View Full Version : ' Earth no longer a Planet '
Earth no longer a Planet according to - bautforum - (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46111)
Gruesome
Senior Member
Earth no longer a Planet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGH ABOVE MADAGASCAR -- After weeks of sharp debate, the Vogon Constructor Fleet voted Thursday to revoke Earth's planetary status.
"Although this decision is by no means unanimous, the Vogons feel that Earth lacks the necessary characteristics to enjoy further classification as a planet," said Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, a captain with the fleet. "Demolition will begin soon."
"As the proper paperwork has already been appropriately filed, resistance is useless!" Jeltz added.
Debate about Earth's planetary status has raged in the intergalactic community since its construction approximately 10 million years ago. The enormous computer was frequently mistaken for a planet, and at one point was thought larger than Uranus. Further observations, however, revealed that the Earth had a single moon, which made it appear far more massive than it really was.
But opposition to the downgrade of Earth was fierce in some quarters, particularly from hyper-intelligent mice and designers of Scandanavia, with Earthlings also appearing troubled by the decision. Many urged that Earth be moved to "dwarf planet" status instead of being wiped out of the galaxy altogther.
"I do believe the community may regret this decision and the loss of the excellent fjord design on Earth," said Slartibartfast, an architect and professional designer. "I will, however, submit to the Vogons' decision."
Slartibartfast said Earth's major programming may be completed without the planet, although he declined to say how.
Jeltz noted that the downgrade had been discussed for several decades and that plans were available in a nearby star system for review and/or complaint.
"We regret the loss of 6 billion lives, but we can't be blamed if you won't take the trouble to get out and get involved in your neighborhood," he said. "We do feel that this decision will give us a greater understanding of the solar system and make it easier to build future hyperspace bypasses."
Demolition of the planet is expected to begin any minute now. Those who can hitchhike off the planet are urged to do so.
__________________
I have a fever....and the only prescription is more cowbell!!
http://www.myspace.com/piousmonger
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46111
Published: 1 hour ago, 16:59 EST, May 10, 2007 on physorg.com (http://www.physorg.com/news98035163.html)
'Missing Mass' Found in Recycled Dwarf Galaxies
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/twopanel_withlabels.jpg
Left: Composite radio/optical/ultraviolet image of NGC 5291 and its surroundings, including the debris propelled outward by collision with another galaxy. Blue is atomic Hydrogen observed with the VLA; white is optical; red is ultraviolet (Galex satellite). Red labels mark the dwarf galaxies studied in this research. Right: Detail of image produced by computer simulation of the galactic collision, showing debris ring and condensations that became star-forming dwarf galaxies. CREDIT: P-A Duc, CEA-CNRS/NRAO/AUI/NSF/NASA
Astronomers studying dwarf galaxies formed from the debris of a collision of larger galaxies found the dwarfs much more massive than expected, and think the additional material is "missing mass" that theorists said should not be present in this kind of dwarf galaxy.
http://xs315.xs.to/xs315/07195/Centaurus.png
NGC 5291, previously classified as a peculiar elliptical, is the brighter of an interacting pair of galaxies at the western outskirts of the IC 4329 cluster. New deep direct plates show that the pair are flanked by complexes of H II regions which extend 4 arcmin to both north and south. Spectroscopic observations confirm that the H II complexes are definitely associated with NGC 5291 and the whole system extends 200 kpc from north to south. Radio H II observations show that a very large mass (about 100 billion solar masses) of neutral hydrogen is present in the system at a range of radial velocities equal to those observed optically. The preferred explanation of the extraordinary properties of the system involves the compression of an extended gaseous discharge around NGC 5291 by interaction with an intracluster medium. It is suggested that the outlying H II regions, some of which may exceed the whole LMC in size and luminosity, may eventually become detached and form a population of blue dwarf irregular galaxies within the cluster.
http://xs315.xs.to/xs315/07195/IC4329.jpg
IC 4329 cluster
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Earth_banner.jpg (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/ProximaCen.html)
http://toys.about.com/b/a/Centaurus-Mode.jpg
/b/a/Centaurus-Mode.jpg
NGC 5291 - A massive, gas-rich and highly peculiar lenticular in the IC 4329 cluster - Longmore, A. J.; Hawarden, T. G.; Cannon, R. D.; Allen, D. A.; Mebold, U.; Goss, W. M.; Reif, K. (http://www.speedyshare.com/902180348.html)
deano
11-05-2007, 03:01 AM
so what you sayin?
wheres-bout November?
BELARUS - DMITRY DIMA > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV2tAAqTzo0&mode=related&search=
IC 4329 cluster ? al-so neautral H-e?
is it?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiwxsBPcubY&mode=related&search=
midwich cuckoo
11-05-2007, 03:24 AM
Spam Egg Sausage and Spam :rolleyes:
(http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=3061887438296717540&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=lovely+spam&vidurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DKn4CZw3oGOQ&usg=AL29H20gTnpkulLaIJGj9ofL_TMdVAL7EQ)
:rolleyes:...all about Vikings ...again
pruv
http://space.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11826/dn11826-1_250.jpg
The GRACE satellites have detected changes in the gravitational field over regions of Canada ...
Canada lacks gravity
ToSeek
Satellites solve mystery of low gravity over Canada (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11826-satellites-solve-mystery-of-low-gravity-over-canada.html)
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=58523
HIGH ABOVE MADAGASCAR -- After weeks of sharp debate, the Vogon Constructor Fleet voted Thursday to revoke Earth's planetary status.
"Although this decision is by no means unanimous, the Vogons feel that Earth lacks the necessary characteristics to enjoy further classification as a planet," said Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, a captain with the fleet. "Demolition will begin soon."
"As the proper paperwork has already been appropriately filed, resistance is useless!" Jeltz added.
Debate about Earth's planetary status has raged in the intergalactic community since its construction approximately 10 million years ago. The enormous computer was frequently mistaken for a planet, and at one point was thought larger than Uranus. Further observations, however, revealed that the Earth had a single moon, which made it appear far more massive than it really was.
But opposition to the downgrade of Earth was fierce in some quarters, particularly from hyper-intelligent mice and designers of Scandanavia, with Earthlings also appearing troubled by the decision. Many urged that Earth be moved to "dwarf planet" status instead of being wiped out of the galaxy altogther.
"I do believe the community may regret this decision and the loss of the excellent fjord design on Earth," said Slartibartfast, an architect and professional designer. "I will, however, submit to the Vogons' decision."
Slartibartfast said Earth's major programming may be completed without the planet, although he declined to say how.
i've been to the bautforum; after 2 hits of blotter acid.
Louis: Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!- ghostbusters:cool:
oneofmany
11-05-2007, 09:26 AM
Earth no longer a Planet according to - bautforum - (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46111)
Gruesome
Senior Member
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46111someones pulling your leg pal. Ever heard of Hitchikers guide to the galaxy? The Vogons were the ones to destroy planet Earth and ruin Arthur Dent's breakfast. http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/2/3D_emoticon_40.gif
lumukanda
11-05-2007, 10:53 AM
don't panic... and bring a towel.
oneofmany
11-05-2007, 12:44 PM
don't panic... and bring a towel.LOL!!!
Explanation: The stellar explosion cataloged as supernova SN 2006gy shines in this wide-field image (left) of its host galaxy, NGC 1260, and expanded view (upper right panel) of the region surrounding the galaxy's core. In fact, given its estimated distance of 240 million light-years, SN 2006gy was brighter than, and has stayed brighter longer than, any previously seen supernova. ....... astronomers suspect an instability producing matter-antimatter pairs led to the cosmic blast and obliterated the stellar core. Thus, unlike in other massive star supernovae, neither neutron star, or even black hole, would remain. Intriguingly, analogs in our own galaxy for SN 2006gy's progenitor may include the well-known, extremely massive star Eta Carinae. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070510.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0705/sn2006gy_3panelc720.jpg
SN 2006GY: Brightest Supernova
Credit: X-ray: NASA / CXC, Nathan Smith, Weidong Li (UC Berkeley) et al.;
IR: Lick/UC Berkeley/J.Bloom, C.Hansen
Mission Could Seek Out Spock's Home Planet
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/missioncould.jpg
Artist's concept comparing our sun's habitable zone with that of 40 Eridani.
Science fiction may soon become science fact. Astronomers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory have recently concluded that the upcoming planet-finding mission, SIM PlanetQuest, would be able to detect an Earth-like planet around the star 40 Eridani, a planet familiar to "Star Trek" fans as "Vulcan." 40 Eridani, a triple-star system 16 light-years from Earth, includes a red-orange K dwarf star slightly smaller and cooler than our sun. Vulcan is thought to orbit that dwarf star, called 40 Eridani A.
http://www.physorg.com/news98034524.html
When pondering the idea that SIM might be able to detect Vulcan, astronomer Dr. Angelle Tanner at Caltech had two questions: Can a planet form around 40 Eridani A? Can SIM detect such a planet?
She consulted a planetary theorist, Dr. Sean Raymond of the University of Colorado, Boulder. "Since the three members of the triple star system are so far away from each other [hundreds of astronomical units - the Earth-Sun distance], I see no reason why an Earth-mass planet would not be able to form around the primary star, 40 Eridani A," he said.
If Vulcan life were to exist on the planet, the orbit of the planet would have to lie in a sweet spot around the star where liquid water could be present on its surface. Water is an essential ingredient for any organism to live long and prosper. For 40 Eridani A, this spot, or "habitable zone," is 0.6 astronomical units from the star. That means Vulcans would get to celebrate a birthday about every six months.
The SIM PlanetQuest instrument will be so accurate, it could measure the thickness of a nickel at a distance from Earth to the moon. Using a set of mathematical models based on Newton's Laws, Tanner was able to conclude that SIM would be able to definitively determine whether there is an Earth-mass planet orbiting in the habitable zone around 40 Eridani A, and could also determine its orbit.
This is quite an exciting prospect, since NASA's Terrestrial Planet Finder mission, planned for launch after SIM, would not only be able to take a rudimentary "picture" of the planet, but also could search for signatures of life such as methane and ozone
When asked what life would be like on Vulcan, Tanner speculated that the inhabitants might be pale. "A K dwarf star emits its light at wavelengths which are a bit redder compared to those from the sun, so I wonder whether it's harder to get a tan there," she said.
The results of Tanner's simulations will be submitted for publication in the Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.
Source: NASA
» Next Article in Space & Earth science - Astronomy: A galactic fossil: Star is found to be 13.2 billion years old
http://www.physorg.com/news98033554.html
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/3996_web.jpg
11kushna11
11-05-2007, 02:02 PM
So Earth IS still a planet right?
lumukanda
11-05-2007, 02:25 PM
i'd say so, providing it was a planet to start off with, for all we know, we could be in a petri dish.
So Earth IS still a planet right?
Discovery of HE 1523-0901, a Strongly r-Process Enhanced Metal-Poor Star with Detected Uranium
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0703414
We are Children of the
Stars…!
• Elements are produced in stars and supernovae
• Successive built up of heavy elements in the Universe through
“cosmic recycling”
=> Old stars contain fewer elements (e.g. iron) than
younger stars
=> We look for the stars with the least amount of
elements heavier than H and He!
All those elements...
• The Elements Song
by Tom Lehrer
http://louhi.kempele.fi/~skyostil/archive/dump/flash/elements.swf
The Metallicity Distribution Function…!
~ see IT (from pg. 22-24 > HE 1523-0901 http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring07/bromm/secure/lecture23.pdf )
„The Oldest Stars
in our Galaxy“
10 May 2007
Star Shows Its Age
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070410231834data_trunc_sys.shtml
Texas Astronomer Finds Six Cosmic Clocks in Star Born Soon After The Big Bang
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2007/phot-23a-07-preview.jpg http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=22629
Milky Way's oldest star is 13.2 billion years old
Malaysia Sun
[
Friday 11th May, 2007
(ANI)
Washington, May 11 : An international team of astronomers have measured the age of an ancient star in the Milky Way galaxy - an extraordinary 13.2 billion years - born soon after the Big Bang.
According to Anna Frebel of The University of Texas, who led the team, the star's age is close to that of the universe of 13.7 billion years.
"This guy was born very shortly after the Big Bang. Surprisingly, it is very hard to pin down the age of a star although we can generally infer that chemically primitive stars have to be very old. Such stars must have been born before many generations of stars had chemically enriched our galaxy," said Frebel.
For their study, the team used radioactive decay dating techniques to date the star, HE 1523-0901.
Frebel said astronomers could accurately measure only the age of very rare old stars that contained huge amounts of certain types of chemical elements, including radioactive elements like thorium and uranium.
Frebel said the measurement provided a lower limit to the age of the universe and helped them disentangle the chemical history of the Milky Way galaxy.
She said the process is similar to the way archaeologists use carbon-14 and other elements to date Earth relics thousands of years old.
Astronomers used radioactive elements found in stars to deduce these stars' ages, which might be millions or billions of years, she said.
"Very few stars display radioactive elements. I'm looking at a very rare subgroup of these already rare stars. I'm looking for a needle in a haystack, really," said Frebel.
Frebel and her colleagues, Chris Sneden, Volker Bromm, Carlos Allende Prieto, Matthew Shetrone, and graduate student Ian Roederer are now looking forward to carrying further research on extremely old stars with the 9.2-meter Hobby-Eberly Telescope at McDonald Observatory.
"Stars such as HE 1523-0901 are ideal cosmic laboratories to study nucleosynthesis," Frebel said.
The findings appear in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Email this story to a friend
Have your say on this story
http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/89d96798a39564bd/id/247890/cs/1/
/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Discovery of HE 1523-0901, a Strongly r-Process Enhanced Metal-Poor Star with Detected Uranium
Authors: Frebel, Anna; Christlieb, Norbert; Norris, John E.; Thom, Christopher; Beers, Timothy C.; Rhee, Jaehyon
We present age estimates for the newly discovered very r-process enhanced metal-poor star HE 1523-0901 ([Fe/H]=-2.95) based on the radioactive decay of Th and U. The bright (V=11.1) giant was found amongst a sample of bright metal-poor stars selected from the Hamburg/ESO survey. From an abundance analysis of a high-resolution (R=75,000) VLT/UVES spectrum we find HE 1523-0901 to be strongly overabundant in r-process elements ([r/Fe]=1.8). The abundances of heavy neutron-capture elements (Z>56) measured in HE 1523-0901 match the scaled solar r-process pattern extremely well. We detect the strongest optical U line at 3859.57 A. For the first time, we are able to employ several different chronometers, such as the U/Th, U/Ir, Th/Eu and Th/Os ratios to measure the age of a star. The weighted average age of HE 1523-0901 is 13.2 Gyr. Several sources of uncertainties are assessed in detail.
Comment: 7 pages, 2 figures. Accepted for publication in ApJ Letters
Full-text available from: Cached PDF
Linked PDF (experimental)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703414
Export record as: BibTeX
What [Fe/H] means to me:
Stars with metal contents much less than the Sun
[Fe/H] = log(NFe/NH)* - log(NFe/NH)
[Fe/H] = 0: solar composition
[Fe/H] ~ - 1: boring…
[Fe/H] ~ - 2: good for statistics
[Fe/H] ~ - 3: … interesting!
[Fe/H] < - 4: Oooh my GOD !!!!!!!!! J
Making a rainbow
Cosmic timeline
Big Bang
First stars
Second generation
Observations
Theory
http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring07/bromm/secure/lecture23.pdf
LOL ..and see - crystalinks today - the < Houses in Weird Places > (http://www.crystalinks.com/elliesworld.html)
11kushna11
self-kush-na-self
Self-kush-nâsê
11kushna11
11-05-2007, 02:50 PM
"We present age estimates for the newly discovered very r-process enhanced metal-poor star HE 1523-0901 ([Fe/H]=-2.95) based on the radioactive decay of Th and U. The bright (V=11.1) giant was found amongst a sample of bright metal-poor stars selected from the Hamburg/ESO survey. From an abundance analysis of a high-resolution (R=75,000) VLT/UVES spectrum we find HE 1523-0901 to be strongly overabundant in r-process elements ([r/Fe]=1.8). The abundances of heavy neutron-capture elements (Z>56) measured in HE 1523-0901 match the scaled solar r-process pattern extremely well. We detect the strongest optical U line at 3859.57 A. For the first time, we are able to employ several different chronometers, such as the U/Th, U/Ir, Th/Eu and Th/Os ratios to measure the age of a star. The weighted average age of HE 1523-0901 is 13.2 Gyr. Several sources of uncertainties are assessed in detail."
Clears everything up perfectly. Thanks.
Scientific community
...the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community)Scientific community
The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions. It is normally divided into "sub-communities" each working on a particular field within science (for example there is a robotics community within the field of computer science). Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results.
[edit] Membership, status and interactions
"Membership" of the community is generally, but not exclusively, a function of education, employment status, and institutional affiliation. Status within the community is largely a function of publication record. Sociologists who have studied scientific communities have often found that gender, race, and class can be strong factors for an accepted entrance into the community.
Scientists are usually trained ....
"7/7/7 -"absolute unique-never before and never again"Sabbath Day
...*********************** (http://www.***********************/bbs/message.php?messageid=407406&mpage=1&showdate=7/3/07&forum=1)
Navion
apocalyptic tourist User ID: 237861_ "7/7/7 -"absolute unique-never before and never again"Sabbath Day
7/3/2007 6:00 PM
Quote
...<snip>....
7/7/7 Saturday July 7, 2007 Sabbath Day
This 7/7/7 will be on a Saturday, which is the seventh weekday, the Sabbath Day!
July 7, 2007 is a Saturday
(Julian Day Number is 2,454,289)
July 7, 1907 Sunday
July 7, 1807 Tuesday
July 7, 1707 Thursday
July 7, 1007 Monday
July 7, 0007 Thursday
July 7, 2107 Thursday
July 7, 2207 Tuesday
July 7, 3007 Tuesday
Therefore July 7, 2thousand7 ... a 7/7/7 on a 7th day of the week (Saturday = Sabbath)
absolute unique:
never before and never again!
Phenomenal also the Julian Day Number (see above) which is 2,454,289:
2,454,289 is a prime number
2,454,289 is the 179,982nd prime number.
...Well, 179,982 = 2*9*9999
or 2*3*3*3*3*1111
or 2*3*3*3*3*11*101
hummmm....Is this true ?
______________
ActionandCruelty
_User ID: 180240___ Re: 7/7/7 -"absolute unique-never before and never again"Sabbath Day Quote
7/3/2007 6:07 PM
2,454,289
2 + 4 + 5 + 4 + 2 + 8 + 9 = 34
3 + 4 = 7
_____________
"Do you know, Totski, this is all very like what they say goes on among the Japanese?" said Ptitsin. "The offended party there, they say, marches off to his insulter and says to him, 'You insulted me, so I have come to rip myself open before your eyes;' and with these words he does actually rip his stomach open before his enemy, and considers, doubtless, that he is having all possible and necessary satisfaction and revenge. There are strange characters in the world, sir!"
- Dostoevsky, The Idiot
3 + 4 = 7 !!!
Just amazing!
Soviet Union 16 kopeks stamphttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Soviet_Union-1967-Stamp-0.16._Satellite_of_Extraterrestrial_Civilization.j pg/200px-Soviet_Union-1967-Stamp-0.16._Satellite_of_Extraterrestrial_Civilization.j pg
Extraterrestrial life
..the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life)
Extraterrestrial life is life originating outside of the Earth. Its existence remains theoretical; there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life that has been widely accepted by the scientific community.
3-Sha-bb-at-4
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Saturn_from_Cassini_Orbiter_%282004-10-06%29.jpg/240px-Saturn_from_Cassini_Orbiter_%282004-10-06%29.jpg
7th-plan-et-Sat-urn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Thuyathadi.jpg/180px-Thuyathadi.jpg
Sat (Sanskrit)
..the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sat_%28Sanskrit%29)
Sat is a Sanskrit adjective meaning "real, being, existing" as well as "true, honest, right" (compare the double menaing of English true). As a neuter noun, it means "entity or existence, essence, the true being or really existent", "that which is good or real or true, reality, truth"; in the Vedanta also "the self-existent or Universal Spirit, Brahma". Etymologically, it is simply the present participle of the root as "to be"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Saraswati.jpg
Saraswati (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraswati), the Goddess of knowledge and
wisdom is worshipped on the first day of the spring
according to Hindu calendar
Lord Shiva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi) and Goddess Sati (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/56/Hindukailash.JPG/150px-Hindukailash.JPG
Tarahttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/Terraadmin.jpgTerra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_%28mythology%29)
Tar
No Planet
but....
a new gem-
-a new
Gita
Gitar
Guitar was
Sita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita)-r
Sita-ra
Gita - A new Song
(BhaGaaVa Gita, A Song of God)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/16/Elam-tar.jpg/180px-Elam-tar.jpg
"Set-ar", te--E-R-A what was.....n-o-t..e
Sitar >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitar) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Sitar.jpg
Sitara (heavens-scales above, earth-body below)
Gui-Ta-R (Gitara)
The modern word, guitar, was adopted into English from Spanish guitarra, derived from earlier Greek word kithara. Prospective sources for various names of musical instruments that guitar could be derived from appear to be a combination of two Indo-European roots: guit-, similar to Sanskrit sangeet meaning "music", and -tar a widely attested root meaning "chord" or "string". ...Persian word sitar. The Ancient Iranian f-lute, called tar in Persian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar)
vihuela (or "viola da mano"),
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/Vihuela-angel-G_Iberia_16th.jpg
Angel-musician playing a
Vihuela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vihuela). Detail from an
anonymous 16th century
Iberian fresco.
....... (oud) classical... and..... (nieuwe) electric gui-tar-s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Acoustic_guitar_parts.png/225px-Acoustic_guitar_parts.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Electric_guitar_parts.jpg/210px-Electric_guitar_parts.jpg
Sothic cycle, Venus, Mayan, association
Echoes of knowledge (http://www.skhane.com/greatpyramidgematria.htm)
(...)I cannot stress robustly enough the fact that the forthcoming numbers employed, furthermore the method via which they be employed are most definitely not the sole options available. In view of the fact that, as is my hypothesis, all number is interconnected, regardless of the modern day appellation awarded
Consequently the above 68.4375 x FP = 72.098765432 currently we perceive a cyclic, similarly descending 098765432, the next step being to multiply this 72.098765432 by 8.1 to obtain 584, the Maya Synodic period of Venus
I employed the factor 8.1, given that the musical scale 81:64 obtains 81 ÷ 64 = 1.265625, nevertheless reversed as 64 ÷ 81 obtains 0.790123456, at this time we perceive a cyclic 790123456, and this 0.790123456 multiplied by 91.25 regains the 72.098765432
Mentioned above being Gem Simon Peter 1925, that somewhat resembles the above 91.25, as a result I divided the 1925 by 91.25 and obtained 21.09589041 at the moment we perceive a cyclic 09589041
Therefore 21.09589041 multiplied by the Maya 584 = 12320 this being the above musical scale 1.265625 x 9734.320987654, at the moment we observe a cyclic 320987654, consequently the thread of interconnectivity is maintained
Since 9734.320987654 multiplied by exactly 37.96875 = 369600, this is {amongst numerous options} 1925 x 192 accordingly Simon Peter x Mary
The employed 37.96875 x FP {256:243} obtains 40 that multiplied by 370656 regains the commencing 14826240, the employed 370656 being the amount of cubic inches in one cubic yard 46656 x 7.9444 that multiplied by 288 = 2288, the GP top platform perimeter, in any case we currently return to the produced 14826240
{B} 14826240 ÷ 5280 = 2808 which is 171.6 x 16.3636 that multiplied by 22 = 360
{C} 14826240 ÷ 25920 = 572 obviously the GP top platform unit {572 x 4 = 2288} therefore the above 2808 ÷ 572 = 4.9090 that multiplied by the Grand Gallery unit 1881 = 9234 which divided by the “Sea” mile of 6080 = 1.51875, via dividing the above 171.6 by 1.51875 we obtain 112.987654320 that multiplied by 12094.77272 = 1366560 this being the Mayan “super number”
The 12094.77272 is 739.125 times the above 16.3636 the 739.125 divided by the above 1.51875 = 486.666 that is one third of the Sothic Cycle1460, etc
Eye of Horus
{D} The name of the eye of Horus was Oudjat {a Human and Falcons eye} the assembly of gods charged Thot {One spelling of} to reassemble the eye of Horus {The result of the devious deed completed by Seth}
The Oudjat symbolised the fractions of the Heqat .An apprentice notified his Master that the fractions of the eye added to 63/64ths.The Master retorted the missing 1/64th, can be made up by Thot to whichever sought after, and acknowledged his protection
Study of scenes representing Osiris receiving the Eye of Horus on the Mound-Pyramid of Creation reveals the God Sokar positioned inside the Mound-Pyramid receiving the solar energy from the summit. The seven corbelled sections wherein he lies most assuredly depict the Grand Gallery corbels within the Great Pyramid, as he lays supine, the head and feet aligned within the third corbel up, this being the corbel with the groove, furthermore we are indeed the third planet from the Sun
{D} Therefore 64 ÷ 63 = 1.015873 that multiplied by the Great Pyramid unit 432432 {756 x 572} obtains 439296.This divided by Sir Isaac Newton’s supposed cubit of 2.0736 = 211851.851851 that multiplied by the lunar, Yin-Yang number 1080 {Thoth} = 228800000, obviously the GP capstone base perimeter 2288 x 100000
As an aside THOT {employing the English alphabet} equates as
T = 20…H = 8…O = 15…T = 20…Total = 63
There resides the missing 1/64th {comparatively speaking}
Moreover THOTH = 71…HORUS = 81, likewise PLATO = 64
Initially 71 x 81 = 5751 that divided by 64 = 89.859375 that multiplied by the FP {Fraction of Plato} = 94.666 that is one third of 284 which is one of the “friendship” numbers of Pythagoras. Since 284 + 220 = 504, this being one tenth of 5040, Plato’s much emphasised number within the very fabric of his idealistic City state of Magnesia, {Dialogues of Plato: Laws}
The proper divisors of 220 are 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 20, 44, 55,110 these added = 284
The proper divisors of 284 are 1, 2, 4, 7 1,142 these added = 220
The numbers 1184 and 1210 are likewise amicable, on the other hand 1184 x 2 = 2368 Gem Jesus Christ and 1210 is a quarter of 4840, square yards in one acre
To resume: Thoth = 71, Horus = 81
Subsequently: 81 ÷ 71 = 1.14084507 that multiplied by 284 = 324, this divided by 64 = 5.0625 which multiplied by 63 = 318.9375 exactly, this multiplied by 9 x FP = 3024, the Great Pyramid base perimeter, likewise 3024 is 6 x 504 Mr. Plato resurfaces
As per norm, the Great Pyramid denoted as GP
The Grand Gallery denoted as GG
The Gematria values denoted as Gem
I like this...
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/images/orbits3d_small.gif
The New Centre...
mikeproteau
04-07-2007, 09:22 AM
wow, an amazing amount of junk dis-info. go away
fuknut
04-07-2007, 09:29 AM
wow, an amazing amount of junk dis-info. go away
:D:D
Ok, and when are "they" gonna "discover" Supermans's planet as well ??
Since they've discovered Mr Spock's home planet, Superman's planet is also out "there" - somewhere :rolleyes: or not.
:D:D
auron
04-07-2007, 01:46 PM
I'd love to sit and have a joint or two with you edit! :)
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44060000/jpg/_44060555_mira_416203.jpg
tinmenace
16-08-2007, 04:02 AM
I totally love Edit's threads and posts.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/bbc_logo.gifLast Updated: Wednesday, 15 August 2007, 17:12 GMT 18:12 UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6947607.stm)
Colossal tail trails dying star
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44060000/jpg/_44060555_mira_416203.jpg
The tail measures a massive 13 light years in length
A distant star that hurtles through space at extraordinary speeds has a huge, comet-like tail trailing in its wake, astronomers say.
The appendage, which measures a colossal 13 light years in length, was spotted by Nasa's Galaxy Evolution Explorer (Galex) space telescope.
The researchers said that nothing like it had ever been spotted around a star.
They believe the star, known as Mira, will help them to study what happens as stars meet their demise.
Mark Seibert, a co-author of the paper, which was published in the journal Nature, and a scientist at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, said: "This is an utterly new phenomenon to us, and we are still in the process of understanding the physics involved."
Racing through space
Mira (also called Mira A) has captivated astronomers for more than 400 years.
It sits about 350 light-years from Earth in a constellation known as Cetus, and is accompanied in orbit by a smaller secondary star, called Mira B, forming a binary system.
Billions of years ago, Mira would have been much like our Sun, but as it now enters its death-throes it has swollen into a type of star known as a red giant.
As it races through space at 130km/s (80 miles per second) it sheds vast amounts of material.
After 400 years of study, Mira continues to astound
Research team
Yet despite centuries of study, its spectacular tail had remained undetected.
Now, ultraviolet images taken by the Galex space telescope have uncovered Mira's unusual feature.
Barry Madore, a co-author of the paper and senior research astronomer at the Carnegie Observatories, said: "Galex is so exquisitely sensitive to ultraviolet light and it has such a wide field of view that it is uniquely poised to scan the sky for previously undiscovered ultraviolet activity.
"The fact that Mira's tail only glows with ultraviolet light might explain why other telescopes have missed it."
The ultraviolet images also revealed a "bow shock" - a region, in front of the star, where hot gas builds up as Mira's stellar wind meets clouds of interstellar gas and dust.
The team believes that the hot gas in the bow shock is heating up gas that the star is shedding to create a turbulent tail trailing in its wake.
The scientists said that the tail was made up of the material that Mira has been ejecting over a period of 30,000 years.
Mark Seibert said: "We hope to be able to read Mira's tail like a ticker tape to learn about the star's life."
Studying the carbon, oxygen and other elements that make up the tail, the team said, could also provide an insight into how new solar systems and possibly even life are formed.
"After 400 years of study, Mira continues to astound," the team concluded.
and...
According to
Prof. Von Bunteberg... <.> click to see (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3783)
Time Times and Half Time in One
No Time
&
Balance
The heart &...
...dream about dimentions.......help. (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=97855#post97855)
http://www.reikimaster.pl/reiki_karuna/karunabaner2.png
Bogini Kuan Yin
W Chinach, Avalokiteśvara przekształca się w boginię Kuan Yin. Inkarnuje jako kobieca istota, która z powodu świadomości światowego cierpienia, powstrzymuje się od wejścia w Nirvanę.
