Discussion:
Deep Thought
(too old to reply)
The Starmaker
2018-07-22 21:26:15 UTC
Permalink
i always thought the earth
was at the center
of the universe..
but i just had a
deep thought!

I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!

if i look up
i see the universe
if i point right
there is the universe
to my left is the universe
but..below my feet
IS THE UNIVERSE!


I AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!


wat do i do now, do i write a book????
Thomas Heger
2018-07-23 14:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
i always thought the earth
was at the center
of the universe..
but i just had a
deep thought!
I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is
called in relativity 'past light cone'.

This is meant as our own past light cone, in which we are in fact at the
center.

This is so, wherever we go and whoever we are.
Post by The Starmaker
if i look up
i see the universe
if i point right
there is the universe
to my left is the universe
but..below my feet
IS THE UNIVERSE!
I AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
wat do i do now, do i write a book????
Well, writing a book is certainly a possibility. But to go swimming or
watching tv is also possible.

TH
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-07-23 16:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by The Starmaker
i always thought the earth
was at the center
of the universe..
but i just had a
deep thought!
I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is
called in relativity 'past light cone'.
No, it is not. That is just your fantasy, as you have be told before.

For example, if a star goes supernova but due to universal expansion the
distance of it to me increases so fast that I will never observe it (i.e.
the supernova is or becomes a spacelike-separated event), the star and its
remnants are *still* a part of my/the universe.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-07-24 04:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by The Starmaker
i always thought the earth
was at the center
of the universe..
but i just had a
deep thought!
I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is
called in relativity 'past light cone'.
No, it is not. That is just your fantasy, as you have be told before.
For example, if a star goes supernova but due to universal expansion the
distance of it to me increases so fast that I will never observe it (i.e.
the supernova is or becomes a spacelike-separated event), the star and its
remnants are *still* a part of my/the universe.
<sci-fi>
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much larger
universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally
merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single
pixel in the following rendering:

http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379

http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
(a zoom...)

</sci-fi>
Thomas Heger
2018-07-24 09:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by The Starmaker
i always thought the earth
was at the center
   of the universe..
but i just had a
deep thought!
I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is
called in relativity 'past light cone'.
No, it is not.  That is just your fantasy, as you have be told before.
For example, if a star goes supernova but due to universal expansion the
distance of it to me increases so fast that I will never observe it (i.e.
the supernova is or becomes a spacelike-separated event), the star and its
remnants are *still* a part of my/the universe.
<sci-fi>
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much larger
universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally
merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
(a zoom...)
</sci-fi>
Nice pictures!

I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.

To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).

Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#

This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.

Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own space.

Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
universal at all.

TH
The Starmaker
2018-07-24 18:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by The Starmaker
i always thought the earth
was at the center
of the universe..
but i just had a
deep thought!
I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is
called in relativity 'past light cone'.
No, it is not. That is just your fantasy, as you have be told before.
For example, if a star goes supernova but due to universal expansion the
distance of it to me increases so fast that I will never observe it (i.e.
the supernova is or becomes a spacelike-separated event), the star and its
remnants are *still* a part of my/the universe.
<sci-fi>
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much larger
universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally
merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
(a zoom...)
</sci-fi>
Nice pictures!
I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own space.
Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
universal at all.
TH
dat doesn't make any sense at all.
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-07-24 23:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by The Starmaker
i always thought the earth
was at the center
   of the universe..
but i just had a
deep thought!
I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is
called in relativity 'past light cone'.
No, it is not.  That is just your fantasy, as you have be told before.
For example, if a star goes supernova but due to universal expansion the
distance of it to me increases so fast that I will never observe it (i.e.
the supernova is or becomes a spacelike-separated event), the star and its
remnants are *still* a part of my/the universe.
<sci-fi>
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much
larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all
finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
(a zoom...)
</sci-fi>
Nice pictures!
Thank you. :^)
Post by Thomas Heger
I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% load
of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a single,
crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the following
online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, contained
within a black hole centered at the point of bifurcation:

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/

Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically
create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, then
click a couple of points within the parametric square.

Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
Post by Thomas Heger
To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own space.
Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
universal at all.
Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange feeling
that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always there, will
continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure at all! I
just have a little feeling.

Sorry.
Thomas Heger
2018-07-25 20:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
<sci-fi>
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much
larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all
finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
(a zoom...)
</sci-fi>
Nice pictures!
Thank you. :^)
Post by Thomas Heger
I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% load
of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a single,
crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the following
online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, contained
http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically
create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, then
click a couple of points within the parametric square.
Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could
possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or bi-quaternions
(complex four vectors).

I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.

(btw - you may have look at my 'book' here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own space.
Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
universal at all.
Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange feeling
that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always there, will
continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure at all! I
just have a little feeling.
https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142

The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually
split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to
nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what
apparently does not happen).

That would be a creation out of nothing.

TH
The Starmaker
2018-07-26 06:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
<sci-fi>
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much
larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all
finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
(a zoom...)
</sci-fi>
Nice pictures!
Thank you. :^)
Post by Thomas Heger
I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% load
of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a single,
crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the following
online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, contained
http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically
create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, then
click a couple of points within the parametric square.
Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could
possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or bi-quaternions
(complex four vectors).
I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own space.
Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
universal at all.
Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange feeling
that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always there, will
continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure at all! I
just have a little feeling.
https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually
split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to
nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what
apparently does not happen).
That would be a creation out of nothing.
TH
nothing doesn't exist..there will always be something where there is nothing.


In other words...you cannot "creation out of nothing" since 'creation' means..."bring *something* into existence".


