
> > >>>
> > >>>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
> > >>
> > >>In your dreams, perhaps.
> > >
> > >It takes me at least three years to get to Alpha Centauri and I take
> > >the Van Allen expressway.
> >
> > I've never tried that -- what is the traffic like?
you can travel across the universe in a few seconds according to your own clock
if you can accelerate fast enough
oxidation (or any other chemical reaction)
releases too little energy from the fuel mass
to go anywhere near this fast
meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
there can only be one or two - the airtight garage has you neo
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 10:52:42
From: Mark McIntyre
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:25:59 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
>>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
>
>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature of
>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate.
What? I mean, WHAT? At this rate, you're going to earn an entry in
the "kook of the month" record.
>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must counter
>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own.
Planets aren't accelerating. They have (approximately) constant
angular velocity.
>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so
>will a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially goes
>fast enough.
Two possibilities:
1) you're five years old, and have learned some very basic astronomy
2) you're over 13 and ignorant
>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
Apparently Einstein was wrong then.
--
Mark McIntyre
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 17:54:04
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net > wrote in message
news:6c9ig2dg9057ulgo7tjdi4f1bo73vbg6l8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:25:59 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
> Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
>
>>>> If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
>>
>>All you have to do is look at the planets, to know that it is the nature
>>of
>>objects that move fast enough to constantly accelerate.
>
> What? I mean, WHAT? At this rate, you're going to earn an entry in
> the "kook of the month" record.
>
>>The Sun's gravity is a force of constant acceleration. Planets must
>>counter
>>that force by a constant acceleration force of their own.
>
> Planets aren't accelerating. They have (approximately) constant
> angular velocity.
The force of gravity from the Sun is one of constant acceleration.
If planets don't accelerate, they will fall into the Sun.
>>It's simple. If planets by going fast enough constantly accelerate, so
>>will a space ship from Earth constantly accelerate, if it only initially
>>goes
>>fast enough.
>
> Two possibilities:
> 1) you're five years old, and have learned some very basic astronomy
> 2) you're over 13 and ignorant
>
>>And you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 4 weeks.
>
> Apparently Einstein was wrong then.
> --
> Mark McIntyre
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 17:13:58
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> Something like this question may be answerable.
I hope so!
> Time is a property of
> our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of
> "before" isn't easily defined.
Hmmmm. My reading and listening tell me that it is not known if time
began at the BB, or if time existed prior to the BB and the BB was an
event that occurred at a certain point in time. Tough question, but
perhaps answerable one day.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 17:18:37
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
>On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi:
>>
>>What happened before the big bang?
>>
>>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.
>
>Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of
>our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of
>"before" isn't easily defined. However, if theory and experiment
>ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the
>_cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even
>if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it.
>
Doesn't one invoke the weak anthropic principle round about here?
Eugene L Griessel
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 10:06:35
From: Mdmeenken
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > schreef in bericht
news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com...
> On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi:
>>
>>What happened before the big bang?
>>
>>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.
>
> Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of
> our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of
> "before" isn't easily defined. However, if theory and experiment
> ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the
> _cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even
> if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it.
well,
if the universe expands and then contract,then BB again,etc,
then there was a time before,because by contracting the time might go
backwards,yes?
IOW,when space is contracting time must contract too,because it's part of
spacetime
yes,or is it no?
just a thought,
marten
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:41:15
From: BernardZ
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
In article <45051909$0$2022$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl >,
mdmeenken@wanadoo.nl says...
>
> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> schreef in bericht
> news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com...
> > On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi:
> >>
> >>What happened before the big bang?
> >>
> >>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.
> >
> > Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of
> > our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of
> > "before" isn't easily defined. However, if theory and experiment
> > ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the
> > _cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even
> > if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it.
>
> well,
> if the universe expands and then contract,then BB again,etc,
> then there was a time before,because by contracting the time might go
> backwards,yes?
> IOW,when space is contracting time must contract too,because it's part of
> spacetime
> yes,or is it no?
> just a thought,
Probably not.
Spacetime is contracting in a black hole yet time is going forward.