Kuan Yin - skrót od Kuan-shi-yin - "widzący/a głosy świata".
http://www.reikimaster.pl/reiki_quanyin/02a.png
quanyin (http://www.reikimaster.pl/reiki_quanyin.htm)
The Compassionate Saviouress (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:7tF_oGktaiwJ:www.geocities.com/zennun12_8/kuan-yin.html+Quan+Shi+Yin+prayer&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=nl)
There All Along.. (http://www.galex.caltech.edu/MEDIA/2007-04/images.html#fig5)
behind Mira Ð (http://www.galex.caltech.edu/MEDIA/2007-04/G-Mira-UV-Vis-sm.jpg)
You have seen the Signs in the Heavens.
******************-Other1 (http://www.***********************/bbs/message.php?messageid=425199&mpage=1&showdate=8/16/07&forum=1)You have seen the Signs in the Heavens.
Other
User ID: 283397
8/16/2007 8:19 AM
_________________ You have seen the Signs in the Heavens.
Quote
Dearest Destiny, We met in death as we spanned the gates of time. You remember the journey and know it will be healed. The alignment is to come. I am ready to make the journey to the mountain.
In merging we will bring forth the and heal the dimensions you dream of.
The journey of life
The journey of life begun
That fateful day I was born
My eyes opened up blissfully to the sun
My soul, heart and brain emerged as one
Behold my journey had begun!
This little child in time has grown
Yes! Time has flown, time has flown
A lot has been learnt on my very own
Life has been a mystifying journey
With every up and down
With tears and laughter
With hate and love
With stupidity and wisdom
With enemies and friends
But even in my journey of frustration
I have found a means of celebration
In my toilsome exploration to my fateful destination
Tick tock, the clock goes on
Minute by minute, then hourly
Month by month then yearly
Tick tock, and in my journey
I have searched, questioned and answered
Whilst walking painfully along many paths
Sometimes requesting protection
Seeking from above immunization
When hit by obstacles in locations
But I am still on this journey
Shaking hands with the sad and merry
My passion for life which was once raw
Is now confined within the Almighty’s law
For life's journey itself never ends
Once you have reached the end of each road
Uplifting off your entire cloggy load
Be it in a hot summer or a winter’s cold
Behold! A new journey will unfold
Sylvia Chidi
I love you
www.godlike-forum=1 (http://www.***********************/bbs/message.php?messageid=425260&mpage=1&showdate=8/16/07&forum=1)Phoenix 2012
Rote Himmel kommen
User ID: 208157
8/16/2007 11:53 AM
Re: Just four magic words. Quote
Iodine makes humans healthy?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 185840
http://www.***********************/images/smilies/custom/fhtqlbrc.jpeg
yes, violet chemical element.
_____________
-=Emissary to the Fire=-
Phoenix 2012
Rote Himmel kommen
User ID: 208157
8/16/2007 11:54 AM
Re: Just four magic words. Quote
Great big weather balloon
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 67189
Mother earth in transit.
Earth's Axis Tilt
Has recently increased by an additional 26 degrees
http://www.divulgence.net/AxialTilt_small1.jpghttp://www.divulgence.net/26d_increase_AxialTilt_small.jpg
____________ Normal 23.5 degree tilt_______________Current 49.5 degree tilt
Please look at the information, images and data ^ images to enlarge 2 (http://www.divulgence.net/)
http://www.***********************/images/icons/puter.gif
snoopsnuffleopagus
16-08-2007, 10:34 PM
:eek:
As always, my kindest regards!: notsoSnoopysnuffleopagus
Hello SSL&P, see please >
Structural evolution of an important protein in humans and
other vertebrates.http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/structureof4.jpg Credit: Eric Ortlund, University of North Carolina
Published: 2 hours ago, 14:30 EST, August 16, 2007 at www.physorg.com
Structure of 450 million year old protein reveals evolution's steps (http://www.physorg.com/news106493426.html)
snoopsnuffleopagus
16-08-2007, 11:12 PM
Hail!! edit:
First & foremost, thankyou for the enlightening and erudite 'Hot' link you have so graciously provided for us, all this 'Heady' materiel compelled me to seek deep within, Indeed i engaged in 'Naval Gazing' for approximately 2.84693 seconds, than I thought to myself, 'Snoops, it is written',"Wisdom is better than strength, though the poor mans' wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard. The quiet words of the wise man should be heeded, rather than the shouting of a king of fools, wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much right".
"I turned once more and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor honour to men of skill: but Time and Circumstances befall each of them".
Regardsarama! Snoopsnuffleopagus
I did "Hot"-l-i-n-k?
What do you mean by "Hot linkm," anyway ?...That >
http://www.physorg.com/news106489930.html
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7693
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7856
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/03aug_dreamyeclipse.htm
http://www.crystalinks.com/eclipsepointsmeet.jpg
http://www.physorg.com/news106481037.html
Now..Are we of the same speces?
snoopsnuffleopagus
17-08-2007, 12:23 AM
Ave! edit:
'HOT' link, one mouses(verb) curser over link, click, and indicated web-site(phys-org) appears. Compare this to my 'Cold' links, you mouseover(verb) my indicated web-site, click, and nothing happens, the reader who is interested in 'Said' web-site must TYPE name of web-site into 'Search Engine'(dogpile), than click search. This is due to my usage of a Gas-Powered Apple. Try this 'Cold' link as an example: thrillingwonder.blogspot.com 'mouseover, click, seewhatimean?
"When I have learned to live, than, and only than, shall I have learned to die" (C.A. 252 r)
'Wherever you go, there you are' Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus
Addendum: 'IF' you are a Snuffleopagii, than we are the same speces, if not, No.
lifeofbrian
17-08-2007, 12:27 AM
a Gas-Powered Apple.
LOL!
EA 7.7 MAG (http://www.***********************/bbs/message.php?page=9&showdate=8/16/07&messageid=424942&mpage=1)8/16/2007 4:08 AM
radioactive gases released into the ionosphere
caused by friction between the plates faults
Re: Destiny will she awaken?
Anonymous CowQuoteard
[link to www.*********************** (http://www.***********************/bbs/message.php?page=178&showdate=8/16/07&messageid=216174&mpage=1)]
13
User ID: 74186
8/16/2007 9:31 PM
Report abusive post
The opening of Ishtar's Gate
Quote
15 AUGUST 2007
[link to www.eyeofsiloam.com]
The Morning star leaves earth
at the lion's gate August 15th as
Venus and Mercury set on the Western Horizon
with the Sun as Saturn marks time at Apollyon.
Peru Earthquakes.
The announcement about Mira the wonderful on
the same date.
________________________________________________
And tomorrow...Venus will lead the way as light.
wisdom. time. and Kingdom of heaven announce the
arrival of the Lion's Gate as the Morning Star.
<credit and thanks to my friend, Bruce EL Raphael>
Quoting: 13
As ABove So Below....
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/template_images/nightsky/ns_subhd_spcnsnews_300x25.gif
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/template_images/nightsky/ns_subhd_iod_300x25.gif
__http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/amazingimages/images/Veil_wm_07.jpg
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/template_images/nightsky/ns_image_c2ebtn_163x20.gif (http://www.space.com/amazingimages/cte.php?guid=46297d1ae6c6f5.47840355&cat=s)
http://solar.spacew.com/c3/
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-c3.html
astronomyagogo
Tour of the Sky: August 2007
http://media.libsyn.com/media/astronomy/aug_07_lunar_cal.png
Planets for August 2007
Mercury- In Gemini at the beginning of the month is visible for the first few mornings of the month in bright twilight. At month's end Mercury will be visible in the West in the evening twilight. At months end Mercury is in Virgo look forward to better viewing in September and October -0.9 mag (1st) to -1.4 mag (21st)
Venus- In Sextans the brilliant Venus has been slowly sinking towards the Sun and lower in the evening sky. Look for Venus in the early twilight at the very beginning of the month and look for her razor thin crescent. Venus then disappears, and for Northern viewers, and is not visible again until the end of the month in the constellation Cancer. -4.3 mag (1st) to - 4.3 mag (21st)
Mars- In Taurus and glides by the Hyades on the 19th. By midmonth Mars rises between 11 and 2 depending upon your latitude. Towards the end of the month the red planet will be near the dimmer, giant red Aldeberon. 0.7 mag (1st) to 0.6 mag (21st)
Jupiter- In Ophiuchus becomes stationary and returns to proper motion on the 7th. At sunset Jupiter is near the meridian moving eastward each night. -2.4 mag (1st) to -2.2 mag (21st)
Saturn- In Leo th mid-southern latitudes can still eek out Saturn, telescopically, in the Sun's glare 0.6 mag (1st) to 0.6 mag (21st)
Uranus-In Aquarius 5.8 mag (1st) to 5.8 mag (21st)
Neptune-Will camp out in Capricorn all year long 7.9 mag (1st) to 7.8 mag (21st)
4 Vesta -Categorized as a minor planet (Vesta family Main Belt) is catching up with Jupiter and starts the month a degree from the double star Beta Scorpius and at a magnitude of 6.7 and is still a good binocular object for August. At the end of the month Jupiter and Vesta will be less than the width of the moon apart. Vesta is the second most massive object in the asteroid belt with a mean diameter of 540 km and was named after the Roman goddess of home and hearth.
Key Dates for August 2007
Days and Times in UT (help with time)
Observations are for 8pm for the mid-southern latitudes and for 10pm for the mid-northern latitudes.
Great site for sunrise and sunset times and a downloadable toolbar application by Steve Edwards
Occultation information can be found at the IOTA website! Astronomical Highlights August
4 - Moon at perigee (closest to Earth 368,891 km)
5 - Last Quarter 21:20 UT
5-8 - Cross Quarter Days
7 - Waning crescent Moon near Mars
- Jupiter stationary resumes its direct/eastward motion
12 - New Moon 23:03 UT
13 - Peak of the Perseid meteor shower 5h UT**
- Peak of the Delta Aquarids
- Neptune at opposition
15 - Mercury at superior conjunction - moving into the evening sky
17 - Look for Spica and Arcturus above the crescent moon
18 - Venus at inferior conjunction - moving into to morning sky
19 - Moon at apogee (furthest from Earth 404,618 km) and roughly between Spica and the Jupiter/Antares pair
20 - First Quarter Moon 23:54 UT
21 - Jupiter 5 deg from Antares, possible occultation check the IOTA website for data for your area.
22 - Antares 0.7 deg N of Moon
24 - Mars 5 deg N of Aldebaran
28 - Full Moon, Total lunar eclipse
31 - Moon at perigee (closest to Earth 364,171 km)
- At dawn look for the reappearance of Venus low and in the East. Don't confuse the "morning star" with Sirius in the SE
Astronomical Highlights for 2007
Earth's major motions for 2007
Perihelion
Jan 3 20h(UT)
First Cross Quarter Day
Feb 2-6
Equinox
Mar 21 00:07(UT)
Second Cross Quarter Day
May 4-7
Solstice
June 21 18:06(UT)
Aphelion
July 4 00h (UT)
Third Cross Quarter Day
Aug 5-8
Equinox
Sept 23 19:51(UT)
Fourth Cross Quarter Day
Nov 5-8
Solstice
Dec 22 06:08(UT)
Download this month's sky map! (http://astronomy.libsyn.com/)
http://www.moonmodule.com/cs/i/m/m7.gif
August 28 - total lunar eclipse (see map): The beginning of the umbral phase visible in North America, South America except extreme east, Antarctica except for Enderby Land, New Zealand, eastern Australia, extreme northeastern Asia, the Pacific Ocean, and the western Atlantic Ocean; the end visible in New Zealand, Australia, most of Antarctica except Queen Maud Land, Indonesia, eastern Asia, western North America, the Pacific Ocean, and the southeastern Indian Ocean.
Eclipse information from: NASA Eclipse Homepage, Eclipses Online (HM Nautical Almanac Office, UK in coordination with the U.S. Naval Observatory)
Download "What's up 2007: 365 days of Skywatching" (http://www.astrowhatsup.com/download-the-book/)by Tammy Plotner, published by Universe Today (Faser Cain) it is a fantastic and it is free!
'We have broken speed of light'
By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 16/08/2007
A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time.
According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would require an infinite amount of energy to propel an object at more than 186,000 miles per second.
However, Dr Gunter Nimtz and Dr Alfons Stahlhofen, of the University of Koblenz, say they may have breached a key tenet of that theory.
advertisement
The pair say they have conducted an experiment in which microwave photons - energetic packets of light - travelled "instantaneously" between a pair of prisms that had been moved up to 3ft apart.
Being able to travel faster than the speed of light would lead to a wide variety of bizarre consequences.
For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving.
The scientists were investigating a phenomenon called quantum tunnelling, which allows sub-atomic particles to break apparently unbreakable laws.
Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: "For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of."
telegraph.co.uk/earth/main (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/graphics/exclusions/imagestoday/tdbrit140.jpg
http://www.startrek.nl/sbs/templates/st2004/images/topimages2/st/top031.jpgStarTrek.nl - Welcome to the future (http://www.startrek.nl/)
http://www.jabootu.com/images/sttitle.jpg
http://mygamer.com/files/articlescreens/st_legacy2.jpg
"Space... the final frontier. These are the voyages..."
If you got a little shiver just reading those words, then you're not only a gamer, but a Treker as well. As such, you can officially consider yourself to be the target demographic for developer Mad Doc and publisher Bethesda Softworks - their latest game, designed specially for you, is titled Star Trek Legacy.
We saw Legacy at 2006's E3 (http://www.mygamer.com/index.php?id=551610&page=gameportal&mode=reviews) game show and were fairly impressed, particularly in light of the franchise's history of hit-or-miss (mainly miss) titles.
abc.net.au/news/arts/articulate (http://www.abc.net.au/news/arts/articulate/200607/s1687291.htm)
http://abc.net.au/news/features/img/Artsblog/startrek_blog.jpg
Maize: the final frontier
http://www.rienow.net/images/trek_schwul.jpg
No no...I like this...
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/images/orbits3d_small.gif
The New Centre...
..better
stay here.
TrInItY has a high class problem. - Shechaiyah
http://www.***********************/zgraphicsz/avatars/cgatjhjs.gif
auron
17-08-2007, 08:25 AM
http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/4869/wwwmyemoticonscomgigglexh7.gif
Hahaha!!! Nice one Edit!! :D
synergy777
17-08-2007, 01:53 PM
how about if we concentrate on the tangible issues that are coming into action eg economic collapse, iran, etc and leave the speculative stuff till later.
___________________ lookfar (http://www.crystalinks.com/00crop3.jpg)
http://www.crystalinks.com/aug17romapeople.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_people)
J'ami (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jami)
http://www.planetary.org/image/158284main_pia08324-2-502.jpg
DO PICTURE'S OF EARTH AMONG THE STARS EXIST ? (http://www.***********************/bbs/message.php?messageid=425690&mpage=1&showdate=8/17/07&forum=1)
earth_light (http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/entertainment/downloads/spaceart/images/earth_light_1280.jpg) spacewalkers (http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/entertainment/downloads/spaceart/images/spacewalkers_05_1280.jpg)
Click to enlarge > http://www.planetary.org/image/Earth_Moon_all_H_th.jpg (http://www.planetary.org/image/Earth_Moon_all_H.jpg)
Venus Express
Venus Express: Earth and Moon (November 2005) (http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/earth/spacecraft.html)
synergy777
17-08-2007, 05:26 PM
thats the picture of romany women, romany are from panjab/india. if look like that edit, let a brother know, lol
why (http://audio.cdbaby.com/51b639b5/mp3lofi/h/e/heloiselove-10.mp3) Alleluia (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:DDjuTcmMgn0J:www.yale.edu/intlsingers/programs.htm+song+for+the+mira+listen&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=101&gl=nl)
synergy777
lol
come&see..the Mira Song (http://rexton.wordpress.com/2006/06/25/song-for-the-mira/)
_or (© Cabot Trail Music..) (http://members.tripod.com/sk_am2/AnneMurray_SongForTheMira.wav)
& Stars and Stars 3D
renders a rather blurry sky (http://www.alpix.com/3d/worldwin/)http://www.alpix.com/3d/worldwin/WW_Earth_Stars3D_3_s.jpg
http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/spacesciences/images/observingsky/celestialsphere.jpg
where are all those stars (http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/1298.shtml) gone?
A New Astrology for a New Millennia
Keynote: Wisdom in Action (http://www.ascendpress.org/articles/transmissions3/Tran3-Astrology.html)
http://www.si.edu/exhibitions/images/130_50_eagle.jpghttp://www.si.edu/images/hm_hd_para_science.gif (http://www.earthfromspace.si.edu/online_exhibition.asp)Current Sky Information (http://www.si.edu/science_and_technology/)
________ http://www.goldenmean.info/phiricais/heartmailbase3.gif
___________________Explore Inner Space (http://www.goldenmean.info/)...
&...http://www.goldenmean.info/implosionmovies/gracethumb.jpg..ahum
Anders Lindman
17-08-2007, 09:46 PM
'We have broken speed of light'
By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 16/08/2007
A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time.
telegraph.co.uk/earth/main (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml)
I wouldn't guess they have broken the speed of light. The maximum speed is 2 * c, two times the speed of light, achieved by for example two photons traveling in exactly opposite directions.
Anders Lindman
17-08-2007, 10:32 PM
I wouldn't guess they have broken the speed of light. The maximum speed is 2 * c, two times the speed of light, achieved by for example two photons traveling in exactly opposite directions.
Then, why two times the speed of light? Don't all scientists say that one time the speed of light is the maximum speed?
Let's look at an example. A spaceship is placed between two stars. One star is located exactly to the left of the spaceship and the other star exactly to the right. The distance from the left star to the spaceship is 1 lightyear. The distance from the right star to the spaceship is 1 lightyear. Thus the distance between the two stars is 2 lightyears, with the spaceship stationary exactly between them.
It will take one year for a photon emitted from the left star to reach the spaceship. It will take one year for a photon emitted from the right star to reach the spaceship. So, when one photon hits the spaceship from the left star and another photon hits the spaceship from the right star at the same time, it means both photons have traveled one year. If the maximum speed would be one time the speed of light, then the speed between the photons could not exceed that, and so it would then take two years for the photons to reach the spaceship since their speed relative to each other can then only be 1c, which mean 0.5c for each photon relative to the spaceship. But clearly, it will not take two years for a photon to travel one lightyear, so the relative speed between the photons is 2c. Q.E.D. :D
Hmm.. I am not so sure now http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif..if tath's so..or, if photons travel at all.. or they just manifest!?
Now I got a question -- If Saturn had a twin..?
' Sjecanje me lakom tugom mori
vece slazi i mirise lipa....'
- Kari Sabanovi
Anders Lindman
17-08-2007, 11:14 PM
Hmm.. I am not so sure now http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif..if tath's so..or, if photons travel at all.. or they just manifest!?
Now I got a question -- If Saturn had a twin..?
' Sjecanje me lakom tugom mori
vece slazi i mirise lipa....'
- Kari Sabanovi
If you mean had as in past tense then maybe the asteroid belt is the remnant of the Saturn twin exploding some 12500 years ago?
synergy777
17-08-2007, 11:26 PM
edit, you know your abstract answers are too "intellectual" for me, be easy on us mere mortals, please respond in easy language.
If you mean had as in past tense then maybe the asteroid belt is the remnant of the Saturn twin exploding some 12500 years ago?
I didnt really think that way..but now i think that may be the possibility.
Or.. maybe We ARE in the middle of grown up Saturn and the asteroid belt is the expiration-breath-remnant of Saturn ( thats why the L. project/ progect? is going on now 2.. or not? ) ?
synergy777
17-08-2007, 11:37 PM
cxouldn't the asteroid belt be maldek/marduk.
What did Marduk thought then of.. Cat Named Hector (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/?id=1994421&refnum=1069859) ? http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1994421/2/istockphoto_1994421_cat_named_hector.jpg
thoughts @ aura (http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j225/missy_mojoe/pragaro0ragana_samurai-cat.jpg)your thoughts surround you http://www.anitharmnone.com/images/lotus_purple.gif
She responds to "Aura", "Au-ree" (http://www.catwelfare.org/image/upload/IM/Lost_and_Found/2006dec22_aurie.jpg)
http://www.epochtimes.com.ua/rus/images/stories/01/science/eu0324203.jpg
Изумительные картины космоса, снятые телескопом «Хаббл». Часть 2 (фотообзор) (http://www.epochtimes.com.ua/ru/articles/view/7/2120.html)
synergy777
17-08-2007, 11:57 PM
whatever you're smoking, let me know, its the shiznit, lol
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/8/avatarani122sw8.gif
Господьe Synergy777 Peace
_____________________ Шива (http://www.sirius-ru.net/liki/shiva.htm)
http://www.sirius-ru.net/liki/liki%20images/shiva.jpg
Господь Шива
….. Осмыслите значение образа, который принял Шива, чтобы люди почитали Его. У Него в горле содержится смертельный яд, халахала, способный мгновенно уничтожить всё живое. На Его голове – священная река, Ганга, воды которой могут исцелить все болезни везде и всюду. На Его лбу – огненный глаз. На Его голове – прохладная и успокоительная Луна. На запястьях, щиколотках, плечах и шее Он носит смертоносных кобр, которые питаются животворным воздухом (праной). Шива учит, что смерти не нужно избегать или бояться. Её нужно встречать охотно и смело.
Легенды гласят, что Шива ходит с чашей для подаяния. Этим Он учит, что отрешенность, непривязанность, безразличие к злой или доброй судьбе – способны достичь Его. Шива известен как «Победитель смерти», «Разрушитель желаний».
Ишвару также символически изображают в форме лингама. Слово лингам произошло от санкскритского корня ли, означающего лиятие, растворение. Это форма, в которой растворяются все прочие формы. Шива – это Бог.. http://babelfish.altavista.com/
synergy777
18-08-2007, 12:28 AM
i don't know who you are, where you are from, what country/gender etc. this krishna/kalki stuff is not funny .
synergy777
18-08-2007, 12:35 AM
http://66.249.91.104/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&langpair=ru%7Cen&u=http://www.sirius-ru.net/liki/shiva.htm
Lord Shiva
Understand the importance of image, which took Shiva that people revered him. They found him in the throat deadly poison, halahala capable of instantly destroying all life. On His head is a holy river Ganges, whose waters can cure all diseases everywhere. At His man-firestorm eye. On His head cool and sedatives Luna. His wrists, ankles, shoulders and neck He is a deadly cobra, which feed the lifeblood of air (pranoy). Shiva teaches that death need not be feared or avoided. It should come willingly and courageously.
Legends state that Shiva moves with a cup for charity. These It teaches that detachment, indifference to the fate of good or evil-can reach him. Shiva is known as the "Winner of death", "The Destructor desire."
this form, which dissolved all other forms. Shiva is God blessing all beings most welcome gift merger with Absolut. That is the end, this should seek death, and it may bestow Shiva. First, an inessential God, then nothing can harm you with the material world, because you will see the objective world just as the body of God. Making His is the inevitable task of man.
Shiva means "mercy", "goodness". Shiva revered as a teacher of teachers. The very image of Shiva is a great example of patience and restraint. He keeps poison in the throat and on his head is blessed Moon. This is a lesson people that should not be on any other bad inclinations, but rather should use all the good deposits, which is in favour of the Environment ....
love is the repository of all that is necessary for prosperity. He presents the wealth of wisdom. Shiva is in every thought, word and action, for energy, strength and intelligence behind them, is all he. God, manifested as time, space and causation is you. Shivoham "exclamation point" (I am Shiva) announced those souls who know the truth in the outbreak of enlightenment after a long clearance podvizhnichestvom mind. Shivoham means : I is divine.
burn a depravity, vices, bad habits, poklonyaytes Shiva, maintaining cleanliness in thought, words and deeds. Because every substance has a Siva (Shiva Swarup), but people must dorasti to this divine status.
" Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba. - М. - M. Амрита-Русь, 2006, с240-244. Amrita- Rus, 2006, s240-244.
russian to english translation, lol
snoopsnuffleopagus
18-08-2007, 12:35 AM
YOYOYO!!! Pazzizzles! Snoop edit: brosyntriple7: Props
WHASSUP!! 1 waz deschnizzilin da data wheeennn 1 kaTHOUGHTzil.
WHATHAFUZZLES!!!: perchance: Can you bind the chains of Pleiades, or loose the band of Orion? Can you bring forth the Mazzaroth(constellations) in their seasons? Can you guide Arcturus with his sons(the Bear with her Cubs)? Do you know the ordinances of heavens? Can you establish their rule upon the Earth?
What Say U?
Colourizzle me Curiousisille, Kindest Regards!: Snoopsnuffleopagus
synergy777
18-08-2007, 12:43 AM
http://www.new-moon.org/thetrueequinox.htm
Job and Amos show that they observed the constellations in the South skies and that the constellations have their Seasons:
Job 9:9 He is the Maker of the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the Constellations of the South.
Job 38:31-32 (31) Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion? (32) Can you bring forth the Constellations in their Seasons or lead out the Bear with its Cubs?
Amos 5: 8 He who made the Pleiades and Orion, who turns blackness into dawn and darkens day into night, who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out over the face of the land, YHWH is his name.
edit, peace, lol
Seneca’s Stoicism..^..a retrospective of the evolution of the Sphinx (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:1Q1bA0o24x0J:www.oedipusmax.com/theplay.htm+Book+of+Seneca+theology&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=nl)
Seneca believes that human beings live at the whim of blind chance or divine will.
synergy777
18-08-2007, 12:49 AM
i think sphinx is representation of yashuah, lion of judah, coming to free all the people.
perseus, orion, kalki etc.
http://www.pillar-of-enoch.com/pillarname.html
i think sphinx is representation of yashuah, lion of judah, coming to free all the people.
perseus, orion, kalki etc.
http://www.pillar-of-enoch.com/pillarname.html
Fractal Antennas Offer Benefits
Since they were first described by the French mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot in the mid-1970s, repeating geometric figures known as fractals have fascinated computer scientists, mathematicians and graphic artists.
These "broken curves" have been used to explain naturally-occurring phenomenon such as lightning, galactic clusters and clouds. Many computer-image compression schemes are based on fractals. Until recently, however, there have been few hardware applications of fractal geometry.
Fractal antennas and fractal arrays are notable exceptions.
http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/cfa/fractal1.jpgA fractal element antenna, or FEA, is one that has been shaped in a fractal fashion, either through bending or shaping a volume, or introducing holes. They are based on fractal shapes such as the Sierpinski triangle. Mandelbrot tree (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MandelbrotTree.html), Koch curve, and Koch island. The advantage of FEAs, when compared to conventional antenna designs, center around size and bandwidth.
Size can be shrunk from two to four times with surprising good performance. Multiband performance is at non-harmonic frequencies, and at higher frequencies the FEA is naturally broadband. Polarization and phasing of FEAs also are possible.
The theory of fractal antenna operation is steeped in mathematics, but in its most basic form, it comes down to this: In order for an antenna to work equally well at all frequencies, it must satisfy two criteria: it must be symmetrical about a point, and it must be self-similar, having the same basic appearance at every scale: that is, it has to be fractal.
In many cases, the use of fractal element antennas can simplify circuit design, reduce construction costs and improve reliability. Because FEAs are self-loading, no antenna tuning coils or capacitors are necessary. Often they do not require any matching components to achieve multiband or broadband performance. ...
http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/cfa/fractal2.jpgFractal antennas have existed for a long time, although they were not consciously designed as such. Log periodic antennas are fractal in nature. While they have been around for more than 40 years, their behavior was not completely understood until fractal techniques were applied
luminet.net/~wenonah/cfa/fractal (http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/cfa/fractal.htm)http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/152/pp0809~Fractal-Peace-Posters.jpg
http://www.mcasco.com/images/iams.gif
The Mandelbrot Set (http://www.mcasco.com/mset.html)http://www.mcasco.com/images/msv8.gif
Benoit Mandelbrot had a set...
If you were persistent enough on the Iteration of z2+c display, you detected certain regions where the iterations settled down, or at least did not diverge out of bounds. On the next display the program will outline for you the area where the function z2+c does not diverge. The set of all points in the complex plane where the function z2+c does not diverge under iteration, is called the "Mandelbrot set", after Benoit Mandelbrot. The outline of the set resembles the insect known as a ladybug, after being run over and possibly struck by lightning.
synergy777
18-08-2007, 01:15 AM
fibonacci/fractuals, wave/particles, macro/micro, yin/yang, etc.
Job 38:31-32 (31) Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion? (32) Can you bring forth the Constellations in their Seasons or lead out the Bear with its Cubs?
I think its the job of supercl-Virgo...,
..and
..I think Seneca wasnt right about the real cause but maybe about the causal-will-ego only then, yes he was.
synergy777
18-08-2007, 01:25 AM
highly theatrical language of his play, creates an exciting synergy of powerful emotional and intellectual appeal.
he is interested in how we face tragedy not of our own making. For Seneca, we may not always be in control of what happens to us, but we have the capacity to control our response to it. His central tenet is that we must try to find the strength to accept suffering with dignity, courage, and mercy. This philosophy seems as relevant today in a world filled with repeated horrors against those who are innocent, as it was in ancient times.
how we react, determines the true outcome of misfortune/fortune. hence even though life is sometimes out of our control, we are always in control of ourselves, our reactions/actions.
you might not control the waves, but you control your surf.
synergy777
18-08-2007, 01:41 AM
and I realized our true nature is spirit not body, that we are eternal beings and God's love is unconditional and there's nothing we can ever do to change that, it is only our illusion that we are seperate from God or that we are alone in fact the reality is we are one with God and he loves us.(Bill Hicks)
hicks knew, never forget
and I realized our true nature is spirit not bodyI think he got confused and mixed-up the 2 things | time with nature or.. true nature instead the 'true' time |
synergy777
18-08-2007, 01:54 AM
nature as in construction, our contsruction/nature is soul, we are soul. souls having a human experience, its a figure of speech.
synergy777
18-08-2007, 02:18 AM
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3482/newwaveiz1.jpg
snoopsnuffleopagus
18-08-2007, 02:34 AM
Bubba edit!!! Bro syntriple7!!! :
HowzABout this scenario? Father YHWH Plan: The Transformation of mortal anthropomorphic humans with soul to IMMORTAL SUPRA-ANTHROPOMORPHIC HUMANS with soul/ the IMMORTAL SUPRA-ANTHROPOMORPHIC HUMAN with SOUL, after 'Proper Instuction in the Law(Light), will move out to colonize the Universe and use their supra-anthropomorphic arms, legs, hands and most important SUPRA-ANTHRPOMORPHIC MIND, to advance Father Yahwehs Plan as part of His loving Family, having Rulership over the Malakim!