So, something comes from nothing...(using your own words 'creation')
benj
2018-07-26 14:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
<sci-fi>
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much
larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all
finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
(a zoom...)
</sci-fi>
Nice pictures!
Thank you. :^)
Post by Thomas Heger
I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% load
of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a single,
crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the following
online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, contained
http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically
create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, then
click a couple of points within the parametric square.
Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could
possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or bi-quaternions
(complex four vectors).
I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own space.
Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
universal at all.
Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange feeling
that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always there, will
continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure at all! I
just have a little feeling.
https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually
split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to
nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what
apparently does not happen).
That would be a creation out of nothing.
TH
nothing doesn't exist..there will always be something where there is nothing.
In other words...you cannot "creation out of nothing" since 'creation' means..."bring *something* into existence".
So, something comes from nothing...(using your own words 'creation')
That is a really deep scientific thought, faker.
You are STILL an idiot.
The Starmaker
2018-07-26 18:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
<sci-fi>
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much
larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all
finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
(a zoom...)
</sci-fi>
Nice pictures!
Thank you. :^)
Post by Thomas Heger
I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% load
of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a single,
crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the following
online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, contained
http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically
create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, then
click a couple of points within the parametric square.
Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could
possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or bi-quaternions
(complex four vectors).
I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own space.
Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
universal at all.
Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange feeling
that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always there, will
continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure at all! I
just have a little feeling.
https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually
split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to
nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what
apparently does not happen).
That would be a creation out of nothing.
TH
nothing doesn't exist..there will always be something where there is nothing.
In other words...you cannot "creation out of nothing" since 'creation' means..."bring *something* into existence".
So, something comes from nothing...(using your own words 'creation')
That is a really deep scientific thought, faker.
There is nothing scientific about nothing since physics is about the properties of...something.
benj
2018-07-26 23:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by benj
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
<sci-fi>
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much
larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all
finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
(a zoom...)
</sci-fi>
Nice pictures!
Thank you. :^)
Post by Thomas Heger
I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% load
of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a single,
crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the following
online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, contained
http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically
create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, then
click a couple of points within the parametric square.
Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could
possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or bi-quaternions
(complex four vectors).
I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own space.
Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
universal at all.
Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange feeling
that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always there, will
continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure at all! I
just have a little feeling.
https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually
split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to
nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what
apparently does not happen).
That would be a creation out of nothing.
TH
nothing doesn't exist..there will always be something where there is nothing.
In other words...you cannot "creation out of nothing" since 'creation' means..."bring *something* into existence".
So, something comes from nothing...(using your own words 'creation')
That is a really deep scientific thought, faker.
There is nothing scientific about nothing since physics is about the properties of...something.
By your own "logic" nothing is something and thus a proper study of
science.
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-07-26 06:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
<sci-fi>
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be
nothing more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a
much larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes
all finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
(a zoom...)
</sci-fi>
Nice pictures!
Thank you. :^)
Post by Thomas Heger
I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi%
load of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a
single, crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the
following online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe,
http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically
create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes,
then click a couple of points within the parametric square.
Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could
possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or bi-quaternions
(complex four vectors).
This fractal uses 2d vectors

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/ just uses 2d

with the following main generating function:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/L2nRCOyN45E/discussion
(read all...)

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/test_formula.html
Post by Thomas Heger
I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6  )
Will do. Thanks.
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any
such 'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its
own space.
Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
universal at all.
Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange
feeling that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always
there, will continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure
at all! I just have a little feeling.
https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually
split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to
nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what
apparently does not happen).
That would be a creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-07-26 07:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
<sci-fi>
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be
nothing more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within
a much larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black
holes all finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
(a zoom...)
</sci-fi>
Nice pictures!
Thank you. :^)
Post by Thomas Heger
I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our
little world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi%
load of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a
single, crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the
following online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe,
http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically
create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes,
then click a couple of points within the parametric square.
Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could
possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or
bi-quaternions (complex four vectors).
This fractal uses 2d vectors
http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/ just uses 2d
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/L2nRCOyN45E/discussion
(read all...)
http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/test_formula.html
Fwiw, division by zero can possibly occur, so test out the value of the
denominator before performing the division. Take a look at the following
code of mine:

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/ct_field.js

Notice the following function:
______________________
ct_field.prototype.calc_point = function(p, npow)
{
var g = [0, 0, 0];
var imax = this.m_pts.length;
var ESP = 0.0000001;

for (var i = 0; i < imax; ++i)
{
var e = this.m_pts[i];

var dif = [e[0] - p[0], e[1] - p[1], e[2] - p[2]];

var sum = dif[0] * dif[0] + dif[1] * dif[1] + dif[2] * dif[2];

var mass = Math.pow(sum, npow);

if (mass > ESP && ! isNaN(mass) && isFinite(mass))
{
g[0] = g[0] + e[3] * dif[0] / mass;
g[1] = g[1] + e[3] * dif[1] / mass;
g[2] = g[2] + e[3] * dif[2] / mass;
}
}

var dis = Math.sqrt(g[0] * g[0] + g[1] * g[1] + g[2] * g[2]);

if (dis < ESP) dis = ESP;

g[0] = g[0] / dis;
g[1] = g[1] / dis;
g[2] = g[2] / dis;

return g;
};
______________________

Focus on:
______________________
if (mass > ESP && ! isNaN(mass) && isFinite(mass))
{
g[0] = g[0] + e[3] * dif[0] / mass;
g[1] = g[1] + e[3] * dif[1] / mass;
g[2] = g[2] + e[3] * dif[2] / mass;
}
______________________

This ensures that no divide by zero can occur...

Sometimes, I dream about a divide by zero error creating something out
of nothing. ;^)
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6  )
Will do. Thanks.
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at
the event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any
such 'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its
own space.
Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
universal at all.
Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange
feeling that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always
there, will continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not
sure at all! I just have a little feeling.
https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually
split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to
nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what
apparently does not happen).
That would be a creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Daniel60
2018-07-27 07:01:54 UTC
Permalink
<Snip>
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
That would be a creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
The matter that formed our Universe at the time of The Big Band came
from the two other Universes that smacked together at the time of The
Big Bank!!
--
Daniel
The Starmaker
2018-07-27 17:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
That would be a creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
The matter that formed our Universe at the time of The Big Band came
from the two other Universes that smacked together at the time of The
Big Bank!!
--
Daniel
i don't understand, didn't you learn anything? i explained everything already..

before the big bang the universe became over populated with ...stars.