>
> marten
> >
> > _________________________________________________
> >
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatory
> > http://www.cloudbait.com
>
>
>
--
The people that believe that the world is flat are proof that heaps of
time, huge amounts of scientific evidence, plenty of eyewitness
accounts, numerous experts opinion and mountains of photographs are not
enough to convince some people! What is particularly frustrating is
that there are many such people on the Usenet.
Observations of Bernard - No 104
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 15:59:53
From: Mdmeenken
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"BernardZ" <bernardZ@Nospam.com > schreef in bericht
news:MPG.1f6fda47ca230e12989b72@news...
> In article <45051909$0$2022$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl>,
> mdmeenken@wanadoo.nl says...
>>
>> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> schreef in bericht
>> news:nqf8g2l1i7v47gmanildh7g3rv76vhpm1c@4ax.com...
>> > On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Hi:
>> >>
>> >>What happened before the big bang?
>> >>
>> >>Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.
>> >
>> > Something like this question may be answerable. Time is a property of
>> > our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of
>> > "before" isn't easily defined. However, if theory and experiment
>> > ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then
>> > the
>> > _cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood,
>> > even
>> > if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it.
>>
>> well,
>> if the universe expands and then contract,then BB again,etc,
>> then there was a time before,because by contracting the time might go
>> backwards,yes?
>> IOW,when space is contracting time must contract too,because it's part
>> of
>> spacetime
>> yes,or is it no?
>> just a thought,
>
> Probably not.
>
> Spacetime is contracting in a black hole yet time is going forward.
yes ,that thought of me was indeed probably not a just thought,
and indeed if the universe goes into contraction after expanding,eventually
it ends up in a enormous black hole,right,
and time stands stll there or almost (relatively)
but it indeed does'nt go backwards
marten
>
>>
>> marten
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________
>> >
>> > Chris L Peterson
>> > Cloudbait Observatory
>> > http://www.cloudbait.com
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> The people that believe that the world is flat are proof that heaps of
> time, huge amounts of scientific evidence, plenty of eyewitness
> accounts, numerous experts opinion and mountains of photographs are not
> enough to convince some people! What is particularly frustrating is
> that there are many such people on the Usenet.
>
> Observations of Bernard - No 104
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:33:14
From: tomgee
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 14:43:29 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'm sorry your imagination is so limited.
> >>
> >Oh, and yours is not, since you seem to be claiming you
> >can imagine such a thing.
>
> Yes, I can. I have a sort of visualization framework based on analogy
> and some math. It's only a model, but for me an effective one.
>
> >Well, then, let's have it. Explain
> >what it is you can imagine, you're so intelligent and all.
> >Remember, it has no space in it, it is infinite in extent, and
> >you claim there is nothing else in it but our universe. It is
> >not empty space because space came out of the BB, as
> >you claim.
>
> Are you talking about a hyperuniverse? I don't particularly believe in
> one, although some of the theories are intriguing. But I'll hold off
> until more evidence comes in. For now, I am perfectly happy with the
> idea that our universe is all there is. There is no "outside", and no
> "before". I don't have any real problem visualizing that.
>
You mean you don't even know what I'm talking about and you
stand there arguing against it?
>
> >What "these things"? I only asked about the Great Void, not
> >anything else. If by "human comprehension" you mean you
> >can comprehend it, then explain it to us.
>
> What "Great Void"? Since I don't believe it exists, I have no need to
> try and visualize it. I can easily visualize a higher dimensional
> manifold that the universe exists in, but there is no evidence that it
> has any physical reality.
>
>
> >> And there are many BB theories.
> >>
> >Well, you doesn't has ta give us many, just name a couple.
>
> For example, an inflationary versus non-inflationary model. There are
> many variations on the BB theory.
>
No, sorry, the inflationary theory is not a variation on the BBT.
In fact, it's not even a theory, just a concept. And what non-
inflationary model are you talking about?
>
> >No no, we're not saying there are no other theories that "go beyond"
> >the BB. We are just talking about the BB now. But since you claim
> >those others are testable and falsifiable, tell us why you think they
> >are, or who told you they are.
>
> Do your own research. If you really knew anything about this you
> wouldn't have to ask the question. There are experiments currently under
> way, and some planned for equipment coming online in the next few years
> that are capable of either supporting or disproving several multiverse
> theories.