Colour Me Inquisitive! Best Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus
synergy777
18-08-2007, 02:43 AM
inner/outer space.
Bubba edit!!! Bro syntriple7!!! :
HowzABout this scenario? Father YHWH Plan: The Transformation of mortal anthropomorphic humans with soul to IMMORTAL SUPRA-ANTHROPOMORPHIC HUMANS with soul/ the IMMORTAL SUPRA-ANTHROPOMORPHIC HUMAN with SOUL, after 'Proper Instuction in the Law(Light), will move out to colonize the Universe and use their supra-anthropomorphic arms, legs, hands and most important SUPRA-ANTHRPOMORPHIC MIND, to advance Father Yahwehs Plan as part of His loving Family, having Rulership over the Malakim!
Colour Me Inquisitive! Best Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus
Hello snoopyetc..
Although I do not feel as a grandemother n so&so.. I will give you a 'hot' link 2 seek to see fer yerself - im sure for ye that ye will be contacted by yer farther JHVH - click here below >
http://www.bautforum.com/logo_2_1.jpg (http://www.bautforum.com/)
By fer now and good luck.
Oh-Key
Im gonna post the whole thread (a cold c&p) from the above link as i find the subject matter and discussion very interesting to read it... here > www bautforum.com/against-mainstream/33460-coldcreation-cosmology-ultimate-theory.html
Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Against the Mainstream
ColdCreation Cosmology: the Ultimate Theory
Page 1 of 5
08-October-2005, 12:14 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
ColdCreation Cosmology: the Ultimate Theory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold Creation theory is built on several themes: (1) The universe may not be expanding. (2) There was no beginning to the universe, or big bang event. (3) Matter was created otherwise than in a primordial episode. (4) Cosmic evolution is very different than previously thought. (5) Human consciousness, creativity and imagination are inextricably attached to the laws of nature, and can be rationalized in logical and consistent physical terms.
Overview:
The observation interpreted as cosmological expansion (a Doppler effect) is erroneous. Wavelengths throughout the entire spectrum are redshifted as they pass through a curved spacetime manifold in a non-expanding universe.
A physical mechanism inherent in space called the cosmological constant is responsible for regulating stability between all objects (not a finely tuned centrifugal force).
A fundamental law of nature associated with ‘empty’ space has been overlooked.
Material creation of hydrogen (and its constituents) arises in the vacuum of space extremely close to absolute zero temperature.
All of the elements except for hydrogen were created through stellar processes.
The thermal history of the universe is from cold to warmer, from virtually absolute zero to the observed 2.7 K.
It is possible to construct a unified theory of everything, but to do so drastic changes are needed in our hypotheses, along with a large-scale revision of our understanding of natural phenomenon.
The creation of matter arises in the vacuum at ultra-low temperatures, from the minimum potential energy available in the environment. The universe has evolved from an irreducible ground-energy state (a state of least-energy, the lowest possible energy state) with a minimum amount of constituents and parameters, and that this quasi-stable equilibrium ground-energy state has the least entropy and lowest temperature—as opposed to evolution from a highly dense, high temperature environment that cools and expands with time. Cold Creation theory describes the stability mechanism associated with space and gravitation (while demonstrating that the universe cannot expand)—it is this same mechanism that provides stability to planetary and galactic systems uncovered by Albert Einstein called the cosmological constant.
What we have is a general relativistic, thermodynamic evolving universe that remains static (nonexpanding, non-contracting) in time.
It is infinite in spatiotemporal extent (both in the past and in the future directions). The laws of nature never break-down.
The mechanism behind the gravitational interaction is described.
Unification (between gravity and the other forces, between GR and quantum mechanics) is the result.
Coldcreation
#2 (permalink) 08-October-2005, 12:17 PM
Argos
Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 22°20'42"S / 49°03'14"W
Posts: 5,257
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you have a hypothesis (or, better, a conjecture). A theory explains the observation and makes predictions. What predictions does your theory make?
Quote:
A fundamental law of nature associated with ‘empty’ space has been overlooked.
What law would it be?
__________________
"There are two major products to come out of Berkeley: LSD and Unix. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." Unknown
#3 (permalink) 08-October-2005, 12:44 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argos
I think you have a hypothesis (or, better, a conjecture). A theory explains the observation and makes predictions. What predictions does your theory make?
What law would it be?
There are many predictions, as you can imagine.
(1) Galaxies located at the greatest distances visible should have old metal-rich stellar populations, e.g., globular clusters. The spectra of these objects, to some extent visible in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field images, should show high metallicity, similar to stars in the Local Group.
(2) Galaxies located at the visible horizon should be well formed. The large-scale structures of the universe visible locally should be present in the deep universe.
A discovery of this nature would provide evidence that those distant metal rich well-formed galaxies are much older than the universe according to the standard model (or any of its progeny). No expanding model could account for such early, rapid, stellar nucleosynthesis. In order to absorb such an observation, the standard model would have to be once again greatly modified. All of the known parameters, omega, lambda (dark energy, kooky energy, quintessence, antigravity, call it what you will), dark matter, the Hubble constant, would have to be re-tweaked and tweaked again and again until some form of justification for seeing old heavy metal objects in a young accelerating universe (in a region of space where objects were supposed to be forming for the first time ever, the redshift desert, the dark ages) could be reached.
Something has only just begun
Coldcreation
#4 (permalink) 08-October-2005, 12:46 PM
Wolverine
Moderator Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
(5) Human consciousness, creativity and imagination are inextricably attached to the laws of nature, and can be rationalized in logical and consistent physical terms.
The first question I would submit: what's the purpose of including human consciousness in a cosmological model? Seems to me that'd be a job for neuroscientists (if not philosophers), not cosmologists.
__________________
• Anecdotal thinking comes naturally; science requires training. -- Michael Shermer • Wolverine's Den •
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Wolverine : 08-October-2005 at 12:51 PM. Reason: Formatting.
#5 (permalink) 08-October-2005, 01:07 PM
Argos
Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 22°20'42"S / 49°03'14"W
Posts: 5,257
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
There are many predictions, as you can imagine.
(1) Galaxies located at the greatest distances visible should have old metal-rich stellar populations, e.g., globular clusters. The spectra of these objects, to some extent visible in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field images, should show high metallicity, similar to stars in the Local Group.
Do you have any evidence of this?
Quote:
(2) Galaxies located at the visible horizon should be well formed. The large-scale structures of the universe visible locally should be present in the deep universe.
What do you mean by 'well formed'?
The large scale structures of the universe are 'present' in the 'deep universe'. Would you elaborate this?
Quote:
A discovery of this nature would provide evidence that those distant metal rich well-formed galaxies are much older than the universe according to the standard model (or any of its progeny).
Shouldn´t we look for the evidence first?
Quote:
No expanding model could account for such early, rapid, stellar nucleosynthesis. In order to absorb such an observation, the standard model would have to be once again greatly modified. All of the known parameters, omega, lambda (dark energy, kooky energy, quintessence, antigravity, call it what you will), dark matter, the Hubble constant, would have to be re-tweaked and tweaked again and again until some form of justification for seeing old heavy metal objects in a young accelerating universe (in a region of space where objects were supposed to be forming for the first time ever, the redshift desert, the dark ages) could be reached.
Something like "these are the opinions on which I base my facts"?
__________________
"There are two major products to come out of Berkeley: LSD and Unix. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." Unknown
#6 (permalink) 08-October-2005, 05:01 PM
Faultline
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMIIW, but you're saying that the universe began with zero temperature and energy, matter creation occured as a previously overlooked property of empty space, and that now it is at equilibrium and has been for infinite time in both directions.
There's a contradiction in there; I just can't put my finger on it.
__________________
My son is my universe.
#7 (permalink) 08-October-2005, 05:12 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
fixed [ quote ] tags
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argos
Do you have any evidence of this?
There is preliminary evidence of high metallicity in distant sources.
Richard S. Ellis (Caltech) studied the ultra deep images in detail. One of the outstanding features of the ‘early’ universe is that galaxies out to redshift 7 appear to have normal stellar populations. These are not the big, bright, ultra-heavy 500 solar-mass 1st generation stars thought to have reigned at the time. Moreover, galaxies are fairly evolved. These distant objects are not representative of the first population of galaxies.
There’s more: Isobel Hook (see Hook et al, c2004), head of the UK Gemini Support Group, (Oxford University) is part of the Gemini Deep Deep Survey (GDDS) team whose objective is to capture the faintest galactic light ever detected. Three hundred galaxies were scrutinized. “These highly developed galaxies, whose star-forming youth is in fact long gone, just shouldn’t be there, but are," said Co-Principal Investigator Karl Glazebrook (Johns Hopkins University).
Using data obtained with the Frederick C. Gillett Gemini North Telescope on Mauna Kea, Gemini Deep Deep Survey took the deepest spectra ever of very distant galaxies. The galaxy populations encountered look identical to local groups, with astoundingly no sign of evolution during this important era that was believed to be one most significant change. Massive, fully formed galaxies are found at great distances. The huge massive ones should not be there at all according to astronomers. There was simply too little time between t = 0 and then for them to form.
"It is quite obvious from the Gemini spectra that these are indeed very mature galaxies, and we are not seeing the effects of obscuring dust. Obviously there are some major aspects about the early lives of galaxies that we just don’t understand.” Said Patrick McCarthy (Observatories of the Carnegie Institution).
“Studying the chemical composition of the interstellar gas, we discovered that the galaxies in our survey are more metal-rich than expected." Sandra Savaglio (Johns Hopkins University).
Quote:
What do you mean by 'well formed'?
The supposition that the morphology of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields is very different in the past than in the present is not a confirmed observational fact, when redshift and surface brightness are taken into account (Buta & Block 2001, Thomson, R.I, 2000, Ellis 1997, Takamiya 1999).
Higher resolution evidence of this should come in 2011 after NASA and ESA launch the James Webb Space Telescope.
Quote:
The large scale structures of the universe are 'present' in the 'deep universe'. Would you elaborate this?
The Local Group is a good example of a well formed large-scale structure. It hosts several full spiral galaxies (massive ellipticals, barred spirals), a great attractor, center of mass, etc. There are other much larger structure, too, that would require several Gyrs to form (probably +10 billion years). They are superclusters, great walls, etc. Some are thousands of old as well as young galaxies.
You would not expect to find well-formed large-scale structures in an era though to have been dominated by radiation (see the Dark Ages in BB cosmology). It certainly would not constitute proof of hierarchical evolution of a hot big bang/cold dark matter kooky energy universe.
Quote:
Shouldn´t we look for the evidence first?
Obviously in some instances evidence (observational or experimental) is found then explained. You asked for a prediction. I gave you two: high metallicity, evolved structures. There are more.
Quote:
Something like "these are the opinions on which I base my facts"?
Sounds like something off a Twisted Sister sound-track, hihih
I still have to answer your question about a new law of nature, one that Einstein had touch upon but never elaborated. It deals with the cosmological constant, the vacuum.
Coldcreation
#8 (permalink) 08-October-2005, 05:38 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faultline
CMIIW, but you're saying that the universe began with zero temperature and energy, matter creation occured as a previously overlooked property of empty space, and that now it is at equilibrium and has been for infinite time in both directions.
There's a contradiction in there; I just can't put my finger on it.
No contradiction. The universe did not begin. Zero is unattainable, just like infinity is unattainable. The value of energy, entropy, temperature, pressure, etc, tend to zero as time t tends to minus infinity (when the clocks are reversed).
Therefore, in the direction of time, potential energy is converted to available energy (energy is conserved), entropy increases, so too does blackbody temperature (of the CMB).
What has been overlooked is a fundamental constant of nature, known in physics as lambda, the cosmological constant. A new law of nature had to be devised that outlines the properties of the vacuum. There is no new physics involved.
Material creation is part of the theory (this is not a property of empty space). The brunt of it would have gotten underway 600 to 250 Gyrs ago. All of the observed light elements would have formed from this time on through stellar processes (astrophysical processes), not primordial nucleosynthesis (as would have been the case in the canonical hot big bang/cold dark matter model).
Equilibrium is unattainable. There is a perpetual competition between order and disorder in nature. Her, equilibrium is used in the thermodynamical sense, (not as a function of the radius, or size, of the universe, as in static or expanding).
I hope that clears up your difficulties. If not, you can always re-read the first text of this thread, where it is stated clearly and simply.
Coldcreation
#9 (permalink) 08-October-2005, 05:54 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverine
The first question I would submit: what's the purpose of including human consciousness in a cosmological model? Seems to me that'd be a job for neuroscientists (if not philosophers), not cosmologists.
It's funny you should ask this question. The answer is simple. Cosmology is the study of the physical universe, its origin (if any), everything it contains and its evolution in time.
There is a curious aspect of the universe with all its stars, galaxies, clusters, superclusters, dust, etc. There sprang from it some time ago things capable of reproducing themselves (I was a bio-major) and capable of feeling, seeing, being aware of their surroundings. They developed what is called consciousness. Any (ultimate) theory that tries to explain evolution, cosmology, must include consciousness.
In another way, ColdCreation theory attempts through methodological scientific expression to demonstrate that the complex human attributes that manifest themselves as thought, feeling, will and awareness—often regarded as distinct from the physical body—are inextricably attached to the fundamental laws of nature. And as such, human consciousness can be rationalized in logical and consistent physical terms. This possibility should not be dismissed without due consideration, although it cannot be viewed as a meaningful suggestion unless an appropriate psychophysics is derived within the framework of quantum field theory. (This is the subject of last chapter. I will elaborate on it any time though, as it is of fundamental importance)
Coldcreation
#10 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 09:16 AM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
Lambda: a fundamental constant attached to a new law of nature
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are now in positioned to state the basic concepts and principles of the cosmological constant in a novel logical sequence that eliminates the traditional ambiguous problems of incomplete or exaggerated definitions. We present the cosmological constant as a universal constant attached to a new fundament law of physics in carefully worded detailed statements that balance and complement the laws of dynamics:
The cosmological constant is an equilibrium state that does not change in magnitude as a function of time. It is an ideal vacuum state: the invariant substratum in which all systems and their constituent elementary building blocks, properties and nest of forces manifest themselves.
Constituents, elementary building blocks and nest of forces are defined as elementary particles, atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, ions, and fields, such as gravity fields and electromagnetic fields: along with the properties energy and entropy. These constituents may change or evolve with time. When we speak of the cosmological constant we are referring to empty space, the space in which all things exists. Certainly space is never totally empty. Nonetheless, the physical properties or characteristics of space can be defined. Gravity is a departure from linearity, from flat space, from zero space-time curvature, as heat is a departure from the absolute zero temperature. Let’s examine other ways of stating the law:
The cosmological constant is ubiquitous, everywhere present: it does not solely comprise or consist of the environment of a system or systems; it is also pervasive within all systems.
All systems can be considered as existing in space, the vacuum, which has an absolute value in the absence of gravity (or space-time curvature) equal to zero: called the cosmological constant.
Coldcreation
#11 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 09:47 AM
Chip
Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 38.582 N / -121.49 W
Posts: 1,905
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
No contradiction. The universe did not begin. Zero is unattainable, just like infinity is unattainable. The value of energy, entropy, temperature, pressure, etc, tend to zero as time t tends to minus infinity (when the clocks are reversed)...What has been overlooked is a fundamental constant of nature, known in physics as lambda, the cosmological constant. A new law of nature had to be devised that outlines the properties of the vacuum...
The cosmological constant is a formula added by Albert Einstein to his theory of general relativity. It describes vacuum energy associated with a static universe. Einstein later considered it a blunder, but more recently a form of cosmological constant has been reintroduced to allow for a better understanding between observations, inflationary theory, and the energy of the interstellar vacuum. The point is that the cosmological constant is applied to inflationary theory, which in turn is tied to the big bang.
__________________
"Insignificant molehill sometimes more important than conspicuous mountain." - Charlie Chan
#12 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 12:15 PM
Astrobairn
Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 211
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
(1) Galaxies located at the greatest distances visible should have old metal-rich stellar populations, e.g., globular clusters. The spectra of these objects, to some extent visible in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field images, should show high metallicity, similar to stars in the Local Group.
So why are the globular clusters in our Galaxy metal-poor?
__________________
Its better tae meddle wi the deil............
#13 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 12:57 PM
R.A.F.
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,518
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
...although it cannot be viewed as a meaningful suggestion unless an appropriate psychophysics is derived within the framework of quantum field theory.
Care to take a "stab" at defining the "term" psychophysics??
__________________
"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." Isaac Asimov
#14 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 02:17 PM
Daffy
Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 259
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverine
The first question I would submit: what's the purpose of including human consciousness in a cosmological model? Seems to me that'd be a job for neuroscientists (if not philosophers), not cosmologists.
Well, it is also closely tied in with some of the theories regarding quantum mechanics. See John Von Neumann in particular.
#15 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 02:31 PM
gzhpcu
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,567
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like everybody has his own cosmology theory. First and endless thread on Thezion's cosmology, now this...
__________________
Phil
#16 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 04:08 PM
Wolverine
Moderator Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
In another way, ColdCreation theory attempts through methodological scientific expression to demonstrate that the complex human attributes that manifest themselves as thought, feeling, will and awareness—often regarded as distinct from the physical body—are inextricably attached to the fundamental laws of nature.
By whom?
__________________
• Anecdotal thinking comes naturally; science requires training. -- Michael Shermer • Wolverine's Den •
#17 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 05:13 PM
gzhpcu
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,567
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. Where is the theory? Is it posted on the internet? It is surely not the just the extremely short posting with assumptions at the beginning of this thread is it?
__________________
Phil
#18 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 06:04 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astrobairn
So why are the globular clusters in our Galaxy metal-poor?
Globular clusters contain the oldest known observable stars. They are used to date galaxies themselves since it is thought that they are the first aggregates to form in galaxies. The age depends on our understanding of the H-R diagram.
The age-metallicity relation is not the only one of importance. The following should all be considered in the final analysis:
The abundance in interstellar gas.
The rate or star formation.
The broad-band colors.
The fraction of mass in gaseous form.
Mass to light ratio.
The idea is to look at the deepest stars (galaxies) in the visible universe to determine when they formed. The result will not give the age of the universe (the universe itself has no age). It will show that objects in the universe are much older than suspected time since t = 0. And so, that once again, the standard model has to be modified or better yet, abandoned. The age crisis is not going away. It has yet to come...
Coldcreation
#19 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 06:08 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzhpcu
OK. Where is the theory? Is it posted on the internet? It is surely not the just the extremely short posting with assumptions at the beginning of this thread is it?
The theory is on my hard-drive, and on my external hard-drive. It's about 400 pages. Though, there does exist a shorter version in PDF format (10 pages or so). That version will soon be online.
Thanks for asking.
CC
#20 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 06:10 PM
The Bad Astronomer
Administrator Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Posts: 5,539
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your idea is contradicted by quite a bit of observational evidence, but I will start with the one that most (or all) anti-Big Bang cosmologies cannot explain:
High-redshift supernovae are seen to undergo time dilation exactly in accord with their redshift. That is, a supernova at redshift = 1 takes twice as long to evolve as a local supernova. This is exactly as expected if the Universe is expanding, but goes against any steady state or non-expanding cosmology.
This is the proverbial nail-in-the-coffin for any theory. If you can explain it as well as the Big Bang cosmology can, then we can move on. If you cannot, your idea is dead at the start.
__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com
#21 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 06:18 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzhpcu
Seems like everybody has his own cosmology theory. First and endless thread on Thezion's cosmology, now this...
That may be true. This one covers other areas as well. Actually, I'm trying to think of something it does not cover.........
I know it may not be as popular as high energy physics, but Coldcreation is based much more so on low temperature physics, low energy interactios and thermodynamics. There are many extremely interesting phenomena
that occur at ultra-low temperatures (much more so than at high temps and energies). Bose-Einstein condensation, superfluidity, superconductivity, vacuum polarization, organization of complex structures in groups of atoms and molecules, etc.
ColdCreation
#22 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 06:28 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverine
By whom?
Hmm, by about 90% of the human population. Probably more. Only us scientifically minded group mind and matter together in the same mouth full. I like to think of consciousness as something physical that can be explained in physical terms. I hope that doesn't strike a chord against your beliefs. It is not intended to do so.
ColdCreation does not pretend to uncover the true formulation of the boundary condition between the physical and the metaphysical, but a distinction had to be made between two opposing viewpoints. Rather, the boundary condition is direct proof that the metaphysical approach is untenable if humans are to consider themselves part of the physical universe. The metaphysical condition simply reflects our apparent inability to think of ourselves in terms relevant to the laws of nature.
Coldcreation
#23 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 06:32 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daffy
Well, it is also closely tied in with some of the theories regarding quantum mechanics. See John Von Neumann in particular.
Good point Daffy.
The problem is not a disagreement concerning the reality of philosophical or speculative reasoning originating somewhere outside the physical world: it is a matter of what changes need to be made to our basic concepts of physics to include the ethereal, when consciousness is interpreted within the realm of natural principles.
Coldcreation
#24 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 06:48 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
Redshift
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer
Your idea is contradicted by quite a bit of observational evidence, but I will start with the one that most (or all) anti-Big Bang cosmologies cannot explain:
High-redshift supernovae are seen to undergo time dilation exactly in accord with their redshift. That is, a supernova at redshift = 1 takes twice as long to evolve as a local supernova. This is exactly as expected if the Universe is expanding, but goes against any steady state or non-expanding cosmology.
This is the proverbial nail-in-the-coffin for any theory. If you can explain it as well as the Big Bang cosmology can, then we can move on. If you cannot, your idea is dead at the start.
Hello The Bad Astronomer,
You touch upon one of the most important interpretations of moden cosmology: redshift z
Cold Creation stems from one idea: global redshifts displayed by distant celestial objects are not caused by the expansion of the universe. A stationary universe with global space-time curvature simulates the same effect today interpreted as a Doppler shift (attributed to the recession of galaxies in an expanding universe).
What follows was my first post ever (a lengthy one) on The Universe Today (July 2005). I post it here again because of your question.
Redshift z:
There are only two interpretation for cosmological redshift z that show wavelength independence over 19 octaves of the spectrum: (1) The Doppler effect (implying spatial expansion and the recession of objects in it, i.e., the radius on the universe changes with time t), and (2) the general relativistic curved spacetime interpretation (implying a stationary yet dynamic and evolving universe).
If the Doppler interpretation is wrong, a wholesale revision of cosmology is required.
Today, questioning validity of the Doppler redshift interpretation is symptomatic of the fact that recurrent difficulties continually call for new-fangled conceptions. These conceptions lead to the break-down of all natural laws, of general relativity and of quantum mechanics at t = 0.
I tend to adhere to the general relativistic version of z. Features in the spectra of distant astronomical objects are shifted to longer wavelengths (toward the red end of the spectrum) by a fractional amount due to curved spacetime phenomenon: not because space is expanding.
The prospect that the universe may perhaps be non-Euclidean has to some extent been previously considered: Recall that Lobachevsky developed the concept of hyperbolic space between 1823 and 1826; Einstein of course (1917, in the General relativity theory) and de Sitter who suggested that the redshift was due to time dilation in a static universe; Herman Weyl’s transitory suggestion of 1921 was along the same lines; Segal’s 1976 chronometric redshift stems from partial differential equations which are hyperbolic relative to a given causal orientation; and the suggestion made by Ellis that redshift may be seen in terms of cosmological gravitational redshifts.
In 1977, G. F. R. Ellis inscribed a seminal, but virtually unknown paper, titled Is the Universe Expanding? Ellis shows that “spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological space-times can reproduce the same cosmological observations as the currently favored Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes.” In this case the systematic redshifts are interpreted as “cosmological gravitational red shifts” and the assumption of spatial homogeneity is replaced by the assumption that the universe is stationary. He adds that for this model to be viable “it is essential that local thermodynamic nonequilibrium processes be able to take place continually.” The key idea is that “there could be a continual circulation of matter taking place,” in this case it is possible to have nonequilibrium processes in a static universe.
There is a close analogy between the Friedmann models and the model proposed by Ellis, but the differences are astounding. What was previously ascribed to a time variation in an expanding frame is now ascribed to a spatial variation in properties of a static universe, as we observe the past light cone (in the look-back time). Herman Weyl had considered this possibility in 1921, when he still sought a middle ground between the Einstein and de Sitter models. Ellis urges “a closer investigation of the field equations and astrophysical aspects of these models” and considers that the interpretation of an expanding universe (an idea that was first put forth by de Sitter) “is based on the assumption of spatial homogeneity, which is made on philosophical rather than observational grounds.”
He also adds (in a manuscript note) that it is difficult to fit the mass-redshift observations well within a static universe. Meaning that there does not appear to be enough mass m in the universe to attribute the redshift z to a gravitational effect, and so considers this evidence against the stationary models. But at the same time, Ellis questions whether with a more detailed investigation, one could fit the mass-z relations accurately with observation, so that the results obtained are not implausible. (See Ellis, G.F.R. 1977, Is the Universe Expanding?, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1978), pp. 87-94).
Note that there are several attractive features of a stationary universe where redshift is a cosmological spacetime curvature effect (zgrav). These features are lacking (and in fact detrimental) in the Doppler redshift model. Explicitly, there is no horizon problem, or flatness problem. Implicitly, there is no galaxy problem, monopole problem, antimatter problem, entropy problem, age problem or singularity problem. Last but not least, the laws of physics never break down.
Whereas the Doppler interpretation model is governed by Newtonian mechanics and special relativity, the cosmological redshift zgrav is entirely based on Einstein’s general principle of relativity in a non-Euclidean continuum with a very specific value for the cosmological constant.
This possibility needs to be explored further. The mathematics of mass-energy density vs. redshift as a metric function of the manifold needs to be calculated. A solution for missing mass too needs to be found for the zgrav interpretation.
Note that the zgrav effect requires a loss of energy independent of the wavelength, in accord with observations showing wavelength independence over 19 octaves of the spectrum. This is the only interpretation besides the Doppler effect that has energy loss with such a constant fractional wavelength shift. Certainly there are intrinsic motion shifts and intrinsic gravitational shifts in the mix.
So this interpretation is not pitted against Halton Arp’s discoveries of discordant redshifts. But it is against Arp's redshift hypothesis, and too against Marmet's.
The deviation from linearity observed in the spectrum of distant supernovae Type Ia is evidence of hyperbolic curvature (not accelerated expansion). With a Doppler interpretation, distant supernovae and their host galaxies appear to be receding slower than permitted by Hubble’s Law. Unexpected dimness of early supernovae gives the impression they are further away than their redshifts indicate, altering the predicted structure of the cosmos. The large shells of radiation and material emitted by distant supernovae appear to have a greater area than they would in a topologically flat space, making the source look very faint.
What we have is general relativistic spacetime dilation increasing with distance from the observer.
One of these interpretations is likely wrong (unless both effects are superimposed). The choice today cannot be made with certainty. More investigation into the relativistic possibility is required before a decision can be made. My personal choice, though possibly premature, and perhaps biased, is in favor of the curvature approach, for the reasons mentioned above (the problems of modern cosmology are simply not there), and because it is founded on a theory (general relativity) that has passed every test (except for the gravitational wave prediction), rather than on two classical theories (Newton’s, or special relativity) that are known to be limited or special cases of the general theory. GR should be used in global considerations where distances are large, light speed is great and mass-energy density of huge portions of space is large.
Coldcreation
#25 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 06:51 PM
Astrobairn
Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 211
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Globular clusters contain the oldest known observable stars. They are used to date galaxies themselves since it is thought that they are the first aggregates to form in galaxies. The age depends on our understanding of the H-R diagram.
The age-metallicity relation is not the only one of importance. The following should all be considered in the final analysis:
The abundance in interstellar gas.
The rate or star formation.
The broad-band colors.
The fraction of mass in gaseous form.
Mass to light ratio.
The abundance in interstellar gas only gives the present metalicity. Stars lock up gas and hence can be used to probe the metalicity evolution of the Galaxy. You have not stated how any of the things you have stated effect this, just provided a vague list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
The idea is to look at the deepest stars (galaxies) in the visible universe to determine when they formed. The result will not give the age of the universe (the universe itself has no age). It will show that objects in the universe are much older than suspected time since t = 0. And so, that once again, the standard model has to be modified or better yet, abandoned. The age crisis is not going away. It has yet to come...
Ah so you are damning current models because they don't fit results yet to be taken.
__________________
Its better tae meddle wi the deil............
#26 (permalink) 09-October-2005, 06:51 PM
R.A.F.
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,518
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
...it is a matter of what changes need to be made to our basic concepts of physics to include the ethereal...
Why do you feel the need to "include the etheral"?
Fact is, any attempt to "change physics" for that purpose, and what you end up with will not be physics...it won't even resemble it.
__________________
"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." Isaac Asimov
.
#27 (permalink) 10-October-2005, 03:56 AM
m13_higgs
Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ColdCreation, you said somewhere (I can't seem to find it now) that you had your theory written up in a 400 page paper. Why don't you sent it in to a journal like Nature or Astrophysical Review? There it would be reviewed by the best scientific minds around, and if you seek true acceptance of your idea, a peer reviewed publication is really the only way to get it.
A suggestion: keep all psychiatric physics out of it -- it lowers you credibility in the eyes of many.
#28 (permalink) 10-October-2005, 04:11 AM
The Bad Astronomer
Administrator Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Posts: 5,539
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
...
What follows was my first post ever (a lengthy one) on The Universe Today (July 2005). I post it here again because of your question.
...
That was indeed lengthy. Because of that, I might have missed it, but I did not see an answer to what I asked. You talked about the brightness of supernovae, but I did not see where you discussed the intrinsic time dilation associated with an expanding spacetime.
Can you elaborate on that please? I'll say again that this is a key issue; many alternative theories clearly predict no time dilation, but it is in fact seen.
__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com
#29 (permalink) 10-October-2005, 04:13 AM
snowflakeuniverse
Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 722
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Bad Astronomer
You stated the following…
“Your idea is contradicted by quite a bit of observational evidence, but I will start with the one that most (or all) anti-Big Bang cosmologies cannot explain:
High-redshift supernovae are seen to undergo time dilation exactly in accord with their redshift. That is, a supernova at redshift = 1 takes twice as long to evolve as a local supernova. This is exactly as expected if the Universe is expanding, but goes against any steady state or non-expanding cosmology.