Here is an illustration:

Loading Image...


it went from cold to hot...and the big bang is from hot to cold.


It's very simple...'it's no longer a question', i answered it already.



(it's not my fault you got stupid teachers in skool)


The Starmaker
The Starmaker
2018-07-28 17:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
That would be a creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
The matter that formed our Universe at the time of The Big Band came
from the two other Universes that smacked together at the time of The
Big Bank!!
--
Daniel
i don't understand, didn't you learn anything? i explained everything already..
before the big bang the universe became over populated with ...stars.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
it went from cold to hot...and the big bang is from hot to cold.
It's very simple...'it's no longer a question', i answered it already.
(it's not my fault you got stupid teachers in skool)
The Starmaker
The progress yous people are making in the 'scientific community zipcode area) is sooooo slow that
i have to hold back information because ...it's just...beyond your comprehension.

Number One, yous seem unable to think before (or even imagine) before the big bang...

How can I go further? For example..what about After the thing yous call 'Heat Death'?

Which is just really not death but Cold.


Here is where yous have a problem...beyond the 'heat death'.

But, i already explained it...


it went from cold to hot...and the big bang is from hot to cold.


yous go one step further...

it goes from cold to hot.


I don't even know if yous have a name for it yet...yous are too slow.


It's like the back of your science text book...it has a blank page.
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-07-27 21:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
That would be a creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
The matter that formed our Universe at the time of The Big Band came
from the two other Universes that smacked together at the time of The
Big Bank!!
I wonder if a super cluster of hyper massive black holes that finally
merges into one, can perhaps create new child universes within the
resulting crazy giant black hole. This means that our own universe has
many children.

I also wonder if there are male and female "class" black holes within
said super cluster that finally merged together into a single entity.
Almost like fish spawning within a liquid.

All sci-fi of course. I simply cannot prove any of it.

Well, it does kind of seen like the "edge" of the universe might
resemble an event horizon of sorts. It kind of hints that we might be
totally contained within a black hole residing in our parent universe.

Sound even a tiny bit Kosher? ;^o
Thomas Heger
2018-07-28 10:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
That would be a creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
The matter that formed our Universe at the time of The Big Band came
from the two other Universes that smacked together at the time of The
Big Bank!!
I wonder if a super cluster of hyper massive black holes that finally
merges into one, can perhaps create new child universes within the
resulting crazy giant black hole. This means that our own universe has
many children.
We could compare 'black hole' to 'length contraction' in 3D.

Length contraction is actually only one dimensional (in SRT in 'x'
direction).

Since the world is not one dimensional, we could try a 3d version of
relativistic shrinking.

The reason for deformation is a Lorentz transform, caused by high
velocity and a changing axis of time.

If we would apply a Lorentz transform to a large piece of space, the 3d
version off length contraction would look like a black hole.

There the axis of time points away from our world and sucks everything
in reach into a timelike future.

Then the stuff sucked in pops out of nowhere in a different world, which
we cannot see and whoms inhabitants cannot see us.

They would call the process of creation 'big bang', while we would call
it 'big crunch' or 'super-massive black hole'.

Both views are in fact wrong, since actually we would only experience
the usual behavior of the axis of time.

TH


..
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-07-28 12:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Daniel60
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
That would be a creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
The matter that formed our Universe at the time of The Big Band came
from the two other Universes that smacked together at the time of The
Big Bank!!
I wonder if a super cluster of hyper massive black holes that finally
merges into one, can perhaps create new child universes within the
resulting crazy giant black hole. This means that our own universe has
many children.
We could compare 'black hole' to 'length contraction' in 3D.
But that would be “not even wrong”.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong>
Post by Thomas Heger
Length contraction is actually only one dimensional (in SRT in 'x'
direction).
Length contraction in FLAT spacetime is observed in the direction of
relative motion, whatever direction that is. Typically (for simplicity) one
chooses the coordinate system such that the x-axis of the coordinate system
is parallel to the direction of motion, i.e. that the motion is in the +x or
−x direction.
Post by Thomas Heger
Since the world is not one dimensional, we could try a 3d version of
relativistic shrinking.
The reason for deformation is a Lorentz transform,
No, the underlying reason is the observed constancy of the speed of light.
The Lorentz transformation (as we understand it NOW) describes the
CONSEQUENCES of that MATHEMATICALLY.
Post by Thomas Heger
caused by high velocity
By ANY NON-ZERO RELATIVE velocity v. The Lorentz transformation
of the coordinate of space in the direction of relative motion is

x' = γ (x − v t) (1).

We consider two spatially separated events

e₁ = (x₁, t₁) ≡ (x₁', t₁')
e₂ = (x₂, t₂) ≡ (x₂', t₂').

By application of (1) and the assumption of linearity regarding uniform
motion and the passage of time, it follows trivially:

x₁' = γ (x₁ − v t₁)
x₂' = γ (x₂ − v t₂)

∆x = x₂ − x₁
∆t = t₂ − t₁
∆x' = x₂' − x₁'

→ ∆x' = γ (∆x − v ∆t)

When we measure lengths we measure the distance in space between end points
AT THE SAME TIME:

t₁ = t₂
→ ∆t = 0

→ ∆x' = γ ∆x
∆x = ∆x'∕γ

γ := 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²) > 1 if v ≠ 0.

→ ∆x < ∆x' if v ≠ 0. ∎
Post by Thomas Heger
and a changing axis of time.
There is no “changing axis of time”. You have STILL not even understood
SPECIAL relativity.

