Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,055 Year: 5,312/9,624 Month: 337/323 Week: 181/160 Day: 17/38 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universe Race
tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 321 of 410 (459537)
03-08-2008 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by ICANT
03-08-2008 10:28 AM


Re: Structure scale
fascinating structure. the square or pyramid shape is also evident by star patterns in the other diagrams. I'm going to look up clusters in the Orion's belt as well as the supposed galactic center. it would seem impossible to have such a definite production of symmetry by chance star rotations.
sorry this is off topic, i will close this conversation. after some research my friend, i will e-mail you the results to decide whether or not its worthy of an ID topic concerning the possibilities under given dynamics.
found this on an orions belt x-ray tho: The dark vertical and horizontal lines, and the streaks from the brightest stars are instrumental effects.
not sure if its related to what we see in the other image. but I'm a skeptic until something is more validated. ill withdraw scrutiny, but for those interested, it is a curios form in ICANT's image that is visible with or without x-rays on imaging. food for thought i recon.
apologies again for the off topic post.
Edited by tesla, : final note on the image.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by ICANT, posted 03-08-2008 10:28 AM ICANT has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 324 of 410 (459604)
03-08-2008 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by fallacycop
03-08-2008 7:26 PM


Re: Pea size
wrong. you misunderstand what i am saying.
Your model is based on the idea of an explosion expanding into an pre-existing flat static space.
let me try to put it into perspective:
imagine a depth of water, the water goes up down left and right and in all directions and fills all. only the water is.
the water finds a point in itself that it condenses. it takes material from the water and makes a harder concentration that becomes solid like iron. but as the water becomes iron, air takes up the space between the water and the iron. and the iron is set inside the air. the iron is attracted to all sides of the water at once and so remains in the center of its point of fusion. a give off of the effect of the water becoming the iron is background radiation.
as the amount builds the "air" in the water expands from the iron points. the water chooses other parts in the air to condense more of the water into iron. at a certain level the matter is released by the water and it "implode/explodes". the iron i still attracted to the water, but it is more attracted to the other irons. and so it both pulls back towards itself, but as a whole also seeks the waters edge, but the attraction becomes less powerful as the waters edge becomes even more air so the attraction is much less because of the distance, but as its initial desire ad initial stat the iron still travels towards the direction it was moving, but is influenced by other "iron" in the area. the space between the water and the iron becomes so much air from the matter production, that it becomes impossible for the iron to reach the waters edge.
Your model cannot explain the cosmic microwave background.
it just did. its a by product of matter production when its converted from the body (water) into matter (iron) the radiation is ashes left over from the reaction.
black holes are points of matter production or reduction in and to the main body of water, because even the "air" is a part of the "water", just less dense.
do you understand the proposal now ?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by fallacycop, posted 03-08-2008 7:26 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by fallacycop, posted 03-08-2008 9:32 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 328 of 410 (459628)
03-08-2008 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by fallacycop
03-08-2008 9:32 PM


Re: Pea size
as you see it, so be it for you. i surely hope a true cosmologist (which is rare) would be able to understand what I'm saying and see the truth in it.
we all will loose this body. i have given what i can of what i was given to give.
Gods will be done. so be it.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by fallacycop, posted 03-08-2008 9:32 PM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Zucadragon, posted 03-09-2008 7:28 AM tesla has not replied
 Message 330 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 8:12 AM tesla has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 335 of 410 (459674)
03-09-2008 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by cavediver
03-09-2008 10:25 AM


Re: Pea size
Astrophysicists have determined speed by this point of view, although the expansion is apparent; I wish to ask you a question.
If a car is moving 30 miles an hr, And passes another car that is moving 30 miles an hr, There is an appearance of 60 miles per hr.
In the math, Has the speed of our own cluster, Our own galaxy and our own rotation, Been taken into account when determining the speed of expansion?
The relative speed from our point of view as being "faster than light speed" Is more than likely a trick of the eye, If we do not have the proper math to evaluate the true speed relative to our own.
The idea that "nothing is moving" and just "the fabric expanding" does not seem to be supported by meteors and planets.
Is it possible that what i have proposed is just as likely?
Dense object value 80 =O
Dense object value 80 implode/explodes with a force of 20/60
Dense object releases value 60 in 3 parts of value 20, and retains 20.
..O
O O
....O
The attraction of the masses back to themselves does not equal the force of the explosion/implosion, So it remains moving away, Yet the paths are affected by the relation of the other dense objects.
The dense objects are black holes which begin to build under matter production, And explode implode forming many bodies who all interact with each other and become the formed galaxies.
Is this not as potential the truth? Or what data do you have that would prove this model wrong?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by cavediver, posted 03-09-2008 10:25 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 1:04 PM tesla has replied
 Message 339 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 1:12 PM tesla has not replied
 Message 340 by cavediver, posted 03-09-2008 1:13 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 341 of 410 (459684)
03-09-2008 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by fallacycop
03-09-2008 1:04 PM