This is the proverbial nail-in-the-coffin for any theory. If you can explain it as well as the Big Bang cosmology can, then we can move on. If you cannot, your idea is dead at the start.” .
This is a good point and I also agree with you that the correlation of increasing red shift to the time dilation of the duration of the light curve for type 1a supernovas indicates an expanding universe; however, there should also be an observed time dilation/ red shift relationship in the energy variation observed from quasars and there is not. (Hawkins paper on this issue discussed in this forum at. Time Dilation and Quasars Also, if space is expanding, the observed image of radio galaxies should be expanded according to red shift, and observed distance, which they do not.
If we apply the logic that “This is the proverbial nail-in-the-coffin for any theory.” Then even the big bang theory is “dead at the start”.
(My apologies to ColdCreation for the next sentence, which is talking about my theory and not his, but I do not want BA to get the idea that I do not favor the observational evidence of a Big Bang).
I can explain the energy variation from quasars and the image size of radio galaxies and keep the intense beginning of the universe associated with the Big Bang, but it requires the adoption of a universe that is uniformly expanding according to the Uniform Expansion Theory.
Snowflake
John M. Kulick
#30 (permalink) 10-October-2005, 06:39 AM
Thanatos
Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: midwest
Posts: 855
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still looking for the math. This is an exercise in futility until you quantify the results. Logic is not sufficient. Which FWR equation are you claiming to be wrong? I'm trying very hard not to call this a cowpie, but, I hear 'moo' in the distance.
10-October-2005, 03:15 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by m13_higgs
ColdCreation, you said somewhere (I can't seem to find it now) that you had your theory written up in a 400 page paper. Why don't you sent it in to a journal like Nature or Astrophysical Review? There it would be reviewed by the best scientific minds around, and if you seek true acceptance of your idea, a peer reviewed publication is really the only way to get it.
A suggestion: keep all psychiatric physics out of it -- it lowers you credibility in the eyes of many.
Sending Coldcreation theory to Nature is a good idea.
And yes, peer reviewed publications are the way to go. Thanks to for your advice on the psychophysics.
My belief is that there is unity in what might be called a discourse of nature, a discourse whose pervasiveness is not merely the study of matter, energy, force, motion and interactions, but too, the study of perceptual codes, the essence of consciousness, and the operational mechanism in the foreground of all things.
In Home is Where the Wind Blows, Fred Hoyle wrote: “Consciousness is an experimental fact. More strongly than that, even; without consciousness there would be no experimental facts. There would be no science, nothing but a nightmare puppet world. It is surely strange that science, utterly dependent on consciousness, should have little or nothing to say about it. With consciousness going outside [space-time] and with science hitherto confined to [space-time], we can perhaps at last see why.” (1994 p. 422)
My view is that everything is confined to spacetime, and so can be explained with conventional physics.
Coldcreation
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#32 (permalink) 10-October-2005, 03:19 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
general relativity and redshift z
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer
That was indeed lengthy. Because of that, I might have missed it, but I did not see an answer to what I asked. You talked about the brightness of supernovae, but I did not see where you discussed the intrinsic time dilation associated with an expanding spacetime.
Can you elaborate on that please? I'll say again that this is a key issue; many alternative theories clearly predict no time dilation, but it is in fact seen.
In the 1920’s and 1930’s, when the search for the cause of the galactic redshifts was under full swing, the gravitational redshift and time dilation phenomenon were still a theoretical curiosity rather than a physically proved fact.
Nevertheless, it was clear (from general relativity) that the motion of clocks depended on the gravitational potential, but also on where the clocks were located within the field. Consequently, the frequencies of light vibrations are constant when expressed in proper time, and are variable when expressed in coordinate time. This is in essence the principle responsible for the gravitational redshift and time dilation.
With respect to Coldcreation cosmological redshift; ‘time-like intervals’ dependence on distance mean that clocks would appear to slow down depending on distance (the further away, the slower the clock), manifesting itself as a redshift; called the de Sitter effect, in a stationary universe.
The field equations provided by general relativity show us how much spacetime curvature is generated by a given distribution of mass-energy density. The EEP determines how matter in the gravitational fields responds to the spacetime metric. The processes involved in the deflection or bending of light generated by gravitational fields, the gravitational redshift and time dilation (the time delay of light) are all closely related, even though the exact mechanism that describes each of these effect is not identical; all are caused by the non-Euclidean, geometric, topological, curvature or deformation of the spacetime metric. Thus, redshift increases with distance and volume in a stationary universe that is governed by general relativity.
Both the degradation in energy and the dilution in the rate of photon arrival are due to the gravitational phenomenon of spacetime dilation with distance in a static, stationary general relativistic non-Euclidean, geometrically hyperbolic four-dimensional continuum.
(Note: Time dilation associated with the standard expanding universe has nothing to do with general relativity)
The Coldcreation-general relativistic global gravitational spacetime curvature effect on the large-scale geometrical properties of a static manifold in a non-Euclidean universe causes redshift z as seen in the spectrum of galactic line source emission; resulting in a phenomenon of time dilation and lengthening of the spatial metric in the look-back time, as seen from our (or any other) relative frame of reference, in the present epoch. Both the spatial and time intervals are dilated together. This is the phenomenon called spacetime dilation and redshift z is simply proof of it. The relation between the canonical Lorentz frames at varying locations is then unique and indicates the standard rate of spacetime dilation (corresponding to the dilation of the interval between wave crests) by a factor of 1 + z.
Redshifts from galactic spectra can easily be misinterpreted as a first-order Doppler effect—in a flat three-dimensional space where corrections are made for the special relativistic effect of time dilation
The Doppler redshift is just a dimensionless number that tells us the relative time difference between galaxies when the light was emitted compared to with the time here and now—and so distant events are observed to take longer as seen from our relative rest-frame than at the source. But the time delay is simply a retardation of light signal: Newtonian mechanics or special relativity will suffice.
Redshift z has nothing or little to do with velocity at all in cosmology, nor does it allow us to obtain any information about the scale factor of the universe, or the remoteness of the source when it emitted its radiation.
No direct verification of the Doppler effect interpretation has been obtained observationally, though many contradictions have arisen and been ignored; it is simply assumed that redshift always means recession, but if the cause of the redshift is non-Doppler our entire vision of extragalactic space is incorrect, and we are faced with the most astounding boondoggles in our scientific and intellectual history.
The scene is set for modern cosmology to ‘give up the ghost’ yet again.
(1) There is no observational data of which I am aware of that contradicts Coldcreation theory. If you have any data please pass it on.
(2) I have plenty of observational data (available anytime you like) that does contradict the standard hot big bang - cold dark matter - kooky energy model...
...Let’s start with the redshift of distant Type Ia supernovae, interpreted (1998) as an acceleration of expansion…
Coldcreation
#33 (permalink) 11-October-2005, 02:55 AM
Richard J. Hanak
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 134
Infinte Universe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coldcreation wrote:
Quote:
What we have is a general relativistic, thermodynamic evolving universe that remains static (nonexpanding, non-contracting) in time.
It is infinite in spatiotemporal extent (both in the past and in the future directions). The laws of nature never break-down.
Can a universe that is spatiotemporaly infinite be a physical thing with physical properties?
#34 (permalink) 11-October-2005, 03:51 AM
ChaByu
Banned Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 378
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coldcreation
wrote
Quote:
What we have is a general relativistic, thermodynamic evolving universe that remains static (nonexpanding, non-contracting) in time.
It is infinite in spatiotemporal extent (both in the past and in the future directions). The laws of nature never break-down.
I like your idea and there is a dissertation about these "laws of nature" who seem interesting i dont know if they fit in your model of the Universe but seem similar in their application...
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccS1-3.html
scroll down to
TIME AND SPACE
Excerpts
Quote:
"One of the hottest debates in physics today (1978) is over the true nature of space: Is it a 'luminiferous ether' (see Appendix 5) or is it some abstract, ten-dimensional, Reimannian construction like Dr. Albert Einstein proposed in his Theory of General Relativity? If it does, indeed, require a superdimensioned construction to explain the physical laws of the universe, one must wonder why this construction could not be replaced by one using real and observable dimensions like width, length, and depth... If, on the other hand, space is a 'luminiferous ether' or some tenuous 'fluid', then one wonders why the functions of the physical laws of the universe cannot be observed; and, hence, translated into a mathematical construct of reality... of three real dimensions with time expressed as a ratio of relative distances and vectors.
Strange as it may seem, space has already been properly described right here on Earth as far back as 1954! Space is a 'fine structure'... a 'tenuous medium, fluid or field'. All gravitational, electromagnetic, and electrostatic phenomena occur as results of various interactions of energy 'waves' in this 'fluid space'. In pages 172-174, 176, 178 and 180 of Scientific American in 1954, a brilliant discussion giving three-dimensional explanations of many nuclear phenomena (based largely on previous discussions written by Douglass Crockwell) was conducted by Albert G. Ingalls. Crockwell's explanations offer the only real solution to the apparent paradox which certain nuclear events present to the researcher: A particle sometimes behaves like a wave. The discussion stated:
"It seems reasonable, as a first thought to accept each particle-field relationship as an inseparable something, which is perceived sometimes in one fashion and sometimes in another. We might also think of the particle portion of the effect as that which is experienced radial to the course or potential course. We know that some relationship of this sort exists, whether or not it is exactly as stated. Variation of one effect is accompanied by a reciprocal variation in the other effect. In other words, the more the particle field manifests itself as a particle, the less it manifests itself as a field, and vice versa."....
see also
THE 'GRAVITATIONAL' EFFECT
....
THE 'MAGNETIC' EFFECT
#35 (permalink) 11-October-2005, 12:42 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before continuing with the Type Ia supernovae interpretations, I’d like to write a few words. I’m not here to make friends, nor enemies. I’m not even here for approval or disapproval on the Coldcreation theory. I only want people to know that there are other viable alternatives (at least one) to big bang-inflation-type cosmologies.
Coldcreation (CC) is not against mainstream physics: quite the contrary. Coldcreation is mainstream physics. There is no new physics, no dark energy (kooky energy) or other dimensions. CC is an alternative cosmology entirely based on known physics, general relativity, quantum mechanics and especially thermodynamics (which is founded on empirical laws, i.e., it is not theory-based).
I’m especially not here to take cheap-shots from laymen who obviously know little about the subjects under scrutiny in this thread. It is clear for example, in statements like “I hear moo in the distance” or that I “just provided a vague list” (as if my posts are too short), or to keep all the psychophysics out when authors like Hawking make reference to God 17 times in his 1988 best seller. Or “There's a contradiction in there; I just can't put my finger on it.”
The fact is, there are no facts regarding the three pillars of big bang cosmology. The Doppler shift is an interpretation, and as we’ve noted there is one other alternative that affects the 19 octaves of the spectrum without expansion: The origin of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) blackbody thermal radiation is not known for a fact; there is no guarantee that is was warmer in the past, there is no evidence that it is a redshifted relic of a hot event in the past. And finally, there is absolutely no evidence that the light elements were created primordially a short time after t = 0. There is no assurance that time t = 0 even existed (only a huge-tiny paradox). The only fact concerning t = 0 is that all the laws of physics, the laws of nature, and the two great theories of the 20th century breakdown just before creation of the universe.
There are other things for sure as well. According to modern cosmology 95% of the constituents of the universe is missing, made of some mysterious dark energy (?) and peculiar dark matter (no one has an inkling of an idea what it’s made of, only that it has nothing to do with protons, electrons or neutrons).
For sure, too, are the large uncertainties associated with the cosmological constant, with the mechanism behind the gravitational interaction (what is gravity), with the unification of gravity and the other forces of nature, with the unification of GR and QM. Black holes, spacetime singularities, are in every physics textbook, though indirect evidence, only, is available to confirm or refute their existence. Einstein himself did not believe nature could go to such extremes.
Another fact is that the 1998 supernovae data contradicts all predictions made by the big bang model, the three Friedmann models, made famous by the Belgian Priest George Lemaître, the Father of modern cosmology. It seems yet a fourth model is required.
I’m here for a free-open discussion of the physical evidence…
Sincerely,
Alexander Mittelmann
Coldcreation
PS. For those with a problem, or those who want to unload their personal baggage, there are other websites available.
#36 (permalink) 11-October-2005, 02:06 PM
captain swoop
Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 3,524
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You put the theory up. it's our job to find faults with it and yours to defend it. What's the problem.
__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'
#37 (permalink) 11-October-2005, 02:36 PM
ExpErdMann
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,090
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coldcreation, I'm having some difficulty with your redshift/time dilation mechanism, perhaps just because you've used quite a few words to describe it. But aside from that, I have a more general question about the relationship between redshifts and time dilation. The original prediction that distant supernovae would exhibit time dilation was made using no more than the classical Doppler shift. SR and GR weren't involved. This led me to suppose that any redshift of z, whatever caused it, will lead to a time dilation (1 + z). Thus, knowing just what the redshift of a supernova is, we can calculate its time dilation factor, but we can't know without other information what caused the redshift. First off, do you agree with this? If what I've said is true, then it opens the door for tired light mechanisms, since they too would give rise to the same time dilation factor. Secondly, is your redshift mechanism similar to tired light?
#38 (permalink) 11-October-2005, 03:04 PM
Fram
Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buggenhout, Belgium
Posts: 3,140
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Coldcreation (CC) is not against mainstream physics: quite the contrary. Coldcreation is mainstream physics. There is no new physics, no dark energy (kooky energy) or other dimensions. CC is an alternative cosmology entirely based on known physics, general relativity, quantum mechanics and especially thermodynamics (which is founded on empirical laws, i.e., it is not theory-based).
In the OP, you said:
Quote:
Material creation of hydrogen (and its constituents) arises in the vacuum of space extremely close to absolute zero temperature.
This does not require new physics and is based entirely on known physics? Almost no matter (vacuum) or energy (near zero temperature), and poof, hydrogen is created?
Until I get a good explanation for this, I'll consider your hypothesis as ATM.
__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse
#39 (permalink) 11-October-2005, 05:33 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
Coldcreation, I'm having some difficulty with your redshift/time dilation mechanism, perhaps just because you've used quite a few words to describe it. But aside from that, I have a more general question about the relationship between redshifts and time dilation. The original prediction that distant supernovae would exhibit time dilation was made using no more than the classical Doppler shift. SR and GR weren't involved. This led me to suppose that any redshift of z, whatever caused it, will lead to a time dilation (1 + z). Thus, knowing just what the redshift of a supernova is, we can calculate its time dilation factor, but we can't know without other information what caused the redshift. First off, do you agree with this? If what I've said is true, then it opens the door for tired light mechanisms, since they too would give rise to the same time dilation factor. Secondly, is your redshift mechanism similar to tired light?
Hi,
I agree with most of what you wrote.However, the time dilation with respect to the 1990s supernovae data do not reflect any predictions. The results showed a 20% departure from the Hubble flow (which is a linear regime).
(1) Distant supernovae and their host galaxies appear to be receding slower than permitted by Hubble’s Law (the proportionality between redshift and apparent magnitude). Remarkably, the observations are consistent with an accelerating expansion of the cosmos. Note that if galaxies were receding with less velocity in the past (in the look-back time), it means that instead of decelerating as was predicted, the universe appears to be picking up speed, accelerating outward for the past few billion years.
(2) The large shells of radiation and material emitted by distant supernovae appear to have a greater area than they would in a topologically flat space, making the source look very faint. (Recall that inflation predicts a flat universe. This observation shows that inflation is flat wrong. That is why WMAP had to be called in; to save it).
(3) The visible universe appears larger, deeper, younger, and emptier than previously suspected.
(4) Unexpected dimness of early supernovae gives the impression they are further away than their redshifts indicate, altering the predicted structure of the cosmos.
(5) These observations indicate that at least 80 percent of the matter necessary to make the universe flat is missing.
(6) Light from very remote objects takes longer to reach Earth—as if time and space (and the light propagating through it) were continually and increasingly ‘stretched’ with larger distances.
(7) The universe could be as young as 12.5 billion years old—a figure at odds with the age of a flat matter dominated universe, and at odds with some of the objects in it.
The shoe did not fit. So what should we call the unexpected newcomer? A fourth Friedmann sister? Absolutely not. She’s too different, poles apart, freaky even. She can’t even be adopted. It would be like adopting an inflatable doll: super-fat, super-repulsive and super-fake.
The expansion set on cruise control, now was out-of-control.
This is why WMAP had to find otherwise (no matter what).
Tired Light:
F. Zwicky (then at California Institute of Technology) suggested the spectral shifts were due to a gravitational analogue of the Compton effect: it followed that photons transferred momentum and energy to gravitating matter, causing a loss of energy that manifested itself as a redshift (Smith 1982 p. 192. 193). Zwicky’s famed speculation that light loses energy while traveling through space, dubbed “tired light” was disproved on the grounds that the loss of energy should be independent of the wavelength (observations have shown wavelength independence over 19 octaves of the spectrum). No scattering processes have energy loss with such a constant fractional wavelength shift. Tired Light is ruled out.
Coldcreation
#40 (permalink) 11-October-2005, 06:08 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain swoop
You put the theory up. it's our job to find faults with it and yours to defend it. What's the problem.
Cool, no problem.
Shall we proceed with redshift z, the cosmological constant, or would you like to wait until we have established unambiguously the stability mechanism of quasi-equilibrium self-gravitating configurations for both the local and large-scale structures of the universe, and indeed for the universe in its entirety?
CC
#41 (permalink) 12-October-2005, 12:07 AM
ExpErdMann
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,090
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Tired Light:
F. Zwicky (then at California Institute of Technology) suggested the spectral shifts were due to a gravitational analogue of the Compton effect: it followed that photons transferred momentum and energy to gravitating matter, causing a loss of energy that manifested itself as a redshift (Smith 1982 p. 192. 193). Zwicky’s famed speculation that light loses energy while traveling through space, dubbed “tired light” was disproved on the grounds that the loss of energy should be independent of the wavelength (observations have shown wavelength independence over 19 octaves of the spectrum). No scattering processes have energy loss with such a constant fractional wavelength shift. Tired Light is ruled out.
Coldcreation
I'll have to go over your time dilation material again, but on the tired light and Zwicky's mechanism I don't think you're correct. Zwicky argued that since light has a small mass, there should be a gravitational attraction between it and the matter it passes in space. Because of this attraction some of the light's momentum is transferred to the matter and so the light loses momentum and energy. While Zwicky's mechanism was called a gravitational analogue of the Compton effect, note that that there are no collisional processes actually occurring, as in light interacting with an electron. Zwicky considered the latter and ruled it out. Now I'm aware that the charge that light of different frequencies would shift differently has been made against Kierein's Compton effect mechanism, for example, but I do not see how this would apply to Zwicky's mechanism. I don't know where Zwicky's theory has been actually proven wrong. More likely it was just ignored. And his is just one tired light mechanism. It would be premature to rule out all tired light mechanisms on the grounds that some Compton effect mechanisms could have problems.
#42 (permalink) 12-October-2005, 10:16 AM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
I'll have to go over your time dilation material again, but on the tired light and Zwicky's mechanism I don't think you're correct. Zwicky argued that since light has a small mass, there should be a gravitational attraction between it and the matter it passes in space. Because of this attraction some of the light's momentum is transferred to the matter and so the light loses momentum and energy. While Zwicky's mechanism was called a gravitational analogue of the Compton effect, note that that there are no collisional processes actually occurring, as in light interacting with an electron. Zwicky considered the latter and ruled it out. Now I'm aware that the charge that light of different frequencies would shift differently has been made against Kierein's Compton effect mechanism, for example, but I do not see how this would apply to Zwicky's mechanism. I don't know where Zwicky's theory has been actually proven wrong. More likely it was just ignored. And his is just one tired light mechanism. It would be premature to rule out all tired light mechanisms on the grounds that some Compton effect mechanisms could have problems.
You may be right. I have to look into it further. To date though, to the best of my knowledge, if some other process is responsible for tired light, it has not yet been illuminated (or it has been ignored as you say).
cc
#43 (permalink) 12-October-2005, 02:27 PM
ExpErdMann
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,090
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
You may be right. I have to look into it further. To date though, to the best of my knowledge, if some other process is responsible for tired light, it has not yet been illuminated (or it has been ignored as you say).
cc
If the interaction is a gravitational one, then that would possibly make it frequency-independent, just the same that the acceleration of falling bodies is independent of their mass.
I also like your idea of a cosmological GR-type redshift. However, if you are assuming a static (non-expanding) universe, then it's necessary to account for the energy that was lost from the light. What I would say is that the lost energy goes back into restoring gravitational potential energy (of stars, galaxies, etc.). What falls down, must bounce back up!
Earlier on you mentioned that de Sitter thought the cosmic redshift was just time dilation in distant galaxies. That's really interesting and fits with what I was saying about time dilation. Do you happen to have a reference on that?
#44 (permalink) 12-October-2005, 05:02 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
If the interaction is a gravitational one, then that would possibly make it frequency-independent, just the same that the acceleration of falling bodies is independent of their mass.
I also like your idea of a cosmological GR-type redshift. However, if you are assuming a static (non-expanding) universe, then it's necessary to account for the energy that was lost from the light. What I would say is that the lost energy goes back into restoring gravitational potential energy (of stars, galaxies, etc.). What falls down, must bounce back up!
Earlier on you mentioned that de Sitter thought the cosmic redshift was just time dilation in distant galaxies. That's really interesting and fits with what I was saying about time dilation. Do you happen to have a reference on that?
Sure do...in order. The first and second are by far the best (starting with Kerszberg (this book rules), but check out Hubble, E. too. Edwin Hubble always doubted the Doppler interpretation. There has never been total acceptance that the redshift is due to the expansion of the universe. Hubble’s name and reputation have reached the status of ‘scientific immortality’ for having discovered the first observational evidence of an expanding universe, despite his reticence that continued into the 1950’s. Evidence that Hubble was still questioning whether the expansion was real, or not, can be seen in one of his 1953 diagrams (Darwin Lecture) where he noted in uppercase, “NO RECESSION FACTOR” (Sandage 1993, The Deep Universe, p. 107).
In 1929, the historically correct year that Hubble’s official discovery was made, he published a famous paper entitled A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebula. In this seminal work he writes: “The outstanding feature, however, is the possibility that the velocity-distance relation may represent the de Sitter effect, and hence that numerical data may be introduced into discussions of the general curvature of space.”
Kerszberg, P. 1989, The Invented Universe, The Einstein-De Sitter Controversy (1916-17) and the Rise of Relativistic Cosmology
De Sitter, W. 1932, Kosmos 110-138
Kragh, H. 1996, Cosmology and Controversy, The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe
Hubble, E. 1929, A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebula, From Field, G.B., Arp, H., Bahcall, J.M. 1973, The Redshift Controversy 173
Hubble, E. 1936, The Realm of the Nebula 108-201
Coldcreation
#45 (permalink) 12-October-2005, 05:46 PM
ExpErdMann
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,090
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks!
#46 (permalink) 13-October-2005, 02:54 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
Hydrogen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fram
In the OP, you said:
This does not require new physics and is based entirely on known physics? Almost no matter (vacuum) or energy (near zero temperature), and poof, hydrogen is created?
Until I get a good explanation for this, I'll consider your hypothesis as ATM.
Hello Fram,
There is nothing less physical about hydrogen creation (I will provide details on the process) in the cold vacuum as hydrogen creation (along with the light elements, isotopes) according to the big bang model, in a scorching vacuum.
Have you see the physics for this:
(1) A primeval dumb-bomb of extreme temperature and density sprouts from the void some 13.7 billion years ago.
(2) Rapid expansion and cooling of all the undifferentiated matter in the background. The different temperature regimes cause diverse processes to occur in sequence at various times.
(3) In the first micro-fraction of a second after the initial deflagration or implosion (whatever it was nobody knows), antimatter and matter annihilate to form gamma rays.
(4) The asymmetry of matter and antimatter cause an excess of matter, which remains the same forever. The antimatter would have been totally annihilated. Protons and neutrons are formed from free quarks and gluons.
(5) The universe is now less than one second old, a fraction of a second after t = 0.
(6) After one minute of cooling, baryons combine to form the nuclei of deuterium (3), helium (4), and lithium (7).
(7) 100,000 years later (the decoupling era) the universe becomes transparent as photons and baryons decouple, and the atoms from hydrogen to lithium are formed (the chemical era and cooling sequence).
This does not require new physics and is based entirely on known physics? Ultra high energy density, extremely high radiation temperature in the vacuum, and poof, not only hydrogen, but deuterium, helium, lithium, too are created?
Don’t tell me you buy it…
Coldcreation
#47 (permalink) 13-October-2005, 03:06 PM
Fram
Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buggenhout, Belgium
Posts: 3,140
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not asking you to give a critic of BB. I haven't made a statement about the BB. You made a claim, and I ask you to back it up.
__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse
#48 (permalink) 13-October-2005, 05:16 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fram
I am not asking you to give a critic of BB. I haven't made a statement about the BB. You made a claim, and I ask you to back it up.
Cool,
Here is part of the sequence (the math comes later):
1. From an infinite ground-state vacuum, the lowest energy configuration, irreducible fluctuations lead to irreversible transformations.
2. Through macroscopic interactions, critical points are attained where phase transitions take place.
3. These coherently excited states reach maxima when the frequency matches the intermediate state resonance frequency. A deep coherence occurs when several routes are excited and interfere creatively. An often nonlinear response may be anharmonic, with sharp peaks and more rounded of troughs.
4. In the course of this competition between potential energy, free energy, the ground-state energy, and the number of arrangements (or entropy) the universe is forced to choose amongst a number of macroscopically different sets of microscopic arrangements.
5. Energy concentrates, condenses from the vacuum from large to small scale. Vacuum polarization faithfully mimics the field fluctuations and has exactly the same frequency but varies in amplitude.
6. Transitions between states are stimulated by incident electromagnetic fields. The vacuum fluctuations or turbulence of the zero-point energy (ZPE) of the quantized fields interact and are accountable for the spontaneous emission of atomic energy levels. Those modes have their energy-density altered and are thus sensitive to the confining geometry.
Coldcreation
#49 (permalink) 14-October-2005, 04:51 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
redshift
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the high-redshift supernovae survey and its interpretation in a static universe.
Lobachevsky wrote his first major work, Geometriya, in 1823. The geometrical ideas that it represented led to his most important discovery—non-Euclidean geometry (called Lobachevskian geometry); consequently, reducing Euclid’s geometry to a special case of a more general system. Lobachevsky proved that for all triangles in the Lobachevskian plane the sum of the angles is less than 180 degrees. This led him to the idea of space geometry, where the radius of a sphere is considered as purely imaginary (consisting of coordinates x, y and the imaginary coordinate z), and appears to be a hyperboloid. The construction of this model proves to be non-contradictory in nature.
Lobachevsky’s inspiration regarding the fundamental geometry of the universe and the concept of hyperbolic space was apparently on target, if not a bulls-eye. Lobachevsky had noted in On the Principles of Geometry that if one were to measure cosmic triangles of great dimension, it would be possible to determine the deviation from the usual 180°. The 1990s observations are clearly consistent with a non-Euclidean continuum.
The 1998 supernovae data clearly demonstrate that parallel lines diverge with distance, that the sum of angles of a cosmic triangle measures less than 180 degrees, and that the circumference of the visible universe is larger than 2<pi>r.
It would be the illuminating incorporation of non-Euclidean geometry within the framework of GR that would set in motion (almost 100 years later) the return to nature, to staticity, to quasi-equilibrium, to symmetry.
There is no acceleration of expansion.
Time has come to put general relativity and the cosmological constant back into circulation, or revise the imperfect last lines of the standard stanza with yet another unconventional maneuver.
Coldcreation
#50 (permalink) 14-October-2005, 11:35 PM
Wolverine
Moderator Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coldcreation: wouldn't it be more plausible to post your .pdf first in order for it to be reviewed? The discussion here seems to be getting increasingly fragmented.
__________________
• Anecdotal thinking comes naturally; science requires training. -- Michael Shermer • Wolverine's Den •
#51 (permalink) 15-October-2005, 12:44 AM
Joeblake
Banned Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from snowflakeuniverse's link
<<<Time dilation.
Time dilation generally refers to an increase in the observed time a physical process occurs. There are at least two possible physical interpretations or descriptions for time dilation.........
Time progresses comparatively slower for a moving object, so an object observed in the past with a high velocity (indicated by red shift) will have physical processes occur at a slower rate.
The other physical interpretation is that the expansion of space-time itself results in a time dilation. >>>
IMO, Space is in a steady state (more or less so) and the path light takes from an object is dependent upon the prevailing energy relations of the intervening space between cosmic matter. This light gets stretched if the path is tortuous, and we see this as a red shift and a "time dilation"..... but of course time does not exist... it is as relative as the path taken.....
and I am sure there could be other explanations...
I was going to give a more complete explanation (even math) but the topic is so full of set in concrete ideas that it seem pointless
To conjecture is fine, but I see many times the though solidifies into truth.... and any assault upon that causes an irrational response.
Science seems to becoming set in this irrational "I know" mode, and it is a very worrying development, IMO.
I did think discussion should explore (happily) ALL the possibilities.... rational and irrational.... but no, some people know all the answers...... so discussion is censured.
Might as well read a book. Makes one wonder what use forums are ?
??? propaganda machines, or ego stoking, neither will advance ideas.
#52 (permalink) 15-October-2005, 09:00 AM
Thanatos
Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: midwest
Posts: 855
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The short version is: no way this works. Let's do the math and see why, Cold. Just because no one cares to do this exercise anymore does not make it credible. I assume this starts with the Einstein equations. If not, please elaborate. By all means, impress me.
#53 (permalink) 15-October-2005, 01:58 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanatos
The short version is: no way this works. Let's do the math and see why, Cold. Just because no one cares to do this exercise anymore does not make it credible. I assume this starts with the Einstein equations. If not, please elaborate. By all means, impress me.
What are you refering to? Redshift z, CMB, Light element creation, hydrogen creation?
#54 (permalink) 15-October-2005, 02:00 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverine
Coldcreation: wouldn't it be more plausible to post your .pdf first in order for it to be reviewed? The discussion here seems to be getting increasingly fragmented.
There is no math in the .pdf.