Once again (how many more times do I have to explain that to you?):
In a Minkowski spacetime diagram –

time
^
:
:
:
:
:
:
'-------------> space

–, the axis of time (with coordinates t') of a frame of reference that is
moving parallel to the axis of space of a chosen rest frame (with
coordinates x) has to be skewed compared to the axis of time of that rest
frame (with coordinates t) because the x-origin of the moving frame
(x' = 0) is moving relative to the rest frame, and in the moving frame, too,
proper time has to be measured:

t t'
^ ^
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
::
:-------------> x
:
x' = 0

The x-axis of the moving frame (with coordinates x') is skewed compared to
the axis of space of the rest frame because of the RELATIVITY OF
SIMULTANEITY (t₁ = t₂ = t₁' → t₂ < t₂') that is a consequence of the
isotropic speed of light (c = const.):

t t'
^ ^
: :
: :
: : _> x'
: : _.-'
: : _.-'
::.-'
+-------------> x
:\
: \
: x' = 0
:
x = 0

As a result, because we define length as the distance in space between two
end points in space AT THE SAME TIME, lengths in the rest frame (t₁ = t₂)
are shorter than the otherwise same lengths in the moving frame (t₁' = t₂').

t₂'
∆x' _.-:
_.-' :
_.-' . :
t₁, t₁' -'-----------' t₂
x₁ ∆x x₂

∆x'² = ∆x² + (t₂' − t₁)²
∆x² = ∆x'² − (t₂' − t₂)²

→ ∆x² < ∆x'² [all lengths are positive, so: ]

∆x < ∆x' ∎.

[Yes, the Pythagorean theorem. Special relativity is that simple.]
Post by Thomas Heger
If we would apply a Lorentz transform to a large piece of space, the 3d
version off length contraction would look like a black hole.
No, it would not. Black holes are a consequence of GENERAL relativity,
where spacetime is CURVED in the presence of (non-zero) energy–momentum density.
Post by Thomas Heger
[more nonsense]
Your posting this in rec.arts.sf.written was appropriate because it is
PURE FICTION. (Your amok-crossposting was inappropriate.)

Pass Physics 101 first.

F’up2 sci.physics.relativity
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
J***@.
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from?
What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).

Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy. Gravity is residual eXergy.

Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.

Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
is the most likley outcome.
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-08-12 23:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by J***@.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from?
What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy. Gravity is residual eXergy.
Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
is the most likley outcome.
Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
black hole, residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
Was there ever a true beginning, or first hyper massive star that went
ultra, hyper nova? If so, what the heck created it, and what created the
intelligence of the thing that created in the first place?

Was GOD every truly alone?

Argh!
J***@.
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Where did the first black hole originate from?
Exergy is always diminishing ( i.e. entropy is increasing );
whether we think it's a lot or little is a matter of opinion.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Was there ever a true beginning, or first hyper massive
star that went ultra, hyper nova?
There's a beginning, and an edge, to "The Known Universe";
outside of that is "the random universe",
where anything can happen.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
If so, what the heck created it, and what created the
intelligence of the thing that created in the first place?
Intrinsically, nothing is random.
Randomness is just ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

The 4 dimensional TimeScape is static, immutable, eternal;
it is, at once, everything _ and nothing.

We call ourselves "consumers" and the GDP measures our progress.
We're "robot aliens" ( consumption machines ), exploiting a niche,
(poorly) programmed by nature to take the LessBad "option".
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Was GOD every truly alone? Argh!
Mother Nature is God; she is everything and nothing.
The Starmaker
2018-08-14 04:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by J***@.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from?
What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy. Gravity is residual eXergy.
Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
is the most likley outcome.
Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
black hole, residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.

Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.

In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.


The Starmaker
The Starmaker
2018-08-14 06:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by J***@.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from?
What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy. Gravity is residual eXergy.
Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
is the most likley outcome.
Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
black hole, residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
The Starmaker
I mean...i thought i explained all this already..

the purpose of a black hole is too consume stars and galaxies for the purpose of keeping a balance universe.

In other words, just the right amount of stars.


The Starmaker

I mean, before the big bang there were simply too many stars.

Too many stars is what caused the big bang.


i even already provided an illustration:
Loading Image...


during the actual explosion...new laws of physics were created.


for example, before the big bang galaxies didn't exist.

Do you need a list?
The Starmaker
2018-08-14 07:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by J***@.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from?
What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy. Gravity is residual eXergy.
Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
is the most likley outcome.
Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
black hole, residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
The Starmaker
I mean...i thought i explained all this already..
the purpose of a black hole is too consume stars and galaxies for the purpose of keeping a balance universe.
In other words, just the right amount of stars.
The Starmaker
I mean, before the big bang there were simply too many stars.
Too many stars is what caused the big bang.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber's_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
during the actual explosion...new laws of physics were created.
for example, before the big bang galaxies didn't exist.
Do you need a list?
To put it simply, the universe was ...different.

It used to be different.

And the way it is today is because

it didn't work very well before..

So new laws of physics had to be made.

Before, when the universe was different...stars didn't die.

They didn't burn out.

Which caused a problem..

with so many new stars being born...

it simply ran out of space.

Now, you have plenty of space.



The question is, why is it so hard for yous to understand this?
The Starmaker
2018-08-28 07:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by J***@.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from?
What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy. Gravity is residual eXergy.
Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
is the most likley outcome.
Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
black hole, residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
The Starmaker
I mean...i thought i explained all this already..
the purpose of a black hole is too consume stars and galaxies for the purpose of keeping a balance universe.
In other words, just the right amount of stars.
The Starmaker
I mean, before the big bang there were simply too many stars.
Too many stars is what caused the big bang.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber's_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
during the actual explosion...new laws of physics were created.
for example, before the big bang galaxies didn't exist.
Do you need a list?
To put it simply, the universe was ...different.
It used to be different.
And the way it is today is because
it didn't work very well before..
So new laws of physics had to be made.
Before, when the universe was different...stars didn't die.
They didn't burn out.
Which caused a problem..
with so many new stars being born...
it simply ran out of space.
Now, you have plenty of space.
The question is, why is it so hard for yous to understand this?
maybe it's because yous are confined to complex systems like math and physics...

whereas I make observations of simplified systems to make predicitions.