Re: Pea size
You are right. Meteors, Planets, Stars, Galaxies, etc..., everything is moving. That is not the kind of movement that is explained by the expansion of the universe. The expansion explains the movement in a much larger scale. As cavediver explained above, only in the scale of galaxy clusters the expansion of the universe becomes aparent.
Why would clusters moving be any different than the lesser bodies movement just because of its scale?
You are still traped inside a non-relativistic frame of mind. That's not how things work. There is no such thing as true velocity. All velocities are measured relative to something else.
Just because measurement is impossible without two points to measure from does not mean there is no movement. There is movement, but all the variables have not been observed. If we find the "center" of the galaxy what is there? Can you say it is not moving? If yes, your being dogmatic. Who can tell with our viewpoint? There is velocity, but we cannot measure it without two points. In general relativity, we found that a lightning bolt can appear differently by the relation of the viewer. Any attempt to find its location without first putting our own location in an understood relativity to the object, The objects appearance will be a trick of the eye.
Besides, even if you compound two movements, the final observed speed is never larger then the speed of light.
Then why is it taught that the universe is expanding faster than light speed? From what viewpoint is this being viewed for its validity in relativity?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 1:04 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 1:33 PM tesla has replied
 Message 345 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 1:35 PM tesla has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 342 of 410 (459689)
03-09-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by cavediver
03-09-2008 1:13 PM


Re: Pea size
That's your data?
10'000 people saying the world is flat cannot be wrong huh.
What data exists that makes what i have proposed any less viable than current theory?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by cavediver, posted 03-09-2008 1:13 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by cavediver, posted 03-09-2008 1:25 PM tesla has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 349 of 410 (459702)
03-09-2008 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by fallacycop
03-09-2008 1:33 PM


Re: Pea size
But relative to what?
With no two points what could you be observing?
If a car is traveling 30 miles an hr away from a car traveling 30 miles an hr, The expansion of the space between them is at 60 miles an hr. But we only view the expansion by the relativity of the objects in the space.
I could accept this proposal if we could see the waters edge, But we have never found any end to the space to know if it is space expanding, Or space between several objects become more pronounced by the movement of the items away from each other. We can deduce a "Center" But cannot deduce whether or not that "Center" is also moving and all things moving with it, Without another point to observe (ie: True center, Validated by observation of the initial force of expansion/explosion/implosion)
It is apparent That greater bodies like galaxies also are moving, But i suggest, They move on the path of the initial mass that imploded/exploded. And like a ball thrown out the window of a moving car; With no place to go accept to fall back towards the greater mass that it was spat from, Due to its velocity not exceeding the force of the gravity of the mass; Found a rotation within the greater moving body. That moves at the same speed it does, With its own variable speed within the gravitational forces that hold it captivated.
The greater masses force exceeded the gravitational attraction of the initial object and became their own cluster, Also affecting the object that it spawned from.
Can you at least see this is just as likely as current accepted theory?
Edited by tesla, : final paragraph

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 1:33 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 2:16 PM tesla has replied
 Message 356 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 2:38 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 350 of 410 (459705)
03-09-2008 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by fallacycop
03-09-2008 1:47 PM


Re: Pea size
lol yeah i caught that. I just would rather have the data that would make this model wrong. I havent found it. And no one is willing to show it. Which leads me to believe there is none, and my proposal is just as likely if not more likely if scrutinized by astrophysicists.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 1:47 PM fallacycop has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 352 of 410 (459707)
03-09-2008 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Percy
03-09-2008 1:59 PM


Hubble is like a ball thrown out of a window of a moving car, it is still moving within the greater rotations. Nothing is stationary, So nothing can be deduced with any accuracy without observing its relative movement.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 1:59 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 2:23 PM tesla has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 355 of 410 (459714)
03-09-2008 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Percy
03-09-2008 2:16 PM