>
So you don't know what you're talking, eh? All that talk is just that,
and
cheap too.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 03:30:35
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Radium wrote:
> Hi:
>
> What happened before the big bang?
>
> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Radium
>
See: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22What+happened+before+the+big+bang%3F%22
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 18:48:53
From: Joe S.
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote in message
news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> What happened before the big bang?
>
> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Radium
>
Well, it all started with a really big turtle holding the earth on his back
. . .
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 15:29:51
From: Radium
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Davoud wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> > Something like this question may be answerable.
>
> I hope so!
>
> > Time is a property of
> > our universe, and it began when the universe began, so the concept of
> > "before" isn't easily defined.
>
> Hmmmm. My reading and listening tell me that it is not known if time
> began at the BB, or if time existed prior to the BB and the BB was an
> event that occurred at a certain point in time. Tough question, but
> perhaps answerable one day.
For some reason [that I can't figure out myself], I believe that time
did exist before the BB and that BB was as you say "an event that
occurred at a certain point in time".
AFAIK, the BB was the most major event known to science, however it
does not mean that BB was the start of time.
It just so happens that we [scientists] haven't discovered anything
prior to the big bang.
>
> Davoud
>
> --
> usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:59:10
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
On 10 Sep 2006 15:29:51 -0700, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote:
>AFAIK, the BB was the most major event known to science, however it
>does not mean that BB was the start of time.
>
>It just so happens that we [scientists] haven't discovered anything
>prior to the big bang.
That's not true. Everything we know about physics breaks down very close
to the BB, including time. Time is generally seen as a component of our
universe just as the spatial dimensions are. It really makes no sense to
consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than
it makes sense to consider space as having existed. As sentient
inhabitants of _this_ universe, our intuition is shaped by its laws, and
we have a hard time separating causality and time. But there is no
reason there has to be a "before" the BB in any sense that we can grasp
non-mathematically.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:55:09
From: kenseto
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote in message
news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> What happened before the big bang?
The answer to your question is in the paper entitled "The Origin of the
Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
>
> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Radium
>
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 23:08:35
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
kenseto wrote:
> "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi:
>>
>> What happened before the big bang?
>
> The answer to your question is in the paper entitled "The Origin of the
> Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" in my website:
> http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
>
> Ken Seto
Seto's immortal fumbles
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Seto is a registered crank at crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+site%3Awww.crank.net
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 01:19:26
From: kenseto
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in message
news:TV0Ng.181184$1i1.65350@attbi_s72...
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
> > news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >> Hi:
> >>
> >> What happened before the big bang?
> >
> > The answer to your question is in the paper entitled "The Origin of the
> > Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" in my website:
> > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
> >
> > Ken Seto
>
> Seto's immortal fumbles
> http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
>
> Seto is a registered crank at crank dot net
> http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+site%3Awww.crank.net
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 20:19:31
From: Mark F.
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
God said let there be light.
that is one option.
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote in message
news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> What happened before the big bang?
>
> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Radium
>
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:18:54
From: Sorcerer
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Mark F." <res049nn@gte.net > wrote in message
news:nr_Mg.1708$xr.15@trnddc03...
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:58:21
From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
So we do not know what the world was like back then
Either way it does not seem very conducive to life
But there must have been something that suited life
Otherwise we would not be here
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote in message
news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> What happened before the big bang?
>
> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Radium
>
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:12:09
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com > wrote in message
news:ee1nak$b57$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> So we do not know what the world was like back then
> Either way it does not seem very conducive to life
For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang,
all the matter in the universe was in the form of
hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present
surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in
fact not even any form of solid matter.
> But there must have been something that suited life
> Otherwise we would not be here
Think again.
George
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 00:50:11
From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
However, what you said, was a just a technically speaking, whether, it
allows to turn around a possible similarity betweem a biolology matter and
the universe itself, whether, as for instance, any biochemical process and
extremelly any environmental conditions, as for instance, along their
combinations, which would determine any reactions as any overreaction along
the universe.
Therefore, all the chemical molecules, that has had made the atmosphere,
along that matter, would be allowed a possibility, at least to try to
figure, that it has had been, along that matter, a definitely allowed to
diminish the sun by a just to make it a farther as to allow the creations to
get, more or less, an appropriate sunlight, for appropriate life as to allow
a most of anything to be a visible, a definitely as a matter a fact.