Here is a simplified system:

Loading Image...


there simply you can observe the before and after the big bang at the sametime.

the red shooting stars is the big bang

the green steady state stars is your window to before the big bang.


There you have it
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg


math and physics woun't help you...observations of simplified systems is the key to the future!



Throw your math and physics books in the garbage can...


The Starmaker
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-08-28 07:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by J***@.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from?
What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy. Gravity is residual eXergy.
Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
is the most likley outcome.
Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
black hole, residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
[...]

If stars did not die, it seems like it can get a bit crowded? Did a
bunch of stars, finally explode?
Daniel60
2018-08-28 09:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by J***@.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from?
What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
     is the most likley outcome.
Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
[...]
If stars did not die, it seems like it can get a bit crowded? Did a
bunch of stars, finally explode?
Before The Big Bang, there were no stars ... nor a Universe to get crowded!!
--
Daniel
The Starmaker
2018-08-29 07:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by J***@.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from?
What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy. Gravity is residual eXergy.
Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 )
tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
    is the most likley outcome.
Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
black hole, residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
[...]
If stars did not die, it seems like it can get a bit crowded? Did a
bunch of stars, finally explode?
Before The Big Bang, there were no stars ... nor a Universe to get crowded!!
then there would be no need for expansion...
The Starmaker
2018-08-29 06:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by J***@.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from?
What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy. Gravity is residual eXergy.
Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
is the most likley outcome.
Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
black hole, residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
[...]
If stars did not die, it seems like it can get a bit crowded? Did a
bunch of stars, finally explode?
.and then there was a big bang.
The Starmaker
2018-08-29 18:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by J***@.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from?
What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy. Gravity is residual eXergy.
Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
is the most likley outcome.
Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
black hole, residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
[...]
If stars did not die, it seems like it can get a bit crowded? Did a
bunch of stars, finally explode?
.and then there was a big bang.
okay, seems people don't know what caused the big bang..i'll explain.

Observation.

You look up in the universe and you'll see a buch of 'rocks' flying around...

and you'll also see stars.

Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because...


before the big bang
only stars existed
that never die
and kept being born
and eventually ran
out of space...

but...just before
the stars ran out
of space, they in
their crowded room
began to manufacture
...rocks.
(caused by the over crowding)

and sooo..

now you have an
overcrowding of stars and
rocks...

Loading Image...

then it simply exploded.

for you religious people out there...

'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' earth meaning a material called...rocks. heavens meaning a material called...stars.


Now, for those of yous that need more...details,

Look up the definition of the word 'In
Look up the definition of the word '.. the
Look up the definition of the word '...beginning'



Now here is a photograph of before and after the big bang...
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg

the red stars is after the big bang..
and the green stars is before the big bang.

Now, actually..there are lots more green stars than pictured, but
it was differcult for me to capture all the crowded green stars.

(it's not very easy to take a picture of...before the big bang)


(i need to find another method...)


something like this but all green
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif


then....bang.


The Starmaker



in otherwords..something strange happened that i could not explain..
when i tried to take a picture of 'moments' before the big bang...
the crowded green stars did not develop.


There were trillion of green stars in the picture but it's missing here:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg


There were so many green stars you could barely see the red shooting stars...


any way, that's what caused the big bang.


How come you girls don't know this stuff?

What do they teach you in skool, 'there was no before?' wat a joke...stupid proffesors teaching at Harvard. (textbooks freaks)


You girls are stuck at the big bang and cannot get pass the wall thrown at you...while i'm
wayyyyyy before the big bang wall trying to figure out where the green stars came from.

i know the answer is somewhere near...Blue.


Hint: When somebody tells you "there was no before"...they are throwing a brick wall at you. Be careful of people who
put up brick walls in front of you.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-08-29 18:24:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
okay, seems people don't know what caused the big bang..i'll explain.
Observation.
You look up in the universe and you'll see a buch of 'rocks' flying around...
and you'll also see stars.
Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because...
[“before the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and therefore
not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.

By contrast, the Big Bang theory is an idea that is falsifiable, and it has
not been possible to falsify it yet: its predictions are in accordance with
all observations so far, including “rocks flying around”.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_theory>

Get an education sometime.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
The Starmaker
2018-08-29 20:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by The Starmaker
okay, seems people don't know what caused the big bang..i'll explain.
Observation.
You look up in the universe and you'll see a buch of 'rocks' flying around...
and you'll also see stars.
Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because...
[“before the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and therefore
not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on observation and facts.


and i don't know how to write "fancy stories", that's NASA's job.


get a real name like PointedNose...
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-08-30 01:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because... [“before the
Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and
therefore not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on observation and facts.
Sure, your observation of events *before* the Big Bang…
Post by The Starmaker
and i don't know how to write "fancy stories", that's NASA's job.
You are delusional.

F’up2 where it belongs
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
The Starmaker
2018-08-30 03:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because... [“before the
Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and
therefore not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on
observation and facts.
Sure, your observation of events *before* the Big Bang…
According to Nasa's camera:

"The farthest back Hubble can see is this red blob, a galaxy from 400 million years after the Big Bang."


So, your mindset is...when Hubble takes a picture one second after the big bang...the picture taking ends, is that right?
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-08-30 22:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because... [“before
the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and
therefore not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on
observation and facts.
Sure, your observation of events *before* the Big Bang…
That was sarcasm.
Post by The Starmaker
"The farthest back Hubble can see is this red blob, a galaxy from 400
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
Post by The Starmaker
million years after the Big Bang."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> So, your mindset is...when Hubble takes
a picture one second after the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by The Starmaker
big bang...the picture taking ends, is that right?
^^^^^^^^
Given your previous quotation, that is an incredibly stupid question.