Re: Pea size
If these cars are relatively close together in space, say on the same stretch of road, then space is not expanding between the two cars at 60 miles an hour. The two cars are separating from one another by traveling through space at a relative speed of 60 miles an hour.
But now imagine that these two cars, each still moving at 30 mph relative to ourselves but in opposite directions, are instead a great distance away. One is a half megaparsec in one direction, the other a half megaparsec in the opposite direction. Their local velocities are still 30 mph relative to ourselves, but their velocity relative to each other is now 71 kilometers/second due to the expansion of the intervening space, and we would now measure them each as traveling at half that rate, 35.5 km/s, away from ourselves.
The distance distorts time. You are observing things what they once were, Not as they now are. To accurately determine the space between you have to calculate our movements relative to those movements within the movements of what our time was when those movements were.
I'm guessing that this is a reference to needing an object to pass point 1 at time 1 and point 2 at time 2 in order to calculate the velocity. We can't really do this directly using the visible motion of distant galaxies because they are too far away for their motion to be discernible, but we can do it indirectly by measuring their red shift, which gives two points separated by time on wavelengths of light.
Again, You have to modify what your looking at relative to its time and ours.
How many times do you want us to tell you "no".
Why? BBT is theory, It should be further scrutinized by what we understand of our relation relative to what we study, And the theory of relativity still has blank spots that need worked out. Like the engine of light, So we can determine how distance and time works over greater distances with greater accuracy by our own relative position.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 2:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 3:23 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 357 of 410 (459716)
03-09-2008 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by fallacycop
03-09-2008 2:38 PM


Re: Pea size
You have an uncanny gift to get things backwards. An explosion -- your model -- would have a front. Space doesn't have to have an edge.
The fact that we do not see an edge is evidence against your model.
We are too short sighted, And the edge too far for us to see, In my model.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 2:38 PM fallacycop has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 359 of 410 (459722)
03-09-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by Percy
03-09-2008 3:23 PM


Re: Pea size
What was actually said was that it makes no sense to return to theories disproven long ago, which happens to be the case for what you're proposing.
--Percy
The previous theory overlooked variables. What I'm proposing is what is still being overlooked, The body that the universe is expanding IN. I still agree with universal expansion, Just not that the expansion means that bodies are "set" in particular points of space time. My proposal also has an explanation for the loss of matter as apparent of black holes. That they are points of production and reduction of matter within the greater body.
I'm not throwing an old theory out here, I'm proposing a new one. And if it models a lot of older theory with new variables, It should not be treated as the old theory, But sought to be understood how it works within current understanding. And its potentials of truth based on what we do NOT know, With what we can say for certain. which isn't as much as anyone trying to scrutinize the "Origin of the universe" would like.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 3:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 3:52 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 361 of 410 (459729)
03-09-2008 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Percy
03-09-2008 3:52 PM


Re: Pea size
Therefore, I conclude that since the hydrogen is well known in space, the Planck spectrum observed (erroneously attributed to the Big Bang) is due to Hydrogen at 3K in the universe.
We must conclude that the Big Bang model fails, because the 3K radiation must be attributed to Hydrogen, since hydrogen has been well observed by many different methods.
The 3K radiation (and the absence of any other Planck spectrum) proves the steady state model of the universe.
source: Cosmology: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation CMBR
CMBR is not a solid science. And were only looking at 5th year data.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 3:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 4:47 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 363 of 410 (459741)
03-09-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Percy
03-09-2008 4:47 PM


Re: Pea size
http://sci.tech-archive.net/...ativity/2005-10/msg00724.html
Not exclusively. He "apparently" is pointing out overlooked variables in the equation.
My point is the science is not definite, And what i am offering is just as potential given current understanding.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 4:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 5:26 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 365 of 410 (459748)
03-09-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Percy
03-09-2008 5:26 PM


I conclude with thanks
Very well. Let this be my final comment and conclusion concerning the origin of the universe.
Today science has discovered many new twists and variables, Yet still under scrutiny, Concerning the origin of the universe. I will watch all data with enthusiasm.
As many who claim to "know" the science of the origin; There is nothing understood in whole, And it is my hope for individuals to assess the truth of the data that is laid before them from any source, Within the limitations of their ability to understand. That you collectively share and debate the information for clarity with those with greater understanding; As well as affirmation of some understanding by the less studied for the greater good.
All i have offered here concerning the big bang and mathematical analysis by our astronomers, cosmologists, astrophysicist, and the like; Have been expressive theory by my ability to understand. This should only be viewed in light of potential with no hard acceptance for fact until the data has been verified within all confines of "solid" undisputed science laws and observations.
Any observations that are contrary and are purely speculative or tentative should not be used to enforce for or against this theory without examining the potential for error of the tentative maths. Yet deciding if the proposal would be acceptable in the margin of error possible. (If it is even possible to define the "possible" margin of error).
I retain my thoughts on T=0 as fact. Any other conclusion on the state of "existence" impossible. Until i have found conclusive data that would refute, beyond all doubt, the potential of "existence" to have had a self evolution without direction.
Any further arguments on this you may wish to have with me, with current data, would be impossible for me to accept under my observations. So then; It would be a useless endeavor.
I thank the board administration of this site. As well as all who have debated with me for their insight. Yet also for their productive arguments concerning the origin of the universe.
God be with all of us in our continual search for the truth, and Gods will be done forever. so be it.
-Tim Brown

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 5:26 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 6:41 PM tesla has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024