Let me know how to go about posting it anyway.
cc
#55 (permalink) 15-October-2005, 02:09 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeblake
from snowflakeuniverse's link
<<<Time dilation.
Time dilation generally refers to an increase in the observed time a physical process occurs. There are at least two possible physical interpretations or descriptions for time dilation.........
Time progresses comparatively slower for a moving object, so an object observed in the past with a high velocity (indicated by red shift) will have physical processes occur at a slower rate.
The other physical interpretation is that the expansion of space-time itself results in a time dilation. >>>
IMO, Space is in a steady state (more or less so) and the path light takes from an object is dependent upon the prevailing energy relations of the intervening space between cosmic matter. This light gets stretched if the path is tortuous, and we see this as a red shift and a "time dilation"..... but of course time does not exist... it is as relative as the path taken.....
and I am sure there could be other explanations...
I was going to give a more complete explanation (even math) but the topic is so full of set in concrete ideas that it seem pointless
To conjecture is fine, but I see many times the though solidifies into truth.... and any assault upon that causes an irrational response.
Science seems to becoming set in this irrational "I know" mode, and it is a very worrying development, IMO.
I did think discussion should explore (happily) ALL the possibilities.... rational and irrational.... but no, some people know all the answers...... so discussion is censured.
Might as well read a book. Makes one wonder what use forums are ?
??? propaganda machines, or ego stoking, neither will advance ideas.
I know what you're saying Snow. Though I'm not sure I understand what you wrote about time dilation. It seems as if you imply that gravity does not cause time dilation. Tell me I'm wrong.
You did not mention that possibility above. Just in case, here's a little memory refresher:
The resolution to problem of Mercury’s excess perihelion motion and the confirmation of the bending of optical starlight by the Sun’s gravitational field during a total eclipse (proved observationally by Eddington, Crommelin 1919) made Einstein an international celebrity, but definitive experimental proof of the gravitational redshift and time dilation did not come until much later. Adams had attributed the gravitational redshift to the companion of Sirius in 1924 but it wasn’t until the 1960’s ‘revival’ of general relativity that overwhelming experimental evidence had finally confirmed its validity: beyond any possible shadow of a doubt. A full description of the experiments designed to test these phenomenon can be found in any physics library: Including the 1959 recording of a radar echo from the planet Venus; the 1960 Pound and Rebka laboratory measurement of the gravitational redshift of light; using nuclear magnetic resonance techniques, the Hughes-Drever experiment of 1959-60 and a more recent experiment at the US National Bureau of Standards confirmed local Lorentz invariance to a high degree of precision. In 1976 Vessot and Levine of Harvard in collaboration with NASA, compared extraordinarily precise hydrogen maser clocks, one flown on a Scout D rocket, the other ground based, measured gravitational frequency shifts as a function of altitude in the curved field of the Earth (Will 1989).
It wasn’t until 1959-60, with the work of Irwin Shapiro, and subsequently through the 1970’s that experimental verification and confirmation of ‘time delay’ was made possible by new and innovative technological procedures. Using radar-ranging techniques (that evolved from the Venus echo experiments) the spacecraft Mariners 6 and 7 as well as Mariner 9 Mars orbiter and Viking Mars (1976) landers and orbiters were used as active transmitters, producing remarkable improvements in the determination and confirmation of the gravitational time delay.
Coldcreation
#56 (permalink) 21-October-2005, 12:50 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
T.o.e
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physicists ambitiously envisage mathematical equations that ‘logically’ define the entire cosmos. Can we create a theory of everything (T.O.E.) that will finally endow man the gift of understanding the full extent of the natural world? Will this ultimate theory of the universe require more spatial or temporal dimensions than we will ever be capable of perceiving? Another seemingly insurmountable difficulty concerns the four fundamental forces of nature (electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces and gravitation) and the hope their unification will explain every phenomenon in the universe—from the smallest particles of matter to the largest assemblage of galaxies. The unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics ranks very high on the list of priorities but has eluded resolution and remains obscure to this day. What strategy shall we adopt in order to respond to these problems?
Will all of these questions one day find answers? I believe the answer is resoundingly yes. We must first abandon all initial conditions, the assumptions of isotropy and homogeneity of the cosmological or Copernican principle, which states that the universe should appear the same to all observers, at this time. Clearly this view depends on what is meant by at this time. We would not want to exclude the possibility that the universe is changing with time, that it looked different at another epoch in its history. We must also do away with all priori boundary conditions of space and time. Models of this kind have not previously been seriously considered because of the assumptions made at the outset, in setting up the standard world models.
Coldcreation is back from Paris
#57 (permalink) 21-October-2005, 01:16 PM
Fram
Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buggenhout, Belgium
Posts: 3,140
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do think that most people agree that the universe changes with time and that it looked different at another epoch (even steady staters don't claim that the universe never changes its looks). So your point was...?
__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse
#58 (permalink) 21-October-2005, 02:06 PM
Faultline
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe is finite with no boundaries. Nothing can escape the universe, so therefore it appears infinite.
But if we rob the universe of 1 of its three physical dimensions and reduce it to a curved plane, we can more easily imagine the implications of finite with no boundaries. The universe would become the surface of a globe. You can pick any direction you want to travel in two dimensions. If you maintain a straight path, the curve of space will bring you back to where you started from.
Eventually, anyway. With the size of the universe, you'd have to travel for more than the age of the universe even at a considerable chunk of lightspeed in order to make it even halfway. What you perceive to be a straight line of travel will, in fact, be curved in three dimensions.
Everything I learned about this subject, I learned from Professor S. Hawking.
(Again: I can't believe I just said this!)
__________________
My son is my universe.
#59 (permalink) 21-October-2005, 06:01 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fram
I do think that most people agree that the universe changes with time and that it looked different at another epoch (even steady staters don't claim that the universe never changes its looks). So your point was...?
I think that QSSC (quasi-steady state cosmology) is based in part on the perfect cosmological principle: According to this assumption, the large-scale structure of the universe should look generally the same in every direction, in all regions, from anywhere in the universe, and at all times.
This is actually one the many problems of QSSC. Never would there have been a fist galaxy, a first star. They always existed. I disagree.
This is a similar problem to Hawking's finite yet unbounded universe (which, by the way, was originaly Einstein's idea, not Hawking's.)
My point: In contrast to the algebraic growth of perturbations found in the expanding universe case—the origin of the problems of galaxy formation by gravitational collapse—the growth of galaxies and the compression of perturbations in the case of a non-expanding universe is exponential. In other words, the growth rate of the instabilities associated with galaxy development is not linear but corresponds to a measured deviation (exponential) between the scale factors with cosmic epoch. And this behavior would apply to fluctuations of any physical scale, including those of wavelengths much greater than the scale of the visible universe. This follows from the same reasoning we used in discussing local and global stability, the global dynamics of the universe in the previous chapter.
Of course the Coldcreation timescale is much longer than in BB cosmology. This is why Coldcreation predicts high metallicity in high-redshift objects. There is evolution, but much slower than current view would have.
CC
#60 (permalink) 23-October-2005, 10:54 AM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
Lagrange
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold Creation theory states that no matter what the density of the universe now, and no matter what the density of the universe at any time in its history, the equilibrium, or fine-tuning is natural.
How? Check this out! The vacuum is a physical counterpart of matter. Gravity’s contrary is lambda (the cosmological constant). In other words, the counterpart to spacetime curvature is flat Minkowski spacetime, not curvature with an opposite sign. This is why lambda may define the absolute zero of curvature. Gravitational phenomenon is based on the departure from the condition that would be prevalent in ‘empty’ space (‘empty’ here, refers to a space empty of field).
Simply; if you draw the 'lines of force' between two gravitating bodies (connecting the center of each, from the Lagrange point L1 outwards, there appears to be a repulsive 'force' from the vacuum. But this is only the tip of the iceberg.
PS. There is no gravity at L1
Coldcreation
Page 2 of 5
23-October-2005, 04:08 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
Page 3 of 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanatos
The short version is: no way this works. Let's do the math and see why, Cold. Just because no one cares to do this exercise anymore does not make it credible. I assume this starts with the Einstein equations. If not, please elaborate. By all means, impress me.
Matter is defined as elementary particles or matter fields, making up the material content of the universe. We reflect on an extremely early epoch in deep space where the hydrogen atom had yet to emerge. The thermodynamic approach of cryogenic creation may at first appear mythological to those who advocate a hot creation event at the beginning. Yet close inspection reveals the likelihood of the Cold Creation process, whereby interacting sections of the ground-state energy leads to nontrivial emergent excitations and dynamic properties over significant portions of space.
Ironically, of course, it was general relativity with the cosmological constant itself in its homogeneous, non-expansive pre-1920 existence, before its distillation into its later forms, that would provide the impetus towards a fusion of cosmology and nature—in an effort to describe the apparent symmetry or equilibrium inherent in real world. But it was precisely that kind of mathematical booster into physics, which led away from nature, away from simplicity too—echoed (again ironically) by the inflationary models injection of unrestrained exponential expansion, the false vacuum.
Lambda has nothing to do with vacuum energy.
Coldcreation
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#62 (permalink) 24-October-2005, 05:04 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
z
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
Coldcreation, I'm having some difficulty with your redshift/time dilation mechanism, perhaps just because you've used quite a few words to describe it. But aside from that, I have a more general question about the relationship between redshifts and time dilation. The original prediction that distant supernovae would exhibit time dilation was made using no more than the classical Doppler shift. SR and GR weren't involved. This led me to suppose that any redshift of z, whatever caused it, will lead to a time dilation (1 + z). Thus, knowing just what the redshift of a supernova is, we can calculate its time dilation factor, but we can't know without other information what caused the redshift. First off, do you agree with this? If what I've said is true, then it opens the door for tired light mechanisms, since they too would give rise to the same time dilation factor. Secondly, is your redshift mechanism similar to tired light?
Hello ExpErdMann
I’ve been meaning to get back to you for a while now. I’m supposing that because of your tired-light ideas that you disagree with the Doppler interpretation. And so too with expansion. Question: will you elaborate on your perspective?
You wrote, “…any redshift of z, whatever caused it, will lead to a time dilation (1 + z). Thus, knowing just what the redshift of a supernova is, we can calculate its time dilation factor, but we can't know without other information what caused the redshift. First off, do you agree with this?”
Yes, I agree. And 1 + z is a linear relation (similar to twice as far, twice as fast etc.). This was thought to be the case for redshifts at all distances. It was supposed that distant high-redshift SNIa would also exhibit the same relation. They do not. As I mentioned before the data showed a 20% deviation from linearity.
We have not yet heard the end of the story. WMAP was designed to show a flat universe. But no matter what the data had shown, the parameters (omega, lambda, dark matter) would be, and were, adjusted to fit predictions.
Redshift z is most important interpretation to be made if cosmology is to advance beyond semantics. The others pillars of modern cosmology, CMB and primordial creation of the light elements are straightforward interpretations in any alternative non-expanding model.
PS. Have you found those books about the De Sitter effect etc.?
Regards
Coldcreation
#63 (permalink) 25-October-2005, 12:58 AM
RussT
Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 2,214
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coldcreation
Member
IMO, you are correct about several things;
1. The universe did 'not' start out as a hot primordial soup! It did start 'Cold'.
2. The galaxies that are obviously 12+ billion years old at the edge of the universe does mean the BB is in deep trouble and probably false.
However, just because you show how these are problems for the BB, does not prove your Therory correct!
Cold wrote;
[We reflect on an extremely early epoch in deep space where the hydrogen atom had yet to emerge.]
In an earlier post on this thread you stated this happened about 250 to 600 billion years ago. I don't believe there is any possible way you could 'substantiate' this, and if time has always existed, how could this be true at all???
Your entire explanation of "How the Matter gets here" (which is the "KEY" to cosmology) is shrowded in very unprovable 'vibrating' verbiage.
In addition,
Cold wrote;
[Yet close inspection reveals the likelihood of the Cold Creation process, whereby interacting sections of the ground-state energy leads to nontrivial emergent excitations and dynamic properties over significant portions of space.]
over significant portions of space.]
Numerous theories have tried to state something similar, and all have to answer only one question...If all of space is creating this "Matter", then why does the entire universe only consist of 5% 'Matter'???????
Plus your theory does not explain how the galaxies formed and the cosmological constant can't be the equalizing force of your model, because that is not how the matter that is being created is being destroyed.
Cold wrote;
[There are other things for sure as well. According to modern cosmology 95% of the constituents of the universe is missing, made of some mysterious dark energy (?) and peculiar dark matter (no one has an inkling of an idea what it’s made of, only that it has nothing to do with protons, electrons or neutrons).]
Which is your comological constant!!!
You are more than willing to use Einstein where you deem fit but dismiss any Einstenian concepts that don't fit your model! In fact, you take the one concept that he was least sure of (in fact, he took it out), the cosmological constant, and use it as the basis of your whole theory.]
Cold wrote;
[Black holes, spacetime singularities, are in every physics textbook, though indirect evidence, only, is available to confirm or refute their existence. Einstein himself did not believe nature could go to such extremes.]
Einstein's "aether' (empty space), constant (repulsive force), black holes, and singularities...he didn't even like three out of the four, have all been shown in friedmann and String "M" Theory math to be viable.
But, I do agree that the "Friedmann Singularity" did not make our Universe!!!
Cold wrote;
[It seems yet a fourth model is required.
I’m here for a free-open discussion of the physical evidence…]
To see that fourth model...go to ATM...Big Bang Most Correct
RussT
S=G
RussT
View Public Profile
Send a private message to RussT
Find all posts by RussT
#64 (permalink) 25-October-2005, 02:32 AM
ExpErdMann
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,090
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Hello ExpErdMann
I’ve been meaning to get back to you for a while now. I’m supposing that because of your tired-light ideas that you disagree with the Doppler interpretation. And so too with expansion. Question: will you elaborate on your perspective?
Yes, I'm against the Doppler interpretation and also against expansion. I'm for what they used to call the 'static universe'. Everything is in equilibrium, there is new H being produced for every H atom that goes into fusion. I think there are similarities in our views. I would favour having the new H being produced inside galactic cores, since the temperatures there could be sufficient to blast heavier nuclei back to light ones. Some of my views can be found in the thread "static universe", which I think is on p. 2. I think the redshift is due to conversion of photon energy back to gravitational energy in the recycling process. I can't tell as yet if this connects with the de Sitter effect you mention.
Quote:
You wrote, “…any redshift of z, whatever caused it, will lead to a time dilation (1 + z). Thus, knowing just what the redshift of a supernova is, we can calculate its time dilation factor, but we can't know without other information what caused the redshift. First off, do you agree with this?”
Yes, I agree. And 1 + z is a linear relation (similar to twice as far, twice as fast etc.). This was thought to be the case for redshifts at all distances. It was supposed that distant high-redshift SNIa would also exhibit the same relation. They do not. As I mentioned before the data showed a 20% deviation from linearity.
I'm glad you brought that up. Maybe you can shed light on a point that has been puzzling me. Previously, the Tolman surface brightness test was used to compare the tired light model and the expansion model. The brightness of galaxies varies as (1+z)^-1 in the static case and (1+z)^-4 in the expansion case. In the latter, there is one factor for the time delay in the photons seen by the local observer due to the recessional motion. But it ocurred to me that if time dilation also exists in the static case, then this factor should also apply to the static case. So there should be two factors of (1+z) in the static case, not one. That would seem to have an implication for the SN studies indicating acceleration, but I haven't yet been able to sort it all out.
Quote:
PS. Have you found those books about the De Sitter effect etc.?
Not yet, though I see mention of it in North's book. Will get to it soon.
EEM
#65 (permalink) 25-October-2005, 09:15 AM
Thanatos
Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: midwest
Posts: 855
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't place too much faith in Lerner's surface brightness interpretation. There are other explanations that could fit. Lerner acknowledges that... which confers him a bit of credibility in my book.
#66 (permalink) 25-October-2005, 01:25 PM
ExpErdMann
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,090
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does Lerner say?
#67 (permalink) 25-October-2005, 05:41 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
Coldcreation
Member
IMO, you are correct about several things;
1. The universe did 'not' start out as a hot primordial soup! It did start 'Cold'.
2. The galaxies that are obviously 12+ billion years old at the edge of the universe does mean the BB is in deep trouble and probably false.
However, just because you show how these are problems for the BB, does not prove your Therory correct!
Cold wrote;
[We reflect on an extremely early epoch in deep space where the hydrogen atom had yet to emerge.]
In an earlier post on this thread you stated this happened about 250 to 600 billion years ago. I don't believe there is any possible way you could 'substantiate' this, and if time has always existed, how could this be true at all???
Your entire explanation of "How the Matter gets here" (which is the "KEY" to cosmology) is shrowded in very unprovable 'vibrating' verbiage.
In addition,
Cold wrote;
[Yet close inspection reveals the likelihood of the Cold Creation process, whereby interacting sections of the ground-state energy leads to nontrivial emergent excitations and dynamic properties over significant portions of space.]
over significant portions of space.]
Numerous theories have tried to state something similar, and all have to answer only one question...If all of space is creating this "Matter", then why does the entire universe only consist of 5% 'Matter'???????
Plus your theory does not explain how the galaxies formed and the cosmological constant can't be the equalizing force of your model, because that is not how the matter that is being created is being destroyed.
Cold wrote;
[There are other things for sure as well. According to modern cosmology 95% of the constituents of the universe is missing, made of some mysterious dark energy (?) and peculiar dark matter (no one has an inkling of an idea what it’s made of, only that it has nothing to do with protons, electrons or neutrons).]
Which is your comological constant!!!
You are more than willing to use Einstein where you deem fit but dismiss any Einstenian concepts that don't fit your model! In fact, you take the one concept that he was least sure of (in fact, he took it out), the cosmological constant, and use it as the basis of your whole theory.]
Cold wrote;
[Black holes, spacetime singularities, are in every physics textbook, though indirect evidence, only, is available to confirm or refute their existence. Einstein himself did not believe nature could go to such extremes.]
Einstein's "aether' (empty space), constant (repulsive force), black holes, and singularities...he didn't even like three out of the four, have all been shown in friedmann and String "M" Theory math to be viable.
But, I do agree that the "Friedmann Singularity" did not make our Universe!!!
Cold wrote;
[It seems yet a fourth model is required.
I’m here for a free-open discussion of the physical evidence…]
To see that fourth model...go to ATM...Big Bang Most Correct
RussT
S=G
Sorry, I have to disagree with you. The 250 – 600 Gyr estimation for material creation is base on the time-scale require to create the observed abundance of light, and heavy elements. Had calculations shown that half of that time was required to form the light elements (or say, 100 Gyrs) then observation would show much smaller quantities of those isotopes. In another way, If one were to assume thyat the universe was 13.7 Gyrs old, there is no way that the elements could have been created astrophysically: premordial creations is required. Certainly 250 – 600 Gyrs is an extrapolation, though much less massive than an ad hoc creation event.
You wrote “Numerous theories have tried to state something similar.” Interesting observation. I’d like to know which theory(s) you refer to. Millikan, MacMillan? They were the only ones I’m aware of that state something similar.
The universe does not contain 5% matter. The actual amount of matter is far less. Probably about one hydrogen atom per meter cubed. The 5% comes from BB theory, where non-baryonic dark matter and aloof dark energy make up the rest for closure, i.e., for the critical model, to save inflation, to save the BB.
Galaxy formation is a fundamental aspect of the Coldcreation theory, especially barred spirals. So too is the formation of the large-scale structures (e.g., clusters, superclusters). That topic is cooling on the back burner for now. Here is a small fortaste: Bars are generally believed to be the “engines” driving a wide variety of secular evolution processes in the dynamics of galaxies (Buta & Block 2001). We know what the bars look like but it is not known how they are formed or what keeps them intact. We will attempt to demonstrate that the morphology of the barred structure, no matter what its classification type or shape—Hubble’s SBa, SBb and SBc (1926) or de Vaucouleurs SAB, etc. (1959)—can easily be explained using a Lagrange geometric configuration: the classical two and three-body solutions. In this case, however, the ‘bodies’ are large clusters of stars, gas and dust.
The only questionable aspect of GR might be the predicted existence of gravitational waves (an interesting topic but beyond the scope of the present discussion). All other aspects of GR and SR are relevent to the discussion.
It was Einstein’s original (1917-1932) conviction that anticipated our current approach. The mystifying term in Einstein’s equations is thus reconsidered: All facets of all classes of phenomena relevant to the physical universe, such as the creation of material objects, mechanics (both celestial and quantum), the forces of nature, electromagnetism, the gravitational interaction, chemistry, and thermodynamic processes are viewed as existing and transpiring in the background of an otherwise empty space: the qualities of which are defined under the expression cosmological constant, or lambda. Some of the limitations or constraints that the new natural law (describing lambda as a fundamental or universal constant) entails have been argued. I restate here, in the form of a basic concept, one aspect of lambda:
The true state of the cosmological constant—when the association of instantaneous values of all the amounts of constituents, all parameters (variables) that distinguish the internal forces, and all properties such as energy and entropy are removed—is that of flat, empty, Euclidean, four dimensional field-free Minkowski space and special relativistic spacetime.
The cosmological constant (lambda) is not a force, or energy.
The fourth "Friedmann" model required is simply one that predicts accelerated expansion. The standard Friedmann models never predicted that, neither had any other theory (M, String, etc.) because it would have require the injunction of an ad hoc energy (or a radical version of lambda, the great blunder, something nobody wanted to see again), in addition to the missing mass problem inherent in all Friedmann models.
Coldcreation
#68 (permalink) 25-October-2005, 05:44 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
Yes, I'm against the Doppler interpretation and also against expansion. I'm for what they used to call the 'static universe'. Everything is in equilibrium, there is new H being produced for every H atom that goes into fusion. I think there are similarities in our views. I would favour having the new H being produced inside galactic cores, since the temperatures there could be sufficient to blast heavier nuclei back to light ones. Some of my views can be found in the thread "static universe", which I think is on p. 2. I think the redshift is due to conversion of photon energy back to gravitational energy in the recycling process. I can't tell as yet if this connects with the de Sitter effect you mention.
I'm glad you brought that up. Maybe you can shed light on a point that has been puzzling me. Previously, the Tolman surface brightness test was used to compare the tired light model and the expansion model. The brightness of galaxies varies as (1+z)^-1 in the static case and (1+z)^-4 in the expansion case. In the latter, there is one factor for the time delay in the photons seen by the local observer due to the recessional motion. But it ocurred to me that if time dilation also exists in the static case, then this factor should also apply to the static case. So there should be two factors of (1+z) in the static case, not one. That would seem to have an implication for the SN studies indicating acceleration, but I haven't yet been able to sort it all out.
Not yet, though I see mention of it in North's book. Will get to it soon.
EEM
Interesting. Why not start a thread so we can examine some of the fine details.
I have to get back to you on the topic of redshift z. For now a short word: The standard interpretation, as you partly point out is a kind of modern K term definition; where one factor of z comes because every photon is degraded in energy by (1 + z) due to redshift regardless of its cause. Secondly, the (1 + z) factor is due to the dilution in the rate of photon arrival from the stretching of the path length in the travel time. So, there are two factors of (1 + z) in the standard model.
It is generally believed that the ladder factor would not be present if the redshift were not caused by the big bang expansion but to some unknown cause. Curved spacetime mimics the stretching of space without actually stretching it (this is a relative effect only).
In other words, the dilution in the rate of photon arrival is not due to the stretching of the path length as a function of time. It is due to the cosmological non-linear geometric Gaussian curvature of the 3-space metric continuum through which light must propagate. Redshift is a sign of the gravitational dilation of spacetime. The second factor that partakes in the redshift by the same ratio is due to time element that separates two epochs: The time-like interval becomes smaller at greater distances, meaning that clocks appear to run slower the greater the distance (because spatial increment become relatively larger).
Space does not stretch beyond a specific threshold; ‘empty’ flat space is the limit of malleability on the low-end, and the maximum value (on the high-end) is determined by the presence of strong local gravitational fields and on large-scale, is determined by the distance, volume of space considered, and the mass-energy density of a portion of the universe under scrutiny. This shows that expansion is not real, and that this conclusion rules out the idea of celebrating the birthday of the universe.
Both the degradation in energy and the dilution in the rate of photon arrival are due to the gravitational phenomenon of spacetime dilation with distance in a static, stationary general relativistic non-Euclidean, geometrically hyperbolic four-dimensional continuum. There is no discrepancy between the observed apparent magnitude (or surface brightness) relation with the observed redshift z.
Coldcreation simply postulates that redshift is a known general relativistic phenomenon that has yet to be properly interpreted and attributed to the observed spectral shifts of celestial objects.
Coldcreation
#69 (permalink) 26-October-2005, 04:15 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
non-Doppler redshift
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A note on spacetime dilation:
Contrary to the straightforward Hubble law and the simplicity with which redshift-apparent magnitude relations are calculated, Segal, E. E., (see chronometric cosmology) expressed caution with any definite conclusions regard a specific type of time dilation:
“Strictly speaking, it can not be an exact stationary state of either relativistic or unitemporal time displacement…the temporal characteristics of the emission process are relevant in the determination of higher-order time dilation effects, which are not necessarily small in view of the apparent extreme nonlinearity of some of the fluctuation processes strong enough to be observed at great distances. Thus the 1 + z time dilation factor should be regarded as a rough overall indication, and each particular type of process should be examined on its own merits. Rust (1974) has given some theoretical and observational evidence, suggesting that the factor may be different for supernovae time lapses. A totally different case is that of short period quasar variability; its qualitative increase with z does not as yet appear to differ markedly from a 1 + z law.” (Segal 1976, p. 85)
The chronometric redshift also resembles Weyl’s transitory suggestion of 1921, in which time variation in the non-static case is interpreted as spatial variations in the static case. An analogous situation arises when comparing the spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological spacetimes of Ellis (1977-78), with Segal’s four-dimensional globally hyperbolic (curved), pseudo Riemannian temporal evolution of the spacetime manifold.
The distance scale is constant throughout the cosmos according to the theory. “The relation between the canonical Lorentz frames at different points is then unique and indicates the usual rate of time dilation by a factor of 1 + z.” This corresponds to the dilation of the interval between wave crests; thus providing a classical derivation of the chronometric redshift-distance law (due to H. P. Jakobsen) (1976 p.85).
Segal’s equation is as simple as it is elegant. It shows how a spherical universe produces redshift z. The tangent function is tg, r is the radius of the universe and t is time.
z = tg2 (t/2r)
In 1997 Daniel Koranyi (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) and Michael Strauss (Princeton University) argued that for the past seventy years “observational evidence has mounted steadily” in favor of Hubble’s linear velocity-distance relation. Segal’s point of view is very different: “Careful investigation shows that the reported confirmation of Hubble’s Law has been based on large components of wishful thinking…”
Coldcreation
#70 (permalink) 27-October-2005, 08:16 AM
RussT
Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 2,214
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold wrote;
[In another way, If one were to assume thyat the universe was 13.7 Gyrs old, there is no way that the elements could have been created astrophysically: premordial creations is required. Certainly 250 – 600 Gyrs is an extrapolation, though much less massive than an ad hoc creation event.]
[: premordial creations is required]
This is not true...
Coldcreation...you need to at least read my paper, so you can see how the galaxies may get here from a cold begining, of the universe.
Cold Wrote;
[The universe does not contain 5% matter. The actual amount of matter is far less.]
That's even worse for your theory, but there is alot of unseen Matter out there!
I do agree however, that the universe started out as 'empty space'.
Russt
S=G
#71 (permalink) 27-October-2005, 01:53 PM
Faultline
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If space began "empty" (meaning without matter or energy), then what mechanism created the matter or energy to begin our universe? Wouldn't that creation violate conservation?
__________________
My son is my universe.
#72 (permalink) 27-October-2005, 05:18 PM
Nereid
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,269
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
What does Lerner say?
The paper was (briefly) discussed in the Mass Exodus thread (see posts #523 and #527).
#73 (permalink) 27-October-2005, 05:41 PM
Nereid
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,269
observational or experimental tests for CC's idea?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm trying to put a few together. It's not that easy, since CC hasn't committed herself to anything quantitative.
There are a few things which would seem to NOT be tests; examples:
- redshift-distance relationship (the Hubble relationship); CC replaces expansion with curvature, by an amount exactly (?) the same as you'd expect in a (non-accelerating) GR universe
- time dilation in distant SNe (and, presumably, GRB - right CC?); same reason (though I read CC's lengthy response to the BA on this, I couldn't see where she came out 'fessed up to it)
- the present day CMBR (though I didn't see anything in CC's posts so far that even mention the angular power spectrum, much less explain it - do you account for the angular power spectrum, CC?)
So here are some which might be tests:
- any evolution over cosmological time (say, billions of years), other than stars. For example, quasar evolution, galaxy evolution, evolution of large-scale structure
- old stars. In CC's idea, there should be plenty of stars of all ages, not just stars of all ages EXCEPT >~13 billion years old.
- higher CMBR in the distant universe ('younger' in conventional cosmology, 'at a time many years before our present' in the CC idea).
- spontaneous creation of H in a vacuum.
- isotopic abundances, esp light nuclides. This might be tricky to nail down, but it seems to me it could, in principle, be a very strong test - in CC's idea, only 1H is primordial, everything else is 'made in stars'. So, she should be able to predict the (relative) abundances of 2H, 3He, 4He, and 7Li (and maybe more), in a variety of settings (ISM, IGM, old stars, old brown dwarfs, ...).
- the neutrino equivalent of the CMBR. In CC's idea, such a thing doesn't exist. Of course, we won't be observing this any time soon
- the SZE. I'm not sure about this, but in CC's idea the CMBR 'orginates' everywhere (I may have misunderstood), so there won't be an SZE, especially as, in the more distant universe, the CMBR was much colder (so rich clusters 'in front' of it will be shadowing a BB (? I don't recall CC saying why the CMBR should so closely resemble a BB) with a much lower temperature.
Many of these test will also be tests of EEM's SU idea, but not the CMBR ones, nor the light nuclide abundance.
Let me first ask CC two questions:
1) Would you please comment on my list of tests (and non-tests)? If any are wrong in any significant way, please re-state in a way that makes them genuine tests (even if only in principle)
2) Please add more tests, particularly those where you CC idea and the many BBTs would give significantly different results.
Thank you.
#74 (permalink) 27-October-2005, 05:41 PM
ExpErdMann
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,090
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
The paper was (briefly) discussed in the Mass Exodus thread (see posts #523 and #527).