I will answer the question that you should have asked instead:

Even if it technically could "see" farther, Hubble physically cannot take a
picture of our universe “one second after the big bang” because our universe
did not become transparent before ca. 380'000 years after the _Big Bang_
(event), the epoch of recombination.

In order to make observations of the universe when it was younger than that,
we need different observation methods, that are not based on the observation
of electromagnetic radiation, for example gravitational wave astronomy.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline>

Get a real name. Stop amok-crossposting.

F’up2 sci.physics.relativity.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
The Starmaker
2018-08-31 16:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because... [“before
the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and
therefore not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on
observation and facts.
Sure, your observation of events *before* the Big Bang…
That was sarcasm.
Post by The Starmaker
"The farthest back Hubble can see is this red blob, a galaxy from 400
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
Post by The Starmaker
million years after the Big Bang."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> So, your mindset is...when Hubble takes
a picture one second after the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by The Starmaker
big bang...the picture taking ends, is that right?
^^^^^^^^
Given your previous quotation, that is an incredibly stupid question.
Even if it technically could "see" farther, Hubble physically cannot take a
picture of our universe “one second after the big bang” because our universe
did not become transparent before ca. 380'000 years after the _Big Bang_
(event), the epoch of recombination.
In order to make observations of the universe when it was younger than that,
we need different observation methods,
I already provided you with "different observation methods", it's called...observations of simplified systems.


And there you have it: A photograph of before and after the big bang.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
The Starmaker
2018-09-01 05:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because... [“before
the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and
therefore not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on
observation and facts.
Sure, your observation of events *before* the Big Bang…
That was sarcasm.
Post by The Starmaker
"The farthest back Hubble can see is this red blob, a galaxy from 400
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
Post by The Starmaker
million years after the Big Bang."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> So, your mindset is...when Hubble takes
a picture one second after the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by The Starmaker
big bang...the picture taking ends, is that right?
^^^^^^^^
Given your previous quotation, that is an incredibly stupid question.
Even if it technically could "see" farther, Hubble physically cannot take a
picture of our universe “one second after the big bang” because our universe
did not become transparent before ca. 380'000 years after the _Big Bang_
(event), the epoch of recombination.
In order to make observations of the universe when it was younger than that,
we need different observation methods,
I already provided you with "different observation methods", it's called...observations of simplified systems.
And there you have it: A photograph of before and after the big bang.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
okay, i got it now...here is the exact same photo of the before and after the big bang but with all trillion stars visible

Loading Image...
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-09-01 11:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Even if it technically could "see" farther, Hubble physically cannot
take a picture of our universe “one second after the big bang”
because our universe did not become transparent before ca. 380'000
years after the _Big Bang_ (event), the epoch of recombination.
In order to make observations of the universe when it was younger
than that, we need different observation methods,
I already provided you with "different observation methods", it's
called...observations of simplified systems.
And there you have it: A photograph of before and after the big bang.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
okay, i got it now...here is the exact same photo of the before and after
the big bang but with all trillion stars visible
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled.PNG
You are a credit to your nickname, but that does not change the fact that
none of this is a photo; it is not archived reality, but your fantasy.
Post by The Starmaker
Oren'uh shaula abru'ek. Oren'uh pa'shi-nahp — fai-tor
sva'vellar namanik heh sauyanik - heh istau du nam-tor.< ↓
(“Learn reason above all. Learn clear thought: learn to know
what is from what seems to be, and what you wish to be.”)

─Surak¹

F’up2 .sf.

________
↓ Translation into Modern Golic Vulcan by me;
cf. <http://www.vli-online.org/> pp.
¹ Diane DUANE: “Spock’s World. Star Trek: The Original Series”.
p. 326.
Simon and Schuster, 2001. ISBNs 0671041134, 9780671041137.
Pocket Books eBook: <https://books.google.com/books?id=_rgK-dtgJMoC>
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-09-01 11:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Even if it technically could "see" farther, Hubble physically cannot
take a picture of our universe “one second after the big bang”
because our universe did not become transparent before ca. 380'000
years after the _Big Bang_ (event), the epoch of recombination.
In order to make observations of the universe when it was younger
than that, we need different observation methods,
I already provided you with "different observation methods", it's
called...observations of simplified systems.
And there you have it: A photograph of before and after the big bang.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
okay, i got it now...here is the exact same photo of the before and after
the big bang but with all trillion stars visible
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled.PNG
You are a credit to your nickname, but that does not change the fact that
none of this is a photo; it is not archived reality, but your fantasy.
Post by The Starmaker
Oren'uh shaula abru'ek. Oren'uh pa'shi-nahp — fai-tor
sva'vellar namanik heh sauyanik - heh istau du nam-tor.< ↓
(“Learn reason above all. Learn clear thought: learn to know
what is from what seems to be, and what you wish to be.”)

─Surak¹

F’up2 .sf.

________
↓ Translation into Modern Golic Vulcan by me;
cf. <http://www.vli-online.org/> pp.
¹ Diane DUANE: “Spock’s World. Star Trek: The Original Series”.
p. 326.
Simon and Schuster, 2001. ISBNs 0671041134, 9780671041137.
Pocket Books eBook: <https://books.google.com/books?id=_rgK-dtgJMoC>
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-09-01 11:50:33 UTC
Permalink
[Supersedes for corrections]
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Even if it technically could "see" farther, [the] Hubble
[Space Telescope] physically cannot take a picture of our universe
“one second after the big bang” because our universe did not become
transparent before ca. 380'000 years after the _Big Bang_ (event),
the epoch of recombination.
In order to make observations of the universe when it was younger
than that, we need different observation methods,
I already provided you with "different observation methods", it's
called...observations of simplified systems.
And there you have it: A photograph of before and after the big bang.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg>
okay, i got it now...here is the exact same photo of the before and
after the big bang but with all trillion stars visible
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled.PNG
You are a credit to your nickname, but that does not change the fact that
none of this is a photo; it is not archived reality, but your fantasy.
Post by The Starmaker
Oren'uh shaula abru'ek. Oren'uh pa'shi-nahp — fai-tor
sva'vellar namanik heh sauyanik - heh istau du nam-tor.< ↓
(“Learn reason above all. Learn clear thought: learn to know
what is from what seems to be, and what you wish to be.”)