P.S- along some cases, the thinking delay the perception!
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Think About That!
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:ee1ued$rmt$2@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:ee1nak$b57$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> >
> > So we do not know what the world was like back then
> > Either way it does not seem very conducive to life
>
> For a few hundred thousand years _after_ the bang,
> all the matter in the universe was in the form of
> hot hydrogen/helium plasma, similar to the present
> surface of the Sun. No life could have existed, in
> fact not even any form of solid matter.
>
> > But there must have been something that suited life
> > Otherwise we would not be here
>
> Think again.
>
> George
>
>
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 18:35:15
From: Sco
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there was
energy.
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com > wrote in message
news:1157906109.576668.276830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> What happened before the big bang?
>
> Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Radium
>
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:09:40
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
"Sco" <Sco@Eng.com > wrote in message
news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there was
> energy.
In most models, the gravitational potential
energy is equal and opposite to the matter
and other forms hence the prior total was
zero.
George
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 01:01:05
From: Uno
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter.
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:ee1uec$rmt$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Sco" <Sco@Eng.com> wrote in message
> news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>> From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there was
>> energy.
>
> In most models, the gravitational potential
> energy is equal and opposite to the matter
> and other forms hence the prior total was
> zero.
>
> George
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:21:56
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ee1uec$rmt$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> "Sco" <Sco@Eng.com> wrote in message
>> news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>> From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there
>>> was energy.
>>
>> In most models, the gravitational potential
>> energy is equal and opposite to the matter
>> and other forms hence the prior total was
>> zero.
"Uno" <Uno@max.com > wrote in message
news:lz2Ng.147$GR.35@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter.
Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in
magnitude to the total energy contained in both
matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic
energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the
gravitational energy is negative, the total is
zero.
George
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:44:05
From: Bri
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate the Big Bang.
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
>> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ee1uec$rmt$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>>
>>> "Sco" <Sco@Eng.com> wrote in message
>>> news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there
>>>> was energy.
>>>
>>> In most models, the gravitational potential
>>> energy is equal and opposite to the matter
>>> and other forms hence the prior total was
>>> zero.
>
> "Uno" <Uno@max.com> wrote in message
> news:lz2Ng.147$GR.35@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter.
>
> Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in
> magnitude to the total energy contained in both
> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic
> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the
> gravitational energy is negative, the total is
> zero.
>
> George
>
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 07:09:43
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>>> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:ee1uec$rmt$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Sco" <Sco@Eng.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>> From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there
>>>>> was energy.
>>>>
>>>> In most models, the gravitational potential
>>>> energy is equal and opposite to the matter
>>>> and other forms hence the prior total was
>>>> zero.
>>
>> "Uno" <Uno@max.com> wrote in message
>> news:lz2Ng.147$GR.35@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter.
>>
>> Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in
>> magnitude to the total energy contained in both
>> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic
>> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the
>> gravitational energy is negative, the total is
>> zero.
"Bri" <Bri@Eng.com > wrote in message
news:pWqNg.460$TV3.152@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate the Big Bang.
Quite correct but it explains why there isn't a
need for infinite energy to create the infinite
amount of matter in the universe, the total is
zero overall. What I say above is a prediction
of many of the relevant competing models.
George
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 18:40:19
From: Bri
Subject: Re: Before the Big Bang?
|
How do you calculate amount of exposive energy to initiate A-Bomb bang?
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:ee6rm8$vh6$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ee48un$7rp$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>>
>>>> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:ee1uec$rmt$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sco" <Sco@Eng.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:DVYMg.23$6S3.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>> From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there
>>>>>> was energy.
>>>>>
>>>>> In most models, the gravitational potential
>>>>> energy is equal and opposite to the matter
>>>>> and other forms hence the prior total was
>>>>> zero.
>>>
>>> "Uno" <Uno@max.com> wrote in message
>>> news:lz2Ng.147$GR.35@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter.
>>>
>>> Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in
>>> magnitude to the total energy contained in both
>>> matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic
>>> energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the
>>> gravitational energy is negative, the total is
>>&g |
|