Thanks, Nereid. I had found Lerner's paper and looked at it. What I found odd is that he doesn't report his result as (1+z)^x, where x is the number of interest (unless I missed it). I haven't read the paper closely, but I'm a little dubious about it. For starters, he's going to high z to prove his thesis, but the errors in the luminosities at those distances must be great.
#75 (permalink) 27-October-2005, 05:47 PM
ExpErdMann
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,090
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
I'm trying to put a few together. It's not that easy, since CC hasn't committed herself to anything quantitative.
In post #35 CC signs as Alexander Mittelmann, ie., a guy.
ExpErdMann
View Public Profile
Send a private message to ExpErdMann
Visit ExpErdMann's homepage!
Find all posts by ExpErdMann
#76 (permalink) 27-October-2005, 06:13 PM
Nereid
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,269
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
In post #35 CC signs as Alexander Mittelmann, ie., a guy.
And my name is Nereid
#77 (permalink) 27-October-2005, 06:16 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
And my name is Nereid
Cool,
Good questions above Nereid.
I have my homework cut out for me tonight. Mañana the response(s). Yes, my name is spelled with 'er' nor 'ra' at the end.
CC
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#78 (permalink) 27-October-2005, 06:46 PM
Faultline
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question that would help me with this argument.
What is the predicted age of the Coldcreation universe?
__________________
My son is my universe.
Faultline
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Faultline
Find all posts by Faultline
#79 (permalink) 27-October-2005, 10:48 PM
RussT
Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 2,214
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faultline
Senior Member
I believe there is no age to CC's universe, it has always existed. If this is wrong, CC will correct it, I'm sure.
To answer this question by Faultline
[If space began "empty" (meaning without matter or energy), then what mechanism created the matter or energy to begin our universe? Wouldn't that creation violate conservation?]
In the above posts, this question came right after my post which was agreeing with CC that space was empty (no matter, no energy) to start with, so I'm not sure if Faultline is asking RussT or CC the question?
I will answer it from both perspectives and you can choose which fits your idea's best.
One of the very convenient things about any model that says the universe has always existed, is that you don't have to expain the initial parameter.
In CC's model, the 'cosmolical constant' (empty space) has always existed and H started being produced out of the 'vacuum' 250 to 600 billion years ago.
So, he doesn't have to explain how the 'empty space' was created.
In my model; ATM...Big Bang Most Correct
String “M” Theory says that the Universe is a structure. That structure is expanding and ‘inside’ that structure are strings that become membranes.
That expanding stringed membrane structure is the “Dark Matter”!!! That is Our Universe, and was here FIRST!!! How that bubbled or expanded into existence is up to the String “M” Theorists to figure out, or maybe Steven Hawking already has, with his Vacuum Fluctuation Universe concept.
Since (Supposedly) we don't know what the 'Dark Matter'...empty space is, how can we say anything needs to be conserved for it to come into existence?
I believe that kind of conservation applies to Matter and Energy, and wouldn't apply to 'Dark Matter' Empty Space.
Faultline wrote;
[what mechanism created the matter or energy to begin our universe?]
In both of our models...the universe already existed as 'empty space', then came the Matter and Energy.
Hope this helps
RussT
S=G
RussT
View Public Profile
Send a private message to RussT
Find all posts by RussT
#80 (permalink) 28-October-2005, 12:09 AM
Faultline
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the universe is infinite in time then, and infinite in space, then what triggered the start and the stop of matter creation? If space were infinite, so would matter then, since matter is created as a property of empty space according to the CC model.
And since time is infinite, also, what was so special or different about the period of 250 to 600 billion years ago that caused the creation of matter?
And for RussT, your model plays on an unknown factor, as do many ATM theories. "We don't know about X factor, so that's where I choose to make my theory correct since you can't prove I'm wrong!"
Since we don't know all the properties of dark matter and dark energy, there's no evidence that you're right about what it does in your theory. Unknown factors like dark matter aren't blank slates for you to make up your own mechanics and laws of physics without testing them. They're not.
__________________
My son is my universe.
Faultline
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Faultline
Find all posts by Faultline
#81 (permalink) 28-October-2005, 07:24 AM
RussT
Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 2,214
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faultline;
You are correct, in both models 'empty space' existing first is an X factor.
I should have been a little clearer on how I stated the difference between the two.
When you say the Universe has always existed, you never have to try to explain it.
In mine, I'm saying that if the universe is 'Static'..."here is how the Matter is being created", but if the universe is expanding then...Empty space had to be created first, via "M" Theories 11 dimensional Structure of the universe with strings and membranes that is expanding. Then come the galaxies, one by one.
So, I am saying I don't know how this expanded or bubbled into existence.
But, I am also saying that...once it is understood that the Dark Empty Space was here first, and then all the galaxies get here, which I don't believe has ever been suggested, anywhere!!! That when "M" Theory looks at it this way, they may very well be able to determine how this did happen.
Also, just to be clear, in my model "Dark Matter" is just the Dark Empty Space and "Dark Energy" is just the "Repulsive Force" which appears to be an "increasing variable". see below
Quote 'Chandra Furthers Understanding About Dark Energy
May 18, 2004 - A mysterious force, which astronomers call "Dark Energy", seems to be speeding up the expansion of the Universe. New observations from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory have independently confirmed this expansion by measuring the distances to galaxy clusters. It seems that the expansion of the Universe was slowing down after the Big Bang until 6 billion years ago; at that point the force of this dark energy took over and expansion began to speed up. The big mystery still remains... what is dark energy? ' end quote.
So, I am saying it is explainable.
Thanks
RussT
S=G
RussT
View Public Profile
Send a private message to RussT
Find all posts by RussT
#82 (permalink) 28-October-2005, 12:53 PM
Faultline
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like my questions just went totally unanswered.
__________________
My son is my universe.
Faultline
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Faultline
Find all posts by Faultline
#83 (permalink) 28-October-2005, 03:17 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faultline
If the universe is infinite in time then, and infinite in space, then what triggered the start and the stop of matter creation? If space were infinite, so would matter then, since matter is created as a property of empty space according to the CC model.
And since time is infinite, also, what was so special or different about the period of 250 to 600 billion years ago that caused the creation of matter?
And for RussT, your model plays on an unknown factor, as do many ATM theories. "We don't know about X factor, so that's where I choose to make my theory correct since you can't prove I'm wrong!"
Since we don't know all the properties of dark matter and dark energy, there's no evidence that you're right about what it does in your theory. Unknown factors like dark matter aren't blank slates for you to make up your own mechanics and laws of physics without testing them. They're not.
Hello Faultine,
First, a clarification. There is no age of a Coldcreation universe. The universe is not like a star that begins to shine when enough matter condenses from an initial cloud of H, dust etc. Also, matter is not "created as a property of empty space."
Secondly, your wording implies that space begins. There is no boundary in space, there is no begining of space (as would have been the case in BB cosmology).
The universe went through a phase transition. There was a time before matter, call it the vacuum era, meaning without matter. The transition was very slow and happened is different places and at different times. It was not all at once, and there is no line to be drawn before which material creation occurred. It is a gradation, a smooth transition, yet a jump in the available energy level nevertheless.
You also imply there was no energy. This of course is not possible. There was energy, both potential and available energy. You see Fautline, energy is an irreducible property of the vacuum. We know this from both general relativity and quantum mechanics: it is called zero point energy ZPE, or ground-state energy (the Casimir effect shows the existence of ZPE or ground energy).
It is the ZPE that is converted or transformed into material particles. Almost as Diracs’ particles and antiparticle pair popping in and out of the vacuum, but not exactly. There is no violation of any of the conservation laws. On the contrary: the conservation laws were used as a guideline for the concept of material cryogenic creation.
There is no mechanism that creates energy, and there was no begin of the universe. Universes don’t just pop in and out of existence.
Faultline, most of this was written above. I’ve also made it a point (almost everywhere I’ve posted in this forum, and others) to stress the need to abide by the natural laws, those of conservation (particularly but not exclusively the first law the thermodynamics) are part of the lot. The laws of nature should never break-down.
Coldcreation.
PS. Comment about Russt's theory would probably be better off in the thread about Russt's theory. Otherwise he'll end up repeating things twice.
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#84 (permalink) 28-October-2005, 03:47 PM
Faultline
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if there is infinite space, there must be infinite zero point energy by your hypothesis since energy is an "irreducable property of vacuum."
So if time is infinite, and the zero-point energy is infinite, then this process of changing the ZPE into matter must have been going on for infinity.
Why do I start to see a paradox? Infinity bothers me.
__________________
My son is my universe.
Faultline
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Faultline
Find all posts by Faultline
#85 (permalink) 28-October-2005, 04:27 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
I'm trying to put a few together. It's not that easy, since CC hasn't committed herself to anything quantitative.
There are a few things which would seem to NOT be tests; examples:
- redshift-distance relationship (the Hubble relationship); CC replaces expansion with curvature, by an amount exactly (?) the same as you'd expect in a (non-accelerating) GR universe
- time dilation in distant SNe (and, presumably, GRB - right CC?); same reason (though I read CC's lengthy response to the BA on this, I couldn't see where she came out 'fessed up to it)
- the present day CMBR (though I didn't see anything in CC's posts so far that even mention the angular power spectrum, much less explain it - do you account for the angular power spectrum, CC?)
So here are some which might be tests:
- any evolution over cosmological time (say, billions of years), other than stars. For example, quasar evolution, galaxy evolution, evolution of large-scale structure
- old stars. In CC's idea, there should be plenty of stars of all ages, not just stars of all ages EXCEPT >~13 billion years old.
- higher CMBR in the distant universe ('younger' in conventional cosmology, 'at a time many years before our present' in the CC idea).
- spontaneous creation of H in a vacuum.
- isotopic abundances, esp light nuclides. This might be tricky to nail down, but it seems to me it could, in principle, be a very strong test - in CC's idea, only 1H is primordial, everything else is 'made in stars'. So, she should be able to predict the (relative) abundances of 2H, 3He, 4He, and 7Li (and maybe more), in a variety of settings (ISM, IGM, old stars, old brown dwarfs, ...).
- the neutrino equivalent of the CMBR. In CC's idea, such a thing doesn't exist. Of course, we won't be observing this any time soon
- the SZE. I'm not sure about this, but in CC's idea the CMBR 'orginates' everywhere (I may have misunderstood), so there won't be an SZE, especially as, in the more distant universe, the CMBR was much colder (so rich clusters 'in front' of it will be shadowing a BB (? I don't recall CC saying why the CMBR should so closely resemble a BB) with a much lower temperature.
Many of these test will also be tests of EEM's SU idea, but not the CMBR ones, nor the light nuclide abundance.
Let me first ask CC two questions:
1) Would you please comment on my list of tests (and non-tests)? If any are wrong in any significant way, please re-state in a way that makes them genuine tests (even if only in principle)
2) Please add more tests, particularly those where you CC idea and the many BBTs would give significantly different results.
Thank you.
I'll have to answer these questions one or two at a time.
Redshift:
The redshift-apparent magnitude relation is known as the Hubble law, but is very often referred to, through lack of rigor, as the redshift-distance relation. First, recent developments have indicated that disagreements and inconsistencies in the numerical representation of the Hubble flow differ by a factor of two: some estimates reveal 50 km per second squared, while others are closer to 100 km. A factor of two is like being unsure whether you are standing on one or two legs.
Also, though I disagree formally with Arp’s interpretation of redshift, I do agree that there is an abundance of observational data indictaing that many celestial objects do not lie at the distance that would be expected according to the Hubble law, to redshift. This despite the Hubble diagram that tells us the recessional velocities increase linearly with distance.
Quasars have never fit the linear redshift-apparent magnitude relation; instead, their plots on a graph resemble a shotgun blast. Today, quasars remain an unsolved enigma. Quasars are very luminous almost point-like sources of light with extremely large redshifts. They are often a source of radio and x-ray emission and are thought to be extreme forms of active galactic nuclei. My suggestion is that quasars are extremely dense objects (or grouping of objects) that exhibit intrinsic gravitational redshifts, possible Doppler redshifts when motion is toward the observer, superimposed on the global (cosmological) spacetime curvature redshift z.
Another major problem for modern cosmology is that quasars possess large amounts of iron. There appear to be only two and a half possible explanations, and both are a disappointment to most expansion theorists. They are either much older than expected—and so too is the universe—or they are much closer than their redshifts indicate—contradicting the Hubble law and the cosmological Doppler interpretation. The explanation few are likely to adhere to is that iron was produced very early on by astrophysical means.
All of the evidence indicates that quasars show non-cosmological redshifts, i.e. the redshifts are not caused by velocity of recession in an expanding frame. In physical terms, given the Lobachevskian-hyperbolic pseudo-Riemannian structure of the spacetime manifold, there is a natural way of determining the distance—apart from small deviations due to intrinsic velocities and local gravitational effects. In essence, it differs little for current interpretations, provided the count-magnitude relation in parametric form, the galaxy distribution, color distribution, the absolute magnitude (when known, possibly through Tolman surface brightness testing), apparent-magnitude, angular diameters, isophotal diameters, and selective effects are all factored in. Redshift alone is an insufficient distance gauge.
The redshift-distance relation (so much for rigor) is either linear (or close to linear) if expansion is real, or it is hyperbolic in a stationary universe. In few words, it is difficult, though not impossible to determine whether redshift is due to the galaxy recession or if the observed effect (redshift) is due to a general relativistic curvature of spacetime. Evidence is mounting in favor of the latter.
Spacetime dilation is evident in all redshifted objects, not just extremely distant high-z SNe Ia. That would include gamma-ray bursts, if indeed they are at cosmological distances. Observational data pertaining to high-z SNe Ia is consistent with a hyperbolic universe, albeit relative hyperbolicily, since all observers (even those located in the vicinity of the High-z novae near the horizon) find themselves centered inside a hyperbolic universe. In another way, clocks do not really stop at the horizon, just as galaxies do not actually surpass c in an expanding manifold.
Finally, the SNe Type Ia observations interpreted recently as an accelerated expansion: This is where the illustrious framework of Lobachevsky’s non-Euclidean space, and to a certain extent de Sitters hypersphere, may be considered very closely as more realistic representatives of the global properties of the universe. A metrically homogenous world is obtained by the equivalence of all points, in all directions—since the change is a continuous transformation—there is no reason why the hyperbolic curvature should not be everywhere continuous in a homogenous playing field. So far so good.
Thus, redshift increases with distance and volume in a stationary universe. The question is whether the increase is linear or a gradation. In BB cosmology linearity was preferred (not observed). Once in motion, expansion would have no reason (or no means) to change velocity. Only gravity was able to do that: thus the search for the deceleration parameter. The rest is history.
Redshift in a non-expanding manifold has no reason to increase linearly. Redshift depends the mass-energy density large-scale distribution. And so, even in an isotropic and homogenous field redshift increases (certainly not according to Hubble's law, which really is not a law) according to the degree of curvature.
But Coldcreation theory does not say that the universe is homogenous and isotropic at all times t. There is evolution in the lookback time. The universe in the past (near the horizon and well beyond) was less dense, less curved, there was less gravitating mass-energy. And so, SNe appear further away than would be expected in a homogenous/isotropic universe. (This topic needs to be addressed further, much further).
We are in possession of a four-dimensional singularity-free nonexpanding, non-contracting continuum, the physical attributes of which are described by general relativity and are observed in nature.
Coldcreation
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#86 (permalink) 28-October-2005, 08:00 PM
Nereid
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,269
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
There are a few things which would seem to NOT be tests; examples:
- redshift-distance relationship (the Hubble relationship); CC replaces expansion with curvature, by an amount exactly (?) the same as you'd expect in a (non-accelerating) GR universe
- time dilation in distant SNe (and, presumably, GRB - right CC?); same reason (though I read CC's lengthy response to the BA on this, I couldn't see where she came out 'fessed up to it)
[snip]
I'll have to answer these questions one or two at a time.
Redshift:
The redshift-apparent magnitude relation is known as the Hubble law, but is very often referred to, through lack of rigor, as the redshift-distance relation. First, recent developments have indicated that disagreements and inconsistencies in the numerical representation of the Hubble flow differ by a factor of two: some estimates reveal 50 km per second squared, while others are closer to 100 km. A factor of two is like being unsure whether you are standing on one or two legs.
Also, though I disagree formally with Arp’s interpretation of redshift, I do agree that there is an abundance of observational data indictaing that many celestial objects do not lie at the distance that would be expected according to the Hubble law, to redshift. This despite the Hubble diagram that tells us the recessional velocities increase linearly with distance.
Quasars have never fit the linear redshift-apparent magnitude relation; instead, their plots on a graph resemble a shotgun blast. Today, quasars remain an unsolved enigma. Quasars are very luminous almost point-like sources of light with extremely large redshifts. They are often a source of radio and x-ray emission and are thought to be extreme forms of active galactic nuclei. My suggestion is that quasars are extremely dense objects (or grouping of objects) that exhibit intrinsic gravitational redshifts, possible Doppler redshifts when motion is toward the observer, superimposed on the global (cosmological) spacetime curvature redshift z.
Another major problem for modern cosmology is that quasars possess large amounts of iron. There appear to be only two and a half possible explanations, and both are a disappointment to most expansion theorists. They are either much older than expected—and so too is the universe—or they are much closer than their redshifts indicate—contradicting the Hubble law and the cosmological Doppler interpretation. The explanation few are likely to adhere to is that iron was produced very early on by astrophysical means.
All of the evidence indicates that quasars show non-cosmological redshifts, i.e. the redshifts are not caused by velocity of recession in an expanding frame. In physical terms, given the Lobachevskian-hyperbolic pseudo-Riemannian structure of the spacetime manifold, there is a natural way of determining the distance—apart from small deviations due to intrinsic velocities and local gravitational effects. In essence, it differs little for current interpretations, provided the count-magnitude relation in parametric form, the galaxy distribution, color distribution, the absolute magnitude (when known, possibly through Tolman surface brightness testing), apparent-magnitude, angular diameters, isophotal diameters, and selective effects are all factored in. Redshift alone is an insufficient distance gauge.
The redshift-distance relation (so much for rigor) is either linear (or close to linear) if expansion is real, or it is hyperbolic in a stationary universe. In few words, it is difficult, though not impossible to determine whether redshift is due to the galaxy recession or if the observed effect (redshift) is due to a general relativistic curvature of spacetime. Evidence is mounting in favor of the latter.
Spacetime dilation is evident in all redshifted objects, not just extremely distant high-z SNe Ia. That would include gamma-ray bursts, if indeed they are at cosmological distances. Observational data pertaining to high-z SNe Ia is consistent with a hyperbolic universe, albeit relative hyperbolicily, since all observers (even those located in the vicinity of the High-z novae near the horizon) find themselves centered inside a hyperbolic universe. In another way, clocks do not really stop at the horizon, just as galaxies do not actually surpass c in an expanding manifold.
Finally, the SNe Type Ia observations interpreted recently as an accelerated expansion: This is where the illustrious framework of Lobachevsky’s non-Euclidean space, and to a certain extent de Sitters hypersphere, may be considered very closely as more realistic representatives of the global properties of the universe. A metrically homogenous world is obtained by the equivalence of all points, in all directions—since the change is a continuous transformation—there is no reason why the hyperbolic curvature should not be everywhere continuous in a homogenous playing field. So far so good.
Thus, redshift increases with distance and volume in a stationary universe. The question is whether the increase is linear or a gradation. In BB cosmology linearity was preferred (not observed). Once in motion, expansion would have no reason (or no means) to change velocity. Only gravity was able to do that: thus the search for the deceleration parameter. The rest is history.
Redshift in a non-expanding manifold has no reason to increase linearly. Redshift depends the mass-energy density large-scale distribution. And so, even in an isotropic and homogenous field redshift increases (certainly not according to Hubble's law, which really is not a law) according to the degree of curvature.
But Coldcreation theory does not say that the universe is homogenous and isotropic at all times t. There is evolution in the lookback time. The universe in the past (near the horizon and well beyond) was less dense, less curved, there was less gravitating mass-energy. And so, SNe appear further away than would be expected in a homogenous/isotropic universe. (This topic needs to be addressed further, much further).
We are in possession of a four-dimensional singularity-free nonexpanding, non-contracting continuum, the physical attributes of which are described by general relativity and are observed in nature.
Coldcreation
Well, it seems I was quite wrong - the CC idea is quite different from the GR of LCDM mainstream cosmologies!
However, I didn't see anything in this lengthy post that would allow anyone to describe a test of the CC idea, from observations of objects and their redshifts, or from time dilation of distant SNe or GRBs.
For example, no matter what quasars turn out to be, they can be accommodated in this CC idea.
Or has CC done some quantitative work, but is not sharing the results with us?
Oh well, on to the next questions.
Nereid
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Nereid
Find all posts by Nereid
#87 (permalink) 29-October-2005, 11:20 AM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Well, it seems I was quite wrong - the CC idea is quite different from the GR of LCDM mainstream cosmologies!
Is this good or bad? What is LCDM?
Quote:
However, I didn't see anything in this lengthy post that would allow anyone to describe a test of the CC idea, from observations of objects and their redshifts, or from time dilation of distant SNe or GRBs.
The point is simply; the fact that this deviation is operational at those high-z distances is proof, evidence, that curvature is hyperbolic (not spherical, not flat). The fact too that acceleration was never predicted (vis from the Friedmann models or any other) leads me to believe that the interpretation is dubious. But that aside, you are correct. There is little that can be extracted from the actual redshift that will demark one theory or another (especially considering all the parameters (omega, lambda, etc) that can be endlessly tweaked in BBC.
The real test, at those distances is with metallicity, not redshift z.
I repeat: objects at cosmological distance should have (according to CC) metallicity similar to the local region. There should be little evolution in the lookback time, not the old radiation dominated era, then protostar, proto-galaxy formation, galaxy formation, large-scale structure formation (as in the standard model).
Evolution should be slow, very slow, i.e., metallicity should differ no more than 10 to 15 %. In another way, there should be no more than a 10 to 15% difference in chemical elements at cosmological distance (extending out to the horizon).
Quote:
For example, no matter what quasars turn out to be, they can be accommodated in this CC idea.
Yes, of course. There is no problem with objects that are not where their redshifts would otherwise indicate according the Hubble law. That is because, in the CC theory, Hubble's law is not a law. There is no absolute linear relation. Intrinsic gravitational redshifts, and intrinsic Doppler effects (when objects move away from our observation platform). Yes, this is true even in an expanding universe, but it is both intrinsic effects are seldom taken into account. That is because it is excruciatingly difficult to disentangle one shift from the other. For example: if a quasar is moving towards us very quickly it may show as been blueshifted, i.e., it will not be called a quasar. It may be classified as a radio source, active galactic nuclei, etc.).
In CC cosmology, these types of objects should undergo tests for surface brightness (see list above) etc. to get a reading of distance (albeit, these distances will always remain uncertain within a margin of error, likely large).
Quote:
Or has CC done some quantitative work, but is not sharing the results with us?
CC is more of a conceptual enterprise. I have a couple of physicists working on the math. I feel though, that without a sound basis, without a viable concept, the math is almost meaningless. That is to say, all the math in the world can be used to argument an idea, but if the idea is flawed from the outset (as is likely the case with BBC) than the math is useless to a large extent. What happens inside the Plank scale, at Plank energy, in Plank time is a perfect example of something that is useless to calculate as those energies and densities do not exist in nature.
All the mathematics involved in superstring, string, M theory and the likes seems like wasted energy, in that never will nature let us test the predictions made by it.
Quote:
Oh well, on to the next questions.
I'll be back.
ColdCreation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Nereid : 29-October-2005 at 07:27 PM. Reason: fixed [ quote ] tags
#88 (permalink) 29-October-2005, 05:10 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faultline
But if there is infinite space, there must be infinite zero point energy by your hypothesis since energy is an "irreducable property of vacuum."
So if time is infinite, and the zero-point energy is infinite, then this process of changing the ZPE into matter must have been going on for infinity.
Why do I start to see a paradox? Infinity bothers me.
Suffice it to know that infinity in unattainable. Zero bothers many people to. It shouldn't though.
Your point is valid. The question of ZPE and its infinite supply is an old one. Some have thought it possible to tap the energy for commercial use, to replace gasoline etc.
That is not possible, unfortunately (bye, buy OPEC). Neither is the creation of fundamental particles via ZPE and ZPF at all times t.
Why? Simply (no time now) because conditions have to be adequate.
CC
#89 (permalink) 30-October-2005, 12:43 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
- the present day CMBR (though I didn't see anything in CC's posts so far that even mention the angular power spectrum, much less explain it - do you account for the angular power spectrum, CC?)
So here are some which might be tests:
- any evolution over cosmological time (say, billions of years), other than stars. For example, quasar evolution, galaxy evolution, evolution of large-scale structure
- old stars. In CC's idea, there should be plenty of stars of all ages, not just stars of all ages EXCEPT >~13 billion years old.
- higher CMBR in the distant universe ('younger' in conventional cosmology, 'at a time many years before our present' in the CC idea).
Coldcreation states (predicts) that the CMB was cooler in the past. The CMB becomes warmer with time (just as a room full of candles becomes warmer with time). If observations show this not to be the case, Coldcreation is untenable. (I have read one article indicating a warmer CMB in the past, but no corroboration on those findings as of yet).
The power spectrum is simply cause by a first-order gravitational redshift (Zgrav) as the millimeter wavelength climbs out of the gravitational potential well of its source (stars, galaxies, clusters). That is, the thermal perturbations of the blackbody radiation are directly related to the gravitational redshift.
Note though, according to CC, the CMB is not a redshifted relic of a hot dense state some time in the past. The radiation is to a large extent independent of cosmic epoch (in that it has taken an infinite amount of time, with an energy level jump in the past 600-250 Gyrs) to reach the observed 2.726 K, and too, since the CMB is independent of redshift z (of the general relativistic spacetime curvature interpretation of z). It is a non-linear regime.
To answer your query specifically, regarding the angular power spectrum: The temperature amplitude fluctuations are directly proportional (within an order of magnitude) to the angular scale of the mass-density perturbations, of the mass spectrum of galaxies, i.e., to the distribution of galaxies.
The beauty of this analysis, beside the global redshift independence, is the non-necessity of a biasing factor to reconcile some random velocity of field galaxies with the observed peculiar velocities. In addition, there is no difference between the expectation of the Coldcreation theoretical predictions or expectations and the observed angular power spectrum. The resulting thermal spectrum is of Bose-Einstein form.
Also, there is no need to justify the observed isotropy and homogineity across the whole sky. Arguably, there is causal problem inherent in the standard model. Recall the horizon problem which highlights the difficulty to explain how the CMB and the large-scale structures of the universe became so uniform. This stems from the fact that no information can propagate faster than light, and so by consequence, there are sections of the universe that have no causal connection (again, according to BB cosmology).
Ultimately, there is no need to inject dark non-baryonic matter (a fudge factor) into the mix prior to the epoch of recombination. Simply so, because this era never existed and (one more time) because the CMB is not a redshifted relic.
Coldcreation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
- spontaneous creation of H in a vacuum.
- isotopic abundances, esp light nuclides. This might be tricky to nail down, but it seems to me it could, in principle, be a very strong test - in CC's idea, only 1H is primordial, everything else is 'made in stars'. So, she should be able to predict the (relative) abundances of 2H, 3He, 4He, and 7Li (and maybe more), in a variety of settings (ISM, IGM, old stars, old brown dwarfs, ...).
- the neutrino equivalent of the CMBR. In CC's idea, such a thing doesn't exist. Of course, we won't be observing this any time soon
- the SZE. I'm not sure about this, but in CC's idea the CMBR 'orginates' everywhere (I may have misunderstood), so there won't be an SZE, especially as, in the more distant universe, the CMBR was much colder (so rich clusters 'in front' of it will be shadowing a BB (? I don't recall CC saying why the CMBR should so closely resemble a BB) with a much lower temperature.
Many of these test will also be tests of EEM's SU idea, but not the CMBR ones, nor the light nuclide abundance.
Let me first ask CC two questions:
1) Would you please comment on my list of tests (and non-tests)? If any are wrong in any significant way, please re-state in a way that makes them genuine tests (even if only in principle)
2) Please add more tests, particularly those where you CC idea and the many BBTs would give significantly different results.
Thank you.
Save this for the next post.
Coldcreation
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#90 (permalink) 30-October-2005, 01:09 PM
Faultline
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCreation
The CMB becomes warmer with time (just as a room full of candles becomes warmer with time).
A room full of candles has a few differences. If the fuel is finite, the candles will burn out eventually. If the room is the entire universe, and has no place to transfer the heat energy, it will continue to grow hotter. If there is an 'outside' then heat will transfer to whatever medium is beyond the room at a rate based on the resistance value of the walls and how good they are sealed to outside air.
So, if you have an infinte amount of fuel, the room will continue to grow hotter over time. Given infinite time, as you've said your model of the universe has, it will eventually become infinitely hot.
__________________
My son is my universe.
Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5
30-October-2005, 04:32 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
Cmb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5{\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0line]A room full of candles has a few differences. If the fuel is finite, the candles will burn out eventually. If the room is the entire universe, and has no place to transfer the heat energy, it will continue to grow hotter. If there is an 'outside' then heat will transfer to whatever medium is beyond the room at a rate based on the resistance value of the walls and how good they are sealed to outside air.
So, if you have an infinte amount of fuel, the room will continue to grow hotter over time. Given infinite time, as you've said your model of the universe has, it will eventually become infinitely hot.[/quote]
Recap: Coldcreation (CC) theory articulates the CMB has never been warmer, that the universe is warming with time, that the past history of temperature variations or changes have gone from very cold, 0 K on the absolute (Kevin) temperature scale, to roughly 2.7 K seen in the CMB.
Fautline, you almost sound like Olbers (the paradox). Infinite temperature? The universe would be ablaze light the surface of a star. This cannot happen. Why? Certainly the resevoir of energy is infinite in range, in spatial extent, though it is week (to say the least) in energy per cubic meter. There is no way that such a small amount of energy per cubic meter could reach any more than 6 K (perhaps 10 K), in the form of CMB, ever.
According to your logic, entropy, too, should reach an infinite amount some time in the future. There is no reason why that should be the case either.