—Surak¹

F’up2 .sf.

________
↓ Translation into Modern Golic Vulcan by me;
cf. <http://www.vli-online.org/> pp.
¹ Diane DUANE: “Spock’s World. Star Trek: The Original Series”.
p. 326.
Simon and Schuster, 2001. ISBNs 0671041134, 9780671041137.
Pocket Books eBook: <https://books.google.com/books?id=_rgK-dtgJMoC>
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
The Starmaker
2018-09-01 16:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Now, why are all these rocks flying around? Because... [“before
the Big Bang” and other unscientific fantasies]
The only problem with your idea is that it is not falsifiable, and
therefore not a theory at all, but just a fancy story.
It's not an idea..or theory..(i don't do theories) This is based on
observation and facts.
Sure, your observation of events *before* the Big Bang…
That was sarcasm.
Post by The Starmaker
"The farthest back Hubble can see is this red blob, a galaxy from 400
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
Post by The Starmaker
million years after the Big Bang."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> So, your mindset is...when Hubble takes
a picture one second after the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by The Starmaker
big bang...the picture taking ends, is that right?
^^^^^^^^
Given your previous quotation, that is an incredibly stupid question.
Even if it technically could "see" farther, Hubble physically cannot take a
picture of our universe “one second after the big bang” because our universe
did not become transparent before ca. 380'000 years after the _Big Bang_
(event), the epoch of recombination.
In order to make observations of the universe when it was younger than that,
we need different observation methods,
I already provided you with "different observation methods", it's called...observations of simplified systems.
And there you have it: A photograph of before and after the big bang.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
okay, i got it now...here is the exact same photograph of the before and after the big bang but with all trillion stars visible
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled.PNG
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled.PNG


Now, those of yous who have attempted to disect it this photograph of the before and after the big bang, reverse engerineer it, crack it..

based on my observation...the Blue channel which normally contains 'information'...has none. It's all Black.

It's all dark matter!


Conclusion: Trillions of years before the big bang (red), before the steady state universe (green).. there were no stars (blue).


This is...incontrovertible.


The Starmaker

Chris M. Thomasson
2018-08-30 01:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by The Starmaker
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by J***@.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Thomas Heger
creation out of nothing.
Where did the matter come from?
What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy. Gravity is residual eXergy.
Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
is the most likley outcome.
Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
black hole, residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
[...]
If stars did not die, it seems like it can get a bit crowded? Did a
bunch of stars, finally explode?
.and then there was a big bang.
Fwiw, I have a little thought that our big bang is contained within a
black hole residing within our parent universe. We have many children as
well. We have grandparents, and on and on. Time wrt the parent and child
is radically different...
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-08-30 02:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Fwiw, I have a little thought that our big bang is contained within a
black hole residing within our parent universe. We have many children as
well. We have grandparents, and on and on. Time wrt the parent and child
is radically different...
There are several proper definitions for “Big Bang”, and NONE of them
applies to what you are saying:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang>

What you might MEAN is the WELL-KNOWN theory that we what we think our the
universe might as well be the inside of a supermassive black hole as an
expanding universe from the inside looks like a supermassive black hole
from outside its event horizon.

See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>

STOP AMOK-CROSSPOSTING and feeding the "Starmaker" troll!

F’up2 sci.physics.relativity
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-07-24 19:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
<sci-fi>
Yes, it is, for the most part. And it appears to have little to do with my
posting.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much larger
universe.
A common misconception.

Contrary to what the term implies, the Big Bang is NOT an explosion. Keep
in mind that the term was coined by Fred Hoyle in order to *mock* adherents
of the now-confirmed theory of universal *expansion*. The name stuck,
therefore we call it the Big Bang theory today.

The Big Bang as an event was not local in any sense of the word, but as an
event was and as a process is global in every sense of the word: It
happened/happens everywhere in our universe. Regarding the event, because
our universe was infinitesimally small back then; regarding now, because
that is what our universe is. The theory says that spacetime began with
the Big Bang event:

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Expansion_of_space>
|
| […] The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an
| empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere […]
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally
merged together.
An interesting idea that might be difficult to disprove (which does not mean
that it is correct). IIUC it is a distinct possibility – and not
science-fiction – that what we think is our universe is actually the inside
of a supermassive black hole (see also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>).

Dr. Lawrence Krauss answered to the question


|
| Q: […] If quantum fluctuations are able to actually produce universes […],
| is there ever a chance we might actually observe another universe being
| created?

after his (great) 2009 talk “A Universe from Nothing”:

| A: […] But interestingly enough – and this is one of the wonderful things
| about general relativity ­– if a baby universe got created, an inflating
| universe like the one we think we began in, it’s really weird: Because
| from the inside it would look like it was growing exponentially; from
| the outside it would look like it was shrinking to form a black hole.

This answer has puzzled me since I have heard it, and I would appreciate
an explanation in simple terms (I have not yet a full understanding of
general relativity) by a professional physicist.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single
Not the Big Bang, but our observable universe. The “larger universe” would
be the multiverse.

IIUC, this is the theory of eternal inflation. However, it appears to have
been disproved by the “Planck” space probe’s 2015 data release. The final
dataset of the mission was just released, which might indicate something
else; I have not had time to look at (analyses of) it.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation>
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-07-24 19:19:34 UTC
Permalink
[Please do not crosspost without Followup-To. F’up2 sci.physics.relativity]
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
<sci-fi>
Yes, it is, for the most part. And it appears to have little to do with my
posting.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much larger
universe.
A common misconception.

Contrary to what the term implies, the Big Bang is NOT an explosion. Keep
in mind that the term was coined by Fred Hoyle in order to *mock* adherents
of the now-confirmed theory of universal *expansion*. The name stuck,
therefore we call it the Big Bang theory today.

The Big Bang as an event was not local in any sense of the word, but as an
event was and as a process is global in every sense of the word: It
happened/happens everywhere in our universe. Regarding the event, because
our universe was infinitesimally small back then; regarding now, because
that is what our universe is. The theory says that spacetime began with
the Big Bang event:

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Expansion_of_space>
|
| […] The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an
| empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere […]
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally
merged together.
An interesting idea that might be difficult to disprove (which does not mean
that it is correct). IIUC it is a distinct possibility – and not
science-fiction – that what we think is our universe is actually the inside
of a supermassive black hole (see also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>).

Dr. Lawrence Krauss answered to the question

http://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo
|
| Q: […] If quantum fluctuations are able to actually produce universes […],
| is there ever a chance we might actually observe another universe being
| created?

after his (great) 2009 talk “A Universe from Nothing”:

| A: […] But interestingly enough – and this is one of the wonderful things
| about general relativity ­– if a baby universe got created, an inflating
| universe like the one we think we began in, it’s really weird: Because
| from the inside it would look like it was growing exponentially; from
| the outside it would look like it was shrinking to form a black hole.

This answer has puzzled me since I have heard it, and I would appreciate
an explanation in simple terms (I have not yet a full understanding of
general relativity) by a professional physicist.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single
Not the Big Bang, but our observable universe. The “larger universe” would
be the multiverse.

IIUC, this is the theory of eternal inflation. However, it appears to have
been disproved by the “Planck” space probe’s 2015 data release. The final
dataset of the mission was just released, which might indicate something
else; I have not had time to look at (analyses of) it.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation>
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
The Starmaker
2018-07-24 20:04:32 UTC
Permalink
[Please do not crosspost without Followup-To. F’up2 sci.physics.relativity]
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
<sci-fi>
Yes, it is, for the most part. And it appears to have little to do with my
posting.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much larger
universe.
A common misconception.
Contrary to what the term implies, the Big Bang is NOT an explosion. Keep
in mind that the term was coined by Fred Hoyle in order to *mock* adherents
of the now-confirmed theory of universal *expansion*. The name stuck,
therefore we call it the Big Bang theory today.
The Big Bang as an event was not local in any sense of the word, but as an
event was and as a process is global in every sense of the word: It
happened/happens everywhere in our universe. Regarding the event, because
our universe was infinitesimally small back then; regarding now, because
that is what our universe is. The theory says that spacetime began with
,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Expansion_of_space>
|
| […] The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an
| empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere […]
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally
merged together.
An interesting idea that might be difficult to disprove (which does not mean
that it is correct). IIUC it is a distinct possibility – and not
science-fiction – that what we think is our universe is actually the inside
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>).
Dr. Lawrence Krauss answered to the question
http://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo
|
| Q: […] If quantum fluctuations are able to actually produce universes […],
| is there ever a chance we might actually observe another universe being
| created?
| A: […] But interestingly enough – and this is one of the wonderful things
| about general relativity ­– if a baby universe got created, an inflating
| universe like the one we think we began in, it’s really weird: Because
| from the inside it would look like it was growing exponentially; from
| the outside it would look like it was shrinking to form a black hole.
This answer has puzzled me since I have heard it, and I would appreciate
an explanation in simple terms (I have not yet a full understanding of
general relativity) by a professional physicist.
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single
Not the Big Bang, but our observable universe. The “larger universe” would
be the multiverse.
IIUC, this is the theory of eternal inflation. However, it appears to have
been disproved by the “Planck” space probe’s 2015 data release. The final
dataset of the mission was just released, which might indicate something
else; I have not had time to look at (analyses of) it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation>
--
PointedEars
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
More nonsense!

It's like a disease!!!!
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-07-25 01:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
More nonsense!
Unfortunately.
Post by The Starmaker
It's like a disease!!!!
Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind.
-- Terry Pratchett
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
The Starmaker
2018-07-25 05:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by The Starmaker
More nonsense!
Unfortunately.
Post by The Starmaker
It's like a disease!!!!
Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind.
-- Terry Pratchett
--
PointedEars
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
for heaven's sake!!!


How many exclaimination points are reqired when you say
for heaven's sake!!!

1
2
3
or 4?


Learn English!



and...get your stupid fuckin quotes right, i don't like it when people post wrong, inaccurate and untrue information on the internet!



“Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.” -- Terry Pratchett
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/51665-five-exclamation-marks-the-sure-sign-of-an-insane-mind



Learn to quote, learn to count. I see only four of my exclimination points. It's like a disease!!!!




Don't mess with the lion's tail.
benj
2018-07-23 15:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
i always thought the earth
was at the center
of the universe..
but i just had a
deep thought!
I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
if i look up
i see the universe
if i point right
there is the universe
to my left is the universe
but..below my feet
IS THE UNIVERSE!
I AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
wat do i do now, do i write a book????
Hey deep thinker, exactly HOW do you know you are at the center of the
universe. For most of us here from our reference frame you are more than
just a little bit off center!
C. Deifir
2018-07-23 20:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
i always thought the earth
was at the center
of the universe..
but i just had a
deep thought!
I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
if i look up
i see the universe
if i point right
there is the universe
to my left is the universe
but..below my feet
IS THE UNIVERSE!
I AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
wat do i do now, do i write a book????
--------------

Mankind must be some kind of centre.

God created the universe, then He created mankind
and He revealed to him the unknowable.

So mankind must take these things to the edges.

cd
Loading...