In sum, because of the finite energy contribution (stars, ZPE, etc.), the cosmic background temperature never rises beyond a maximum level. Though that maximum temperature is unknown, one can imagine it is not very high and that it will take a long time before that maximum value is attained. When we take into consideration the thermal history of the universe, the time it has taken to reach the meager 2.7 K observed today, we can imagine that as time tends to infinity in the future the temperature of intergalactic space might go up another 2 or 3 degrees Kelvin. In any case, even if 10 K were the maximum thermal emission spectrum, it would take an infinite amount of time to get close to that temperature.
So we don’t have to worry about being baked in a blackbody cosmic microwave oven. The big bang stove has the future of the universe becoming colder with time, leaving us frozen and alone in an expanding refrigerator.
The Cold Creation cryogenic universe has us on a time-consuming defrost, the timer was never set but it’s been ticking forever—and will continue to do so. We can carry on this procedure of extrapolation further and further into the deep future of the cosmos as far as we believe we understand low energy physics, chemical and process thermodynamics.
Coldcreation
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#92 (permalink) 30-October-2005, 05:37 PM
Cougar
Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 3,124
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this a science fiction thread?
__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.
Cougar
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Cougar
Visit Cougar's homepage!
Find all posts by Cougar
#93 (permalink) 30-October-2005, 05:56 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar
Is this a science fiction thread?
Fair question Cougar...
Coldcreation only makes deductions and interpretations based on the information available to us through observation—the accurate analysis and bold conclusions of which should be based on the laws of nature extracted from experiment and experience, both intuitive and non-intuitive—not founded on whimsical speculation, spurious assumptions, artificial initial conditions and erroneous interpretations (see big bang cosmology)—a vantage-point of which even Star Trek buffs and other science-fiction aficionado would unremorsefully dismiss as bogus.
Having looked at the predominant problems of the modern standpoint (big bang cosmology, again) in some detail, the intention here was to flesh out the far-reaching nature of the Cold Creation stance before looking at the space between them.
An opening has been made by giving a fuller idea of what nature could produce, by making a few generalizations about its geometric development, dynamic properties, and the physical mechanism behind the gravitational 'force,' curved spacetime.
There is no attempt here to give a balanced coverage over the entire range of phenomenological relations, nor of all the stances that occupied the space between the Cold Creation theory and the near-natural current views: Instead a few particularly revealing pillars of science (notably, material creation of hydrogen, creation of the light elements, isotopes via stellar nucleosynthesis and other astrophysical means, e.g., in supernovae etc., but too, the CMB radiation, its souce, its evolution in time, and last but not least, redshift z) are selected and explored as a way of illuminating the matrix of relationships between objects, empty space and the field the connects them.
It is my contention that modern cosmology has vacated nature from its discourse (with dark energy, non-baryonic dark matter, etc), and has become is escence science fiction.
This is why it has shown essential to first formulate generalizations and interpretations about what is observed.
Coldcreation
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#94 (permalink) 30-October-2005, 09:17 PM
Nereid
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,269
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Well, it seems I was quite wrong - the CC idea is quite different from the GR of LCDM mainstream cosmologies!
Is this good or bad? What is LCDM?
Lambda Cold Dark Matter (Λ doesn't always seem to come out).
Quote:
Quote:
However, I didn't see anything in this lengthy post that would allow anyone to describe a test of the CC idea, from observations of objects and their redshifts, or from time dilation of distant SNe or GRBs.
The point is simply; the fact that this deviation is operational at those high-z distances is proof, evidence, that curvature is hyperbolic (not spherical, not flat).
And what magnitude the parameter(s) which quantify the hyperbolicity? How good is the match between CC idea and observational results?
Quote:
[snip - words about topics other than CC's idea]
The real test, at those distances is with metallicity, not redshift z.
I repeat: objects at cosmological distance should have (according to CC) metallicity similar to the local region.
How similar? What cosmologically distant metallicity would be fatal to the CC idea?
Quote:
There should be little evolution in the lookback time, not the old radiation dominated era, then protostar, proto-galaxy formation, galaxy formation, large-scale structure formation (as in the standard model).
That's what it would NOT be; what WOULD it be? Specifically, in the CC idea:
- how should the ratio of ellipticals to spirals in rich clusters vary, with time? (and with cluster size?)
- how do quasars evolve?
- what is the Gunn-Peterson trough?
Quote:
Evolution should be slow, very slow, i.e., metallicity should differ no more than 10 to 15 %. In another way, there should be no more than a 10 to 15% difference in chemical elements at cosmological distance (extending out to the horizon).
Thanks.
You've partially answered my question above.
Can you quantify this a bit more please? Are you referring to star-forming regions in galaxies? to the ISM in galaxies? to the IGM (esp the hot gas in rich clusters)?? And are there substantial variations, e.g. r-process vs s-process elements?
Quote:
Quote:
For example, no matter what quasars turn out to be, they can be accommodated in this CC idea.
Yes, of course. [snip]
Quote:
Or has CC done some quantitative work, but is not sharing the results with us?
CC is more of a conceptual enterprise. I have a couple of physicists working on the math. I feel though, that without a sound basis, without a viable concept, the math is almost meaningless. That is to say, all the math in the world can be used to argument an idea, but if the idea is flawed from the outset (as is likely the case with BBC) than the math is useless to a large extent.
This raises the fascinating question of how you - or anyone - can determine whether an idea 'is flawed from the outset' without doing at least some OOM calculations! Or, in the CC case, how one can determine, from the outset, that the CC idea is NOT flawed?
Would you care to share your thinking on this with us, please?
Quote:
What happens inside the Plank scale, at Plank energy, in Plank time is a perfect example of something that is useless to calculate as those energies and densities do not exist in nature.
And how do you KNOW this?
Nereid
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Nereid
Find all posts by Nereid
#95 (permalink) 30-October-2005, 09:56 PM
Nereid
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,269
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
- the present day CMBR (though I didn't see anything in CC's posts so far that even mention the angular power spectrum, much less explain it - do you account for the angular power spectrum, CC?)
So here are some which might be tests:
- any evolution over cosmological time (say, billions of years), other than stars. For example, quasar evolution, galaxy evolution, evolution of large-scale structure
- old stars. In CC's idea, there should be plenty of stars of all ages, not just stars of all ages EXCEPT >~13 billion years old.
- higher CMBR in the distant universe ('younger' in conventional cosmology, 'at a time many years before our present' in the CC idea).
Coldcreation states (predicts) that the CMB was cooler in the past. The CMB becomes warmer with time (just as a room full of candles becomes warmer with time). If observations show this not to be the case, Coldcreation is untenable. (I have read one article indicating a warmer CMB in the past, but no corroboration on those findings as of yet).
Well, perhaps you didn't read enough?
Here are some papers reporting the detection of just this (the CMBR was warmer in the past):
an ESO PR, and the corresponding technical paper
A second paper (different quasar)
A third paper (indirect evidence)
A fourth quasar
Another paper. If you would like to take the time and effort, to search (e.g. using Google Scholar, or ArXiV), I suspect you will find several others.
Of course, none of these papers is particularly unambiguous; however, prima facie, they are just the opposite of what the CC idea predicts.
Quote:
The power spectrum is simply cause by a first-order gravitational redshift (Zgrav) as the millimeter wavelength climbs out of the gravitational potential well of its source (stars, galaxies, clusters). That is, the thermal perturbations of the blackbody radiation are directly related to the gravitational redshift.
OK, so what does the CC idea predict for this power spectrum? I mean, quantitatively?
Quote:
Note though, according to CC, the CMB is not a redshifted relic of a hot dense state some time in the past. The radiation is to a large extent independent of cosmic epoch (in that it has taken an infinite amount of time, with an energy level jump in the past 600-250 Gyrs) to reach the observed 2.726 K, and too, since the CMB is independent of redshift z (of the general relativistic spacetime curvature interpretation of z). It is a non-linear regime.
Whoa!
This suggests to me that for the CMBR to be so close to a 2.73K blackbody an extraordinary series of amazing coincidences must be in play!
Why, in the CC idea, must the CMBR be so extraordinarily close to a BB?
And, while we're at it, whence the mK dipole?
Quote:
To answer your query specifically, regarding the angular power spectrum: The temperature amplitude fluctuations are directly proportional (within an order of magnitude) to the angular scale of the mass-density perturbations, of the mass spectrum of galaxies, i.e., to the distribution of galaxies.
OK, I read the words.
Now, please present the math/OOM calculations which show quantitative consistency between the CC idea and the observations!
Quote:
The beauty of this analysis, beside the global redshift independence, is the non-necessity of a biasing factor to reconcile some random velocity of field galaxies with the observed peculiar velocities. In addition, there is no difference between the expectation of the Coldcreation theoretical predictions or expectations and the observed angular power spectrum. The resulting thermal spectrum is of Bose-Einstein form.
Which is, wrt a BB of ~2.73K, what, exactly?
Quote:
Also, there is no need to justify the observed isotropy and homogineity across the whole sky.
[snip - words about things other than the CC idea]
Ultimately, there is no need to inject dark non-baryonic matter (a fudge factor) into the mix prior to the epoch of recombination. Simply so, because this era never existed and (one more time) because the CMB is not a redshifted relic.
Excellent!
So, how does the CC idea account for the (observed) SZE (Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect)?
Nereid
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Nereid
Find all posts by Nereid
#96 (permalink) 31-October-2005, 01:41 PM
Faultline
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC, the paradox I see is this. You claim there is infinite space and time. Yet matter arises from empty space where it is created spontaneously "cold."
If there is infinite space and time, there would be infinite mass also. There would be no "finite energy sources" because if all it takes is empty space and time, you have infinite amounts of both requirements.
You can't claim that the space infinity is greater than the mass infinity, either. Infinity=infinity the last time I checked and that's about as far as I can go with infinity in math.
If there is finite mass, what started and stopped the creation to keep there from being infinite mass?
If mass is finite, and space is infinite, where is everything going? Is everything at equilibrium for motion to/from each other? Is it contracting or expanding?
Too many questions.
__________________
My son is my universe.
Faultline
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Faultline
Find all posts by Faultline
#97 (permalink) 01-November-2005, 12:15 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faultline
CC, the paradox I see is this. You claim there is infinite space and time. Yet matter arises from empty space where it is created spontaneously "cold."
If there is infinite space and time, there would be infinite mass also. There would be no "finite energy sources" because if all it takes is empty space and time, you have infinite amounts of both requirements.
You can't claim that the space infinity is greater than the mass infinity, either. Infinity=infinity the last time I checked and that's about as far as I can go with infinity in math.
If there is finite mass, what started and stopped the creation to keep there from being infinite mass?
If mass is finite, and space is infinite, where is everything going? Is everything at equilibrium for motion to/from each other? Is it contracting or expanding?
Too many questions.
Wow, Faultline, you really don't like infinity...Do you like zero?
Remember though, that no matter how large in spatial extent is the universe, one atom of hydrogen per cubic meter is not infinite density, or infinite mass.
The ZPE may be an infinite well, but it is not very deep, it cannot be converted to infinite mass. That's crazy. It almost sounds like science fiction, like the big bang.
There is no paradox with material creation in space. Space is not really empty. It has ZPE (ground state energy) and ZPF (zero point fluctuation). The key is the conversion of this minimum energy into mass over vary large areas of the vacuum, where fluctuations are large in spatial extent.
I'll be in Pamplona for a couple of days.
Coldcreation
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#98 (permalink) 01-November-2005, 02:23 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Lambda Cold Dark Matter (? doesn't always seem to come out).And what magnitude the parameter(s) which quantify the hyperbolicity? How good is the match between CC idea and observational results?How similar? What cosmologically distant metallicity would be fatal to the CC idea?That's what it would NOT be; what WOULD it be? Specifically, in the CC idea:
- how should the ratio of ellipticals to spirals in rich clusters vary, with time? (and with cluster size?)
- how do quasars evolve?
- what is the Gunn-Peterson trough?Thanks.
You've partially answered my question above.
Can you quantify this a bit more please? Are you referring to star-forming regions in galaxies? to the ISM in galaxies? to the IGM (esp the hot gas in rich clusters)?? And are there substantial variations, e.g. r-process vs s-process elements?This raises the fascinating question of how you - or anyone - can determine whether an idea 'is flawed from the outset' without doing at least some OOM calculations! Or, in the CC case, how one can determine, from the outset, that the CC idea is NOT flawed?
Would you care to share your thinking on this with us, please?And how do you KNOW this?
Quickly (I'll have to come back to some of these questions in the coming week), I see no incompatibility with CC and observational results of distant SNe time dilation, preliminary metallicity data of distant galaxies (star forming regions, yes, but not exclusively), no incompatibility with the observed Gunn-Peterson trough, with the Sunyaev-Zeldocich decrement, or with the ratio of ellipticals to spirals in rich clusters. Observations should show virtually the same ratio at great distances (vis the HUDF images) as in the local universe.
Incidentally, are you familiar with an object called HUDF-JD2? It is one of the most distant galaxies ever studied, and much more massive and mature than expected for that era. It is is so massive (at such an early epoch) that astronomers think that some galaxies formed in a monolithic manner. Even by local group standards the object is large. 300 to 600 billion solar masses, between 5 and 8 times our Milky Way's stellar mass. BANG.
An article about this finding will be published in the Astronomical Journal December 20, 2005.
Also, infrared observations of the Southern Hemisphere sky with the European Southern Observatory's 8.2-meter Very Large Telescope found the most distant spiral galaxy ever discovered. It is a remarkably complex structure to have form so early on, plus it is as large as the Milky Way.
Spiral galaxies are thought to take billions of years to form. This discovery shows a galaxy that is much more mature than expected for its cosmological distance (age).
Prediction. This is only the beginning Neired. More and more similar observation will be forthcoming (especially when the James Webb Space telescope is launched, 2011) that show large well formed structures (spiral galaxies, barred spirals etc.) with high metallicity (just like in the Local Group). These findings, and others, all contradict big bang cosmology. They are exactly what Coldcreation have been predicting since its outset (1995).
I did read the articles about the supposed CMB being hotter is the past. You're right. They are all inconclusive. I'm afraid this line of investigation will remain inconclusive for some time to come. It's too experimental, biased.
Something has only just begun.
Coldcreation
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#99 (permalink) 01-November-2005, 04:07 PM
Nereid
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,269
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Quickly (I'll have to come back to some of these questions in the coming week), I see no incompatibility with CC and observational results of distant SNe time dilation, preliminary metallicity data of distant galaxies (star forming regions, yes, but not exclusively), no incompatibility with the observed Gunn-Peterson trough, with the Sunyaev-Zeldocich decrement, or with the ratio of ellipticals to spirals in rich clusters.
Good.
Please show the compatibility; please start with the SZE and Gunn-Peterson trough.
Quote:
Observations should show virtually the same ratio at great distances (vis the HUDF images) as in the local universe.
Reference please! Be prepared to show that your references address all relevant selection edffects and systematic errors.
Quote:
Incidentally, are you familiar with an object called HUDF-JD2? It is one of the most distant galaxies ever studied, and much more massive and mature than expected for that era.
It is is so massive (at such an early epoch) that astronomers think that some galaxies formed in a monolithic manner. Even by local group standards the object is large. 300 to 600 billion solar masses, between 5 and 8 times our Milky Way's stellar mass. BANG.
An article about this finding will be published in the Astronomical Journal December 20, 2005.
Indeed.
Your challenge is to show that it is compatible with your CC idea, and (specifically) show how representative it is, given selection bias, systematic effects, etc.
Remember, you're here to answer questions about your idea, not throw rocks at mainstream theories!
(I know you've said that your logic is different from this: "mainstream can't account for X, THEREFORE my idea must be right!"; however, so far, it seems to me that you've written little else).
Quote:
Also, infrared observations of the Southern Hemisphere sky with the European Southern Observatory's 8.2-meter Very Large Telescope found the most distant spiral galaxy ever discovered. It is a remarkably complex structure to have form so early on, plus it is as large as the Milky Way.
Spiral galaxies are thought to take billions of years to form. This discovery shows a galaxy that is much more mature than expected for its cosmological distance (age).
Again, your challenge is to show that this is consistent with your CC idea (including all the selection effects, observational bias, etc).
Quote:
Prediction. This is only the beginning Neired. More and more similar observation will be forthcoming (especially when the James Webb Space telescope is launched, 2011) that show large well formed structures (spiral galaxies, barred spirals etc.) with high metallicity (just like in the Local Group). These findings, and others, all contradict big bang cosmology. They are exactly what Coldcreation have been predicting since its outset (1995).
Except that, as far as you've shown so far, none of your 'predictions' are anything more than handwaving!
Quote:
I did read the articles about the supposed CMB being hotter is the past. You're right. They are all inconclusive. I'm afraid this line of investigation will remain inconclusive for some time to come. It's too experimental, biased.
Oh?
Well, we'll see, won't we. (there's an English expression "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." )
Nereid
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Nereid
Find all posts by Nereid
#100 (permalink) 11-November-2005, 02:19 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Good.
Please show the compatibility; please start with the SZE and Gunn-Peterson trough.Reference please! Be prepared to show that your references address all relevant selection edffects and systematic errors.Indeed.
There is absolutely no reason that should make the SZE or GPT solely indicative of the standard model. All alternative cosmology theories of that I am aware of explain the CMB and it relation to the material universe. In fact the CMB and its anistropies do not support the standard model. The only way observations can be made to fit the theroy is to radically twist the parameters. Everyone should know that. And when the parameters are stretched to the limits, 'new physics' takes over, i.e., 'not physics yet.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Your challenge is to show that it is compatible with your CC idea, and (specifically) show how representative it is, given selection bias, systematic effects, etc.
Remember, you're here to answer questions about your idea, not throw rocks at mainstream theories!
This section is called ATM. It should be called alternative theories (as it once was). You don't like words that are against the mainstream, so why call it such. In fact, this ATM section should, according to its denomination, be entirely dedicated to ideas that are against the mainstream, i.e., attacked and criticism. There should be another sections for alternative theories. I've said it before, and here it is again, CC is not against mainstream physics. It is mainstream physics, GR, QM. CC is against mainstream cosmology. I will continue with my critqiue is parallel, for the reasons that I have weeks ago suggested: It is not etched in an isolated mold. Attacks should show why it is untenable, then state alternatives that do not contradict observation or experiment, and that do not require new physics and endless tweaking.
I can give you many examples of physicists that have 'thrown rocks' at the likes of Hoyle, Narlikar, Gold, Bondy, Segal, Arp, MacMillan, Nernst, Millikan etc. That's part of science, albeit, if the 'rocks' are consistent (or inconsistent) with observation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
(I know you've said that your logic is different from this: "mainstream can't account for X, THEREFORE my idea must be right!"; however, so far, it seems to me that you've written little else).Again, your challenge is to show that this is consistent with your CC idea (including all the selection effects, observational bias, etc).Except that, as far as you've shown so far, none of your 'predictions' are anything more than handwaving!Oh?
snip old gander expression
Certainly observations showing old metal-rich galaxies in the redshift desert (a place/era where galaxies were thought to begin forming from some ad hoc primordial yoke) do not alone provide proof that CC is correct. These were only a prediction of Coldcreation. It would have been, of course, detrimental to CC had an epoch of galaxy formation shown up on photographic plates. All we can say for now, then, is that CC has not yet been excluded from the discussion.
The standard model did predict that an era of galaxy formation should be visible (in the near-infrared part of the spectrum), that there should be no large, old, metal-rich galaxies at those 'early' times. The discovery of such have been conclusive in providing observational evidence that clearly violates the standard hierarchial galaxy formation model.
In another way, the Hubble Ultra Deep Fields offer clear evidence against hierarchical evolution of galaxies from fragmentary star clusters to "pathological" colliding galaxies, to full spirals and ellipticals. It is the strongest direct contradictory visual evidence against cosmological evolution according to BB cosmology. This is all inconsistent with the hot big bang/cold dark matter cosmology where the universe expands from a hot dense state., where matter cools and coagulates and triggers the onset of star formation.
So, is the big bang dead? I, personally, have already removed my sunglasses. Though I recomend awaiting until further evidence to comes in from the James Webb Space Telescope.
There are many more large spirals on the horizon. The universe is not 13.7, 14.7, 15 or even 20 billion years old. It has no age. Some of those distant galaxies are just like ours. The other are like the ones in our local group (meaning that some of the objects in the universe have been here at least 30 Gyrs: another dilemma likely not to delight astronomers). BANG.
Coldcreation
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#101 (permalink) 12-November-2005, 04:40 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Good.
Remember, you're here to answer questions about your idea, not throw rocks at mainstream theories!
)
To limit the narrative account of the key influences on Cold Creation cosmology to the post-1917 period invites one most important criticism: that it is like making a study of contemporary art that ignores its origins, its roots, its stem and perhaps its primary branching points. Hopefully, the most significant developments will stand out. Since my focus is on the circumstances and implication of Cold Creation as a theory that describes the long-drawn-out history of the universe and its progression with time, I see these constraints as unavoidable. Only if this venture were essentially a linear one, committed to an idyllic evolutionary analysis of modern cosmology in terms of movements, could they be shortcoming.
It may be contemplated the motivation for which so much ink-energy is transformed into the present critique of modern cosmology and its hybrid comicological event. Why not dedicate this thread solely to Cold Creation instead of advertising, even negatively, the contraindications of a pill one should never swallow?
There is an inane aura of entertaining statuary monumentality in mans creation to which people tend to gravitate. Not because the standard model is attractive of beautiful - it contains many disagreeable features - but because of its pristine symbolism, its hellish power and outlandish force. Its tortured deliberate and humorously outrageous legacy lives on, however, horrifically enshrined. It's fun and so easy to criticize. The difficulty is creating a new theory that does not break-down somewhere along the line, or like the big bang, right from the start.
Coldcreation
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#102 (permalink) 12-November-2005, 06:16 PM
Nereid
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,269
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
There is absolutely no reason that should make the SZE or GPT solely indicative of the standard model. All alternative cosmology theories of that I am aware of explain the CMB and it relation to the material universe. In fact the CMB and its anistropies do not support the standard model. The only way observations can be made to fit the theroy is to radically twist the parameters. Everyone should know that. And when the parameters are stretched to the limits, 'new physics' takes over, i.e., 'not physics yet.'
Let me ask this again, perhaps in a slightly different way.
CC claims to have a cosmology (it's an idea, it might become a theory) which is different ('alternative') to the consensus model.
The peer-reviewed astronomy literature contains many papers on the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect and the Gunn-Peterson trough, including some detailing observations which the authors claim are of these.
ColdCreation, please show that your CC ideas are consistent with the observational results, published in the literature, of the SZE and Gunn-Peterson trough. I recognise that you may consider what was observed as quite different from the effects claimed (in consensus cosmology); nonetheless, for your idea to have legs, it must account for these observations.
Quote:
This section is called ATM. It should be called alternative theories (as it once was). You don't like words that are against the mainstream, so why call it such. In fact, this ATM section should, according to its denomination, be entirely dedicated to ideas that are against the mainstream, i.e., attacked and criticism. There should be another sections for alternative theories. I've said it before, and here it is again, CC is not against mainstream physics. It is mainstream physics, GR, QM. CC is against mainstream cosmology. I will continue with my critqiue is parallel, for the reasons that I have weeks ago suggested: It is not etched in an isolated mold. Attacks should show why it is untenable, then state alternatives that do not contradict observation or experiment, and that do not require new physics and endless tweaking.
I can give you many examples of physicists that have 'thrown rocks' at the likes of Hoyle, Narlikar, Gold, Bondy, Segal, Arp, MacMillan, Nernst, Millikan etc. That's part of science, albeit, if the 'rocks' are consistent (or inconsistent) with observation.
So you have said, many times.
I, for one, am waiting for you to show that your idea is consistent with good observational and experimental results; I am challenging you to show such consistency with specific sets of observations.
Quote:
Certainly observations showing old metal-rich galaxies in the redshift desert (a place/era where galaxies were thought to begin forming from some ad hoc primordial yoke) do not alone provide proof that CC is correct. These were only a prediction of Coldcreation. It would have been, of course, detrimental to CC had an epoch of galaxy formation shown up on photographic plates. All we can say for now, then, is that CC has not yet been excluded from the discussion.
The standard model did predict that an era of galaxy formation should be visible (in the near-infrared part of the spectrum), that there should be no large, old, metal-rich galaxies at those 'early' times. The discovery of such have been conclusive in providing observational evidence that clearly violates the standard hierarchial galaxy formation model.
In another way, the Hubble Ultra Deep Fields offer clear evidence against hierarchical evolution of galaxies from fragmentary star clusters to "pathological" colliding galaxies, to full spirals and ellipticals. It is the strongest direct contradictory visual evidence against cosmological evolution according to BB cosmology. This is all inconsistent with the hot big bang/cold dark matter cosmology where the universe expands from a hot dense state., where matter cools and coagulates and triggers the onset of star formation.
So, is the big bang dead? I, personally, have already removed my sunglasses. Though I recomend awaiting until further evidence to comes in from the James Webb Space Telescope.
There are many more large spirals on the horizon. The universe is not 13.7, 14.7, 15 or even 20 billion years old. It has no age. Some of those distant galaxies are just like ours. The other are like the ones in our local group (meaning that some of the objects in the universe have been here at least 30 Gyrs: another dilemma likely not to delight astronomers). BANG.
Let's try again.
What, specifically, quantitatively, does the CC idea have to say about the following:
- galaxy evolution?
- quasar evolution?
- large-scale structure, and its evolution?
- the nature of 'dark matter'?
So far, I have seen only two quantitative prediction from the CC idea: the temperature of the 'CMB' will trend to zero with distance (from us), and "there should be no more than a 10 to 15% difference in chemical elements at cosmological distance (extending out to the horizon)". So far, the first quantitative prediction is inconsistent with observational results (though these results have large error bars), and the second is too vague to be subject to testing.
In addition, quite a few specific questions about the CC idea remain unanswered (I'll compile a list in a week or so, if they remain unanswered).
Nereid
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Nereid
Find all posts by Nereid
#103 (permalink) 16-November-2005, 05:53 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Let me ask this again, perhaps in a slightly different way.
CC claims to have a cosmology (it's an idea, it might become a theory) which is different ('alternative') to the consensus model.
The peer-reviewed astronomy literature contains many papers on the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect and the Gunn-Peterson trough, including some detailing observations which the authors claim are of these.
ColdCreation, please show that your CC ideas are consistent with the observational results, published in the literature, of the SZE and Gunn-Peterson trough. I recognise that you may consider what was observed as quite different from the effects claimed (in consensus cosmology); nonetheless, for your idea to have legs, it must account for these observations.So you have said, many times.
I, for one, am waiting for you to show that your idea is consistent with good observational and experimental results; I am challenging you to show such consistency with specific sets of observations.Let's try again.
What, specifically, quantitatively, does the CC idea have to say about the following:
- galaxy evolution?
- quasar evolution?
- large-scale structure, and its evolution?
- the nature of 'dark matter'?
So far, I have seen only two quantitative prediction from the CC idea: the temperature of the 'CMB' will trend to zero with distance (from us), and "there should be no more than a 10 to 15% difference in chemical elements at cosmological distance (extending out to the horizon)". So far, the first quantitative prediction is inconsistent with observational results (though these results have large error bars), and the second is too vague to be subject to testing.
In addition, quite a few specific questions about the CC idea remain unanswered (I'll compile a list in a week or so, if they remain unanswered).
Good questions Nereid, so specific, pointed and well-schooled, especially on the SZE and GPT.
It will take me a couple of days to get back to you on those. My G4 is in the shop. I should have it back Monday.
I will note though, the possibility that the CMB is cooler in the lookback time (albeit only slightly) can in principle be tested.
Secondly, you say grosso modo that the differences in chemical elements at cosmological distance with the local abundance is too vague to be subject to testing. This is absolutely not the case. There are many studies underway (see GOODS, HUDF, for example) that are doing just that. All of the reports I've seen indicate that metallicity is higher than expected in high redshift objects, that the abundance of heavy elements is not in agreement with mainstream (standar model) predictions; according to which there should be very small, if any, traces of heavy elements. I will furnish you with a list of peer reviewed papers about it, if you'de like.
Not to mention (as I've already done so) that the search for large, well formed galaxies (see too HUDF) is underway with at least one catch, a huge one. Bang...
Coldcreation
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#104 (permalink) 26-November-2005, 06:14 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
snip
The peer-reviewed astronomy literature contains many papers on the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect and the Gunn-Peterson trough, including some detailing observations which the authors claim are of these.
ColdCreation, please show that your CC ideas are consistent with the observational results, published in the literature, of the SZE and Gunn-Peterson trough. I recognise that you may consider what was observed as quite different from the effects claimed (in consensus cosmology); nonetheless, for your idea to have legs, it must account for these observations.So you have said, many times.
Gunn-Peterson Decrement:
I have no gripes or qualms with the Gunn-Peterson absorption trough and it's mainstream interpretation. Every one had suspected the presence of intergalactic neutral hydrogen, so now we detect it. This observation is not providing evidence for, or against, mainstream cosmology. It does not provide evidence for or against alternative theories either.
Recall that according to Coldcreation theory the large redshifts exhibited by quasars are due to a combination of effects: (1) Doppler redshift when the motion is away from the observer, (2) intrinsic gravitational redshift and (3) a general cosmological redshift generated by the curvature of spacetime on the large scale (a general relativistic effect). Therefore the Gunn-Peterson absorption trough is a typical decrement spectrum present, and in fact obligatory, in many high-redshift objects when our line of sight passes through discrete clouds of diffuse luke-warm ionized intergalactic gas.
Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect:
Had these distortions not been observed it simply would have meant that there was no intergalactic gas. The fact that this effect is observable, then, shows that there is an operational Compton scattering process of a Plank distribution along certain sight lines that pass through intergalactic gas (as well as through the CMB) distorting the photon spectrum continua in the Rayleigh-Jeans and Wien region.
I will be back for the rest of your queries, shortly. What fallows will be important.
Coldcreation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
I, for one, am waiting for you to show that your idea is consistent with good observational and experimental results; I am challenging you to show such consistency with specific sets of observations.Let's try again.
What, specifically, quantitatively, does the CC idea have to say about the following:
- galaxy evolution?
- quasar evolution?
- large-scale structure, and its evolution?
- the nature of 'dark matter'?
So far, I have seen only two quantitative prediction from the CC idea: the temperature of the 'CMB' will trend to zero with distance (from us), and "there should be no more than a 10 to 15% difference in chemical elements at cosmological distance (extending out to the horizon)". So far, the first quantitative prediction is inconsistent with observational results (though these results have large error bars), and the second is too vague to be subject to testing.
In addition, quite a few specific questions about the CC idea remain unanswered (I'll compile a list in a week or so, if they remain unanswered).
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#105 (permalink) 26-November-2005, 08:43 PM
Faultline
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Wow, Faultline, you really don't like infinity...Do you like zero?
Remember though, that no matter how large in spatial extent is the universe, one atom of hydrogen per cubic meter is not infinite density, or infinite mass.
Coldcreation
I have as much problem with "zero" as I do "infinity." Which is to say that I don't have a problem with either. What I like and dislike has nothing to do with science.
But I would have a problem if you said the size of the universe was zero!
Its only when someone tries to claim that the universe is infinite that I balk. Where's the observation or experiment that supports that assumption?
__________________
My son is my universe.
Faultline
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Faultline
Find all posts by Faultline
#106 (permalink) 26-November-2005, 09:13 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faultline
I have as much problem with "zero" as I do "infinity." Which is to say that I don't have a problem with either. What I like and dislike has nothing to do with science.
But I would have a problem if you said the size of the universe was zero!
Its only when someone tries to claim that the universe is infinite that I balk. Where's the observation or experiment that supports that assumption?
The fact that no boundary in space is possible without creating an untenable paradox (e.g., a four-dimensional sphere that has the bizarre feature of allowing the coiling of time around itself, leading to the hypothetical prospect of an observer experiencing his own past, you could meet your mother before you were born, or a singularity at the horizon, infinite density, etc) leads me to the natural approach: discard the boundary condition. The result is a universe that is unbounded, infinite in spatiotemporal extent.
Where, by the way Faultline, is the observation or experiment that shows the universe is finite?
C o l d c r e a t i o n
#107 (permalink) 27-November-2005, 07:01 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
What, specifically, quantitatively, does the CC idea have to say about the following:
- galaxy evolution?
- quasar evolution?
- large-scale structure, and its evolution?
- the nature of 'dark matter'?
So far, I have seen only two quantitative prediction from the CC idea: the temperature of the 'CMB' will trend to zero with distance (from us), and "there should be no more than a 10 to 15% difference in chemical elements at cosmological distance (extending out to the horizon)". snip
In addition, quite a few specific questions about the CC idea remain unanswered (I'll compile a list in a week or so, if they remain unanswered).
Dark Matter:
All dark matter is baryonic, consisting of brown dwarfs, rocks, dust, hydrogen, etc., material made of protons, neutron and electrons. There exists no such thing as "dark matter" consisting of non-baryonic stuff.
Galaxy and large-scale structure an evolution:
Without going into a tedious astrophysical analysis let's consider the cosmological origin of structures that must have condensed from remarkably homogenous and isotropic density perturbations from the mean background density. Once the perturbations diminish in amplitude (and while they increase in intensity) their development becomes increasingly non-linear and they steadily evolve toward semi-bound structures during which star formation and other astrophysical process lead toward different types of galaxies.
Recall that in the expanding universe theories cosmologists seek to explain how density fluctuations grow and yet still concentrate in areas where stars and galaxies form-a problem that has given rise to some of the most difficult problems of modern cosmology. In these models galaxies must have formed late in the universe judging from their typical mean densities now.
But recent evidence from Hubble Space telescope shows that extremely distance galaxies are rich in metallicity, implying they're already quit old, that the stars contained in them have had billions of years to synthesize heavy elements. Indeed, we suspect that galaxies situated say ten billion light years away are (were) already 10, 20 or 30 billion years old.
In contrast to the algebraic growth of perturbations found in the expanding universe case-the origin of the problems of galaxy formation by gravitational collapse - the growth of galaxies and the compression of perturbations in the case of a non-expanding Coldcreation universe is exponential. In other words, the growth rate of the instabilities associated with galaxy development is not linear but corresponds to a measured deviation (exponential) between the scale factors with cosmic epoch.
And this behavior would apply to fluctuations of any physical scale, including those of wavelengths much greater than the scale of the visible universe. This follows from the same reasoning we used in discussing local and global stability earlier in in this thread.
Quasar evolution:
This obviously depend on what are quasars. The Coldcreation interpretation is simple. They are compact grouping of stars, so tightly bonded that contact occurs between them causing high energy interactions. Their redshift is, again, gravitational and Doppler, superimposed onto the general cosmological curvature of spacetime...
to be continued...
Coldcreation
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#108 (permalink) 29-November-2005, 02:31 PM
Nereid
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,269
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Gunn-Peterson Decrement:
This is important, as a possible test of CC's idea, because (to quote him, from an earlier post in this thread): "There should be little evolution in the lookback time, not the old radiation dominated era, then protostar, proto-galaxy formation, galaxy formation, large-scale structure formation (as in the standard model)."
In the mainstream view, the early universe (after the surface of last scattering, and for several hundred million years - the duration is not yet well constrained) was opaque to UV blue-ward of the Lyman limit, as the universe was filled with neutral H. As stars and galaxies got going, the inter-cluster and inter-galactic H was ionised, and space became transparent to such UV. IOW, if detected in good observations, it would be a strong, independent indication that the universe has undergone considerable evolution.
Quote:
I have no gripes or qualms with the Gunn-Peterson absorption trough and it's mainstream interpretation. Every one had suspected the presence of intergalactic neutral hydrogen, so now we detect it. This observation is not providing evidence for, or against, mainstream cosmology.
So why is the universe (apparently) transparent to UV (below ~90 nm), out to z ~6? Why don't we see intergalactic neutral H in our 'hood (out to, say, 10 Mpc)?
Quote:
It does not provide evidence for or against alternative theories either.
This is what I'm asking you about - it's only detected in high-z objects, so how can any alternative cosmology (with 'little evolution in the lookback time') account for it?
Quote:
Recall that according to Coldcreation theory the large redshifts exhibited by quasars are due to a combination of effects: (1) Doppler redshift when the motion is away from the observer, (2) intrinsic gravitational redshift and (3) a general cosmological redshift generated by the curvature of spacetime on the large scale (a general relativistic effect). Therefore the Gunn-Peterson absorption trough is a typical decrement spectrum present, and in fact obligatory, in many high-redshift objects when our line of sight passes through discrete clouds of diffuse luke-warm ionized intergalactic gas.
And why are these clouds only observed in high-z objects? Or, more accurately, why does there appear to be an 'evolution' of these clouds (the further back you look, the more of them there are)?
Quote:
Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect:
Had these distortions not been observed it simply would have meant that there was no intergalactic gas. The fact that this effect is observable, then, shows that there is an operational Compton scattering process of a Plank distribution along certain sight lines that pass through intergalactic gas (as well as through the CMB) distorting the photon spectrum continua in the Rayleigh-Jeans and Wien region.
So perhaps I have misunderstood what the CMB is, in the CC idea.
Earlier you wrote:
Quote:
Note though, according to CC, [...] [t]he radiation is to a large extent independent of cosmic epoch (in that it has taken an infinite amount of time, with an energy level jump in the past 600-250 Gyrs) to reach the observed 2.726 K, and too, since the CMB is independent of redshift z (of the general relativistic spacetime curvature interpretation of z). It is a non-linear regime.
Are you saying that the observed CMB originates in the very distant universe? Or that it originates everywhere (and travels throughout the universe)?
If the former, then your CC idea and mainstream cosmology can't be distinguised (by observations of the SZE, at least not with today's telescopes and instruments); if the latter, then won't there be a big difference (in the CC idea, the SZE will become fainter the further away the rich cluster is)?
#109 (permalink) 29-November-2005, 03:14 PM
Nereid
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,269
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Dark Matter:
All dark matter is baryonic, consisting of brown dwarfs, rocks, dust, hydrogen, etc., material made of protons, neutron and electrons. There exists no such thing as "dark matter" consisting of non-baryonic stuff.
This is a commonly held idea, among those who seem not to have taken the time to check the good observational results.
For several decades now, astronomers have been amassing impressive sets of null results in searches for baryonic DM, in the form of dwarf stars and other compact objects (MACHOs, probed by several teams, e.g. MACHO; I think it's clear now that at least the Milky Way halo DM cannot be MACHOs, down to planet-size), dust (e.g. ISO - it failed to find anywhere near enough dust in rich clusters, to account for the DM), and gas (the lack of absorption or emission lines, from X-ray to radio, rules out DM as gas).
Two challenges for you, CC: show that DM in the form of compact objects, dust, or gas meets the twin constraints of observational non-detection and estimated mass of DM (derived from observations), OR show how the limits on baryonic DM (in these forms), derived from the many, many observations are consistently too stringent.
Wrt moon-sized compact objects down to pebbles: these cannot really be ruled out by direct observation (AFAIK). However, IF the DM were in this form, it would have a rather odd size (or mass) distribution function. Please explain how such an odd population could be created and maintained, in your CC idea (I guess you also have to show that it's an equilibrium population; in the CC idea, the universe is very, very old).
Quote:
Galaxy and large-scale structure an evolution:
Without going into a tedious astrophysical analysis let's consider the cosmological origin of structures that must have condensed from remarkably homogenous and isotropic density perturbations from the mean background density. Once the perturbations diminish in amplitude (and while they increase in intensity) their development becomes increasingly non-linear and they steadily evolve toward semi-bound structures during which star formation and other astrophysical process lead toward different types of galaxies.
Recall that in the expanding universe theories cosmologists seek to explain how density fluctuations grow and yet still concentrate in areas where stars and galaxies form-a problem that has given rise to some of the most difficult problems of modern cosmology. In these models galaxies must have formed late in the universe judging from their typical mean densities now.
But recent evidence from Hubble Space telescope shows that extremely distance galaxies are rich in metallicity, implying they're already quit old, that the stars contained in them have had billions of years to synthesize heavy elements. Indeed, we suspect that galaxies situated say ten billion light years away are (were) already 10, 20 or 30 billion years old.
First, we're discussion your CC idea, not mainstream ones (IIRC, I have drawn your attention to the need to stay focussed on your idea, several times).
Second, the HST found only one such galaxy, didn't it?
Third, if you wish to use these kinds of implications and suspicions (your own - who else is 'we'?) in making your case, then you will be open to my use of stronger implications to claim inconsistencies with your idea (e.g. the CMBR was hotter in the past), won't you?
Quote:
In contrast to the algebraic growth of perturbations found in the expanding universe case-the origin of the problems of galaxy formation by gravitational collapse - the growth of galaxies and the compression of perturbations in the case of a non-expanding Coldcreation universe is exponential. In other words, the growth rate of the instabilities associated with galaxy development is not linear but corresponds to a measured deviation (exponential) between the scale factors with cosmic epoch.
This seems to suggest that large-scale structure can arise in the CC idea. Have you done the 'tedious astrophysical analysis' to show that CC predictions match good observational results? If so, what did such analyses show? Specifically, what does the 'CC red curve' look like on a k-P(k) plot?
Quote:
And this behavior would apply to fluctuations of any physical scale, including those of wavelengths much greater than the scale of the visible universe. This follows from the same reasoning we used in discussing local and global stability earlier in in this thread.
I note that you seem to have NOT answered the question about galaxy evolution - in the CC idea, what differences are expected in the nature of galaxies and the mix of galaxy types, by z?
Quote:
Quasar evolution:
This obviously depend on what are quasars. The Coldcreation interpretation is simple. They are compact grouping of stars, so tightly bonded that contact occurs between them causing high energy interactions. Their redshift is, again, gravitational and Doppler, superimposed onto the general cosmological curvature of spacetime...
We need to explore this further, I suspect.
In the CC idea, how does the observed z of a quasar relate to its distance? What is the 'fuzz' that is observed around quasars (resolved as 'galaxy host' in high-res HST observations, among others)? Why does the incidence of fuzz seem to decline with z? How are quasars related to AGNs? to Seyferts? to BL Lac objects?
I also note that you seem to have not yet told us about the relative amounts of gravitational, doppler, and general cosmological curvature z, in various classes of object - would you be so kind?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Nereid : 30-November-2005 at 02:38 AM. Reason: fixed [ quote ] tags
#110 (permalink) 26-December-2005, 11:21 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
This is a commonly held idea, among those who seem not to have taken the time to check the good observational results.
For several decades now, astronomers have been amassing impressive sets of null results in searches for baryonic DM, in the form of dwarf stars and other compact objects (MACHOs, probed by several teams, e.g. MACHO; I think it's clear now that at least the Milky Way halo DM cannot be MACHOs, down to planet-size), dust (e.g. ISO - it failed to find anywhere near enough dust in rich clusters, to account for the DM), and gas (the lack of absorption or emission lines, from X-ray to radio, rules out DM as gas).
Two challenges for you, CC: show that DM in the form of compact objects, dust, or gas meets the twin constraints of observational non-detection and estimated mass of DM (derived from observations), OR show how the limits on baryonic DM (in these forms), derived from the many, many observations are consistently too stringent.
Wrt moon-sized compact objects down to pebbles: these cannot really be ruled out by direct observation (AFAIK). However, IF the DM were in this form, it would have a rather odd size (or mass) distribution function. Please explain how such an odd population could be created and maintained, in your CC idea (I guess you also have to show that it's an equilibrium population; in the CC idea, the universe is very, very old).First, we're discussion your CC idea, not mainstream ones (IIRC, I have drawn your attention to the need to stay focussed on your idea, several times).
Second, the HST found only one such galaxy, didn't it?
Third, if you wish to use these kinds of implications and suspicions (your own - who else is 'we'?) in making your case, then you will be open to my use of stronger implications to claim inconsistencies with your idea (e.g. the CMBR was hotter in the past), won't you?This seems to suggest that large-scale structure can arise in the CC idea. Have you done the 'tedious astrophysical analysis' to show that CC predictions match good observational results? If so, what did such analyses show? Specifically, what does the 'CC red curve' look like on a k-P(k) plot?I note that you seem to have NOT answered the question about galaxy evolution - in the CC idea, what differences are expected in the nature of galaxies and the mix of galaxy types, by z?We need to explore this further, I suspect.
In the CC idea, how does the observed z of a quasar relate to its distance? What is the 'fuzz' that is observed around quasars (resolved as 'galaxy host' in high-res HST observations, among others)? Why does the incidence of fuzz seem to decline with z? How are quasars related to AGNs? to Seyferts? to BL Lac objects?
I also note that you seem to have not yet told us about the relative amounts of gravitational, doppler, and general cosmological curvature z, in various classes of object - would you be so kind?
Happy festivities, I'm kicking it old school in Madrid.
Ok. Good questions again Nereid.
Once back to Barcelona I will iron out some answers to the grouping of detailed questions. This is not my computer.
I would like to inject quickly though from here.
I wouldn't jump to the hasty conclusion that rotational curves of certain stars in galaxies, often to fast to be accounted for by mass-density estimates, has something to do with nonbaryonic dark matter.
Neither would I conclude that galaxies near the visible horizon are products of merging or canabalism. Yes, for now one galaxy has been found that appears to be out of place in a primitive universe, metal rich and extremely large. The Coldcreation prediction is that many more will be found, perhaps not quite as large, but with high metallicity and spiral structures of the kind that require millions of years to form.
Coldcreation
#111 (permalink) 27-December-2005, 06:36 AM
Thanatos
Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: midwest
Posts: 855
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting exchange. Other facts to consider:
What Do We Really Know About Cosmic Acceleration?
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512586
Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201
Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9812133
The Supernova Legacy Survey: Measurement of Omega_M, Omega_Lambda and w from the First Year Data Set
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510447.
Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
#112 (permalink) 27-December-2005, 06:38 AM
Thanatos
Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: midwest
Posts: 855
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good points all, Cold. How about constraining these constraints with your model?
#113 (permalink) 27-December-2005, 01:41 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanatos
Interesting exchange. Other facts to consider:
What Do We Really Know About Cosmic Acceleration?
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512586
Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201
Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9812133
The Supernova Legacy Survey: Measurement of Omega_M, Omega_Lambda and w from the First Year Data Set
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510447.
Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
Interesting Thanatos that all the links above are specific to the so-called accelerating universe, or more exactly, the deviation from the predicted Hubble relationship between redshift and apparent magnitude.
I was wondering why you would pick out these particular articles, as opposed to one related to, say, the temperature of the CMB, or creation of the light elements, or even, the abundance of heavy metals in high-redshift galxies.
Do you feel the SNeIa survey has something more to offer than the current mainstream interpretation? If so, what more can it possibly highlight, and if not, why the five links?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanatos
Good points all, Cold. How about constraining these constraints with your model?]
Yes, the following items should be constrained?
(1) The redshift z interpretation according to the Einstein, de Sitter, Ellis, Coldcreation curved spacetime effect on the wave packet (through 19 octaves of the spectrum) of photons emited at astronomical distances?
(2) The abundance of light elements according to the Hoyle, Burbidge, Coldcreation creation through stellar processes, i.e., their non-premordial origin?
(3) The abundance of heavy elements at ultra-high redshift z, and the way around the age crisis?
(4) The CMB local and global considerations, its physical essence and evolution with time.
Coldcreation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Coldcreation : 28-December-2005 at 11:52 PM.
#114 (permalink) 29-December-2005, 01:40 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
First, we're discussion your CC idea, not mainstream ones (IIRC, I have drawn your attention to the need to stay focussed on your idea..).
It's important to keep the sandard model visible, especially in forums where some may not be aware of the predictions generated by such. For example, Coldcreation predicts high metallicity at high redshift z. The standard model predicts low metallicity, if any, at high z. The comparison factor is essential, really at all times. Why? because the standard model is the onw to which all other competing models need to be compared. You may know the model well enough, but others may not.
Certainly, the main thrust here is to highlight an alternative model that agrees with observation and makes predictions that are testable (i.e., falsifiable).
As far as the CMB, I'm working on a technique to determine if the radiation was, as CC predicts, cooler in the past, and not warmer, as predicted by big bang-type cosmologies.
Regards for now, back soon
Coldcreation
PS. I was wondering if anyone out there in cyberspacetime had a method that could potentially be used to test the thermal history of the CMB (even in principle).
#115 (permalink) 29-December-2005, 03:01 PM
johninf
Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To quote you:
'2) There was no beginning to the universe.'
Therefore it always was!
There was no creation event cold or otherwise. stars and galaxies have always been!
Energy, matter(Einstiens frozen energy) vannot be created...nor destroyed.
Galaxies are eternal.........they collide sometimes and make other ones.
They get bigger depending on the ammont of dust they collect.
Then parts of them go into dust again with supernovae!
Thenthe dust collects again and new stars are born.
I have an aidea universallity is at work and if a few stars in a cluster go nova
thay all will make enormous dust clouds which span milloions of lught years.
johninf
johninf
View Public Profile
Find all posts by johninf
#116 (permalink) 29-December-2005, 06:46 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by johninf
To quote you:
'2) There was no beginning to the universe.'
Therefore it always was!
There was no creation event cold or otherwise. stars and galaxies have always been!
Energy, matter(Einstiens frozen energy) cannot be created...nor destroyed.
Galaxies are eternal.........they collide sometimes and make other ones.
They get bigger depending on the ammont of dust they collect.
Then parts of them go into dust again with supernovae!
Thenthe dust collects again and new stars are born.
I have an aidea universallity is at work and if a few stars in a cluster go nova
thay all will make enormous dust clouds which span milloions of lught years.
johninf
Actually, I wrote 'There was no beginning to the universe' but your extrapolations from the phrase do not correspond with the Coldcreation theory. It sounds more like quasi-steady state cosmology QSSC.
Coldcreation
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Coldcreation
Visit Coldcreation's homepage!
Find all posts by Coldcreation
#117 (permalink) 30-December-2005, 12:18 AM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanatos
Good points all, Cold. How about constraining these constraints with your model?
Yes Thanatos. Great idea. Thanks for the good points.
#118 (permalink) 02-January-2006, 02:02 PM
johninf
Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time does not dilate.
the theory is proposed just to satisfy the big bang
johninf
View Public Profile
Find all posts by johninf
#119 (permalink) 03-January-2006, 04:46 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by johninf
Time does not dilate.
the theory is proposed just to satisfy the big bang
Welcome johninf,
A full description of the experiments designed to test both gravitational redshift and time dilation phenomena can be found in any physics library: Including the 1959 recording of a radar echo from the planet Venus; the 1960 Pound and Rebka laboratory measurement of the gravitational redshift of light; using nuclear magnetic resonance techniques, the Hughes-Drever experiment of 1959-60 and a more recent experiment at the US National Bureau of Standards confirmed local Lorentz invariance to a high degree of precision. In 1976 Vessot and Levine of Harvard in collaboration with NASA, compared extraordinarily precise hydrogen maser clocks, one flown on a Scout D rocket, the other ground based, measured gravitational frequency shifts as a function of altitude in the curved field of the Earth (Will 1989).
Time dilation due to gravity is not a theory.
The other time dilation is due to motion (as in the big bang theory).
Coldcreation
#120 (permalink) 04-January-2006, 08:44 AM
Thanatos
Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: midwest
Posts: 855
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Yes Thanatos. Great idea. Thanks for the good points.
Try starting with your favorite background metric. GR uses the Friedmann model. What background metric do you prefer? Since you are bucking that model, I think it's a very fair question.
Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5
04-January-2006, 05:39 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanatos
Try starting with your favorite background metric. GR uses the Friedmann model. What background metric do you prefer? Since you are bucking that model, I think it's a very fair question.
Hello Thanatos,
Yes, my favorite metric.
Just a little detail first: GR does not use the Friedmann metric, as you erroneously wrote. The Friedmann model uses GR, which in turn uses Riemann space, or Gaussian metric of constant curvature. But, worthy to note is that a GR metric is not essential for the Friedmann model(s), Newtonian mechanics will do just fine.
The Hubble law considers space and time separately in determining the space-time coordinates in other coordinate systems, i.e., those of other galaxies - a clear violation of the principle of general relativity, which states that the world of events forms a four-dimensional continuum. Modern cosmology and its standard expanding model describes a Newtonian world of events as a dynamic inertial picture changing in time and hurled onto the background of three-dimensional flat space, rather than as a static picture on the background of a four-dimensional curved spacetime continuum, where Einstein's gravitation plays the key role.
Certainly, the so-called expansion is considered a relative expansion, or relative motion. Nevertheless, this apparent absolute motion is only of special relativistic character. The general relativistic nature of the expanding model remains highly ambiguous in that the structure of the universe remains unknown, and only depends on a 'deceleration parameter' or the velocity of recession
The inherent designation of the spatiotemporal quantity gives the metric in the manifold. The resulting multi-dimensional curvature, or, 'bending of 3-space,' transforms the distances between points and alters the rate of clocks as measured from the relative location of the observer. It may be noted that Riemann's spaces of constant curvature arose from the physical requirement that “figures” move in such a space without contractions or expansions (Monastyrsky 1979, 1987).
It later became clear that Lobachevskian space (often referred to as hyperbolic space) became the Riemannian space of constant negative curvature that would subsequently find application within the framework of Einstein's principle of general relativity.
My main objective is to define the dimension of space and to determine the geometrical structure that best describes physical space.
It will probably come as no surprise that Cold Creation is founded on the concept that the large-scale geometrical armature of the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is non-Euclidean. The cause of redshift z over the entire range of wavelengths (or frequencies) of the electromagnetic spectrum is interpreted as a global cosmological affect on the propagation of light through the general relativistic curved spacetime manifold (see Ellis, G.F.R 1977, 1978, and Segal 1976-1995 for similar interpretations). In another way, frequencies are lengthened due to the gravitational potential of the constituents in the universe that produce spacetime dilation from our frame of reference.
The use of 'standard candles' such as SNe Ia, have shown the most significant results of global curvature z, especially when probed at great distances.
GR offers the possibility of coalescence of different strategies when considering large-scale homogenous fields. If the choices consisted solely of deciding whether to use Kleinian special relativistic geometry in a four-dimensional “field-free” Minkowski spacetime metric, or the general relativistic Riemannian distribution of the manifold, there is no contest.
Bear in mind, the Riemannian multi-dimension spaces of constant positive curvature are precisely what led to the globally homogenous spherically symmetrical finite universe with an attitude: the infamous boundary condition.
This is where the illustrious framework of Lobachevsky's non-Euclidean space, and to a certain extent de Sitters hypersphere, may be considered very closely as more realistic representatives of the global properties of the universe.
A metrically homogenous world is obtained by the equivalence of all points, in all directions - since the change is a continuous transformation - there is no reason why the hyperbolic curvature should not be everywhere continuous in a homogenous playing field.
Further note that we have not yet discussed the evolutionary processes and the potential consequences on the global curvature of the universe. We have previously seen that there is evidence of change in the look-back time, from the topological point of view, that will furnish us with very important information about the development of the cosmos.
Today these observations have been interpreted as acceleration in the velocity of expansion.
Coldcreation
#122 (permalink) 04-January-2006, 06:06 PM
Wolverine
Moderator Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Further note that we have not yet discussed the evolutionary processes and the potential consequences on the global curvature of the universe.
Please elaborate, with references/citations. Thanks.
__________________
• Anecdotal thinking comes naturally; science requires training. -- Michael Shermer • Wolverine's Den •
#123 (permalink) 06-January-2006, 08:02 AM
Thanatos
Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: midwest
Posts: 855
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Hello Thanatos,
Yes, my favorite metric.
Just a little detail first: GR does not use the Friedmann metric, as you erroneously wrote. The Friedmann model uses GR, which in turn uses Riemann space, or Gaussian metric of constant curvature. But, worthy to note is that a GR metric is not essential for the Friedmann model(s), Newtonian mechanics will do just fine.
Correction noted; however, I don't understand how you construct a Friedmann model without using GR.
#124 (permalink) 06-January-2006, 04:23 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanatos
Correction noted; however, I don't understand how you construct a Friedmann model without using GR.
The evolution of a Newtonian universe is identical to the Friedmann models. Gravity is thought of as an attractive force in both models. The only reason to introduce relativity is when (and if) lambda is used, in which case it is nonzero. Otherwise Newtonian mechanics will do just fine. See New Physics, Davies, Guth, Steinhardt, 1989, page 38
cc
#125 (permalink) 06-January-2006, 04:57 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverine
Please elaborate, with references/citations. Thanks.
It would be nice to have references and citations for this part of the Coldcreation theory but there are none (as far as I know).
The short answer:
Any departure from a smooth hyperbolic manifold of continuous curvature will indicate evolution in the look-back time, allowing us to determine whether the universe was more or less dense in the past. With this figure, a reasonable estimation of the rate of evolution will be possible.
Interestingly enough, the deviation from linearity observed in spectra of distant supernovae Type Ia does not contradict the curved spacetime model; on the contrary. It does, however, contradict the assumption of homogeneity on the very large scales. What looks like acceleration in an expanding frame, simply, looks like large-scale inhomogeneity in the look-back time of a stationary universe.
The deviation is related to the evolution of the universe and its gravitational energy density. Note that because the mass of the universe was not as compacted in the past, it was more dilute, so the gravitational curvature was less pronounced, the universe was flatter, therefore, the redshift shows a departure form linearity at great distances. And, the spatiotemporal intervals are dilated with distance from the perspective of any observer.
Coldcreation
#126 (permalink) 07-January-2006, 07:10 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To continue with the thought above:
The compelling preliminary results established by the 1998 supernovae Ia observations show how the geometric armature of the universe differs from those predicted by the expansion loyalists.
The clear conclusions that can be drawn from the data now available established by those armatures give both movement and coherence, which echoes the de Sitter effect in a static universe, or in Hubble's terms, the Einstein-shifts produced by strong gravitational fields.
Recall that the de Sitter solution most interestingly suggested clocks would appear to run more slowly the farther away they were from the observer. Because frequencies are inverse time-intervals, light would be anticipated to have smaller frequencies when received here on Earth, being increasingly redshifted the larger the distance between the observer and the source.
In de Sitter's argot: “The lines in the spectra of very distant stars or nebulae must therefore be systematically displaced towards the red, giving rise to a spurious positive radial velocity.” The use of the word “spurious” (meaning imitation or unauthentic) to describe the apparent velocity was very clever; redshift was an effect of the curved spacetime metric, not a real velocity caused by an expanding space.
From a physical standpoint, de Sitter's non-expanding universe contained a world horizon, a limited distance beyond which light can no longer reach the observer.
It should be stated too that even in a completely empty world model, whether it be de Sitter's or the Milne model, the global geometry of the universe is hyperbolic, as related by the standard Lorenz transformation (Longair, 1993, p. 384). Certainly when that hyperbolicity is included into the calculation of redshift (in addition to the curvature caused by the mass-density of the universe) the missing mass problem is diminished.
So, if we take into consideration evolution in the look-back time (where according to CC the universe was less dense, less gravitationally curved) there will be signs of increasing hyperbolicity, i.e., a deviation from smooth gradation. That is what the SNe Ia data show.
Coldcreation
#127 (permalink) 08-January-2006, 12:25 AM
Wolverine
Moderator Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
It would be nice to have references and citations for this part of the Coldcreation theory but there are none (as far as I know).
Did you ever get around to publishing or uploading the .pdf file you spoke of long ago? What I find problematic is that you haven't expressed your ideas thoroughly enough, proactively. How can readers possess the necessary understanding to address them comprehensively when you haven't put everything on the table? Participating in piecemeal/fragmented discussions really isn't getting the job done.
__________________
• Anecdotal thinking comes naturally; science requires training. -- Michael Shermer • Wolverine's Den •
#128 (permalink) 08-January-2006, 06:44 PM
Coldcreation
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverine
Did you ever get around to publishing or uploading the .pdf file you spoke of long ago? What I find problematic is that you haven't expressed your ideas thoroughly enough, proactively. How can readers possess the necessary understanding to address them comprehensively when you haven't put everything on the table? Participating in piecemeal/fragmented discussions really isn't getting the job done.
Dam good question. It should be online soon (I would have done it myself had my web page not been designed in Flash). I can email it to you if you'de like. Just PM me and be sure to include your email address. That goes for anyone else as well.
cc
#129 (permalink) 09-January-2006, 10:27 AM
Wolverine
Moderator Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
Dam good question. It should be online soon (I would have done it myself had my web page not been designed in Flash). I can email it to you if you'de like. Just PM me and be sure to include your email address. That goes for anyone else as well.
cc
Well, when you have it posted someplace, please PM myself or other members of the forum staff and we'll re-open discussion. Until then, no truly substantive review of your ideas can occur.
__________________
• Anecdotal thinking comes naturally; science requires training. -- Michael Shermer • Wolverine's Den •
Page 5 of 5 http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/33460-coldcreation-cosmology-ultimate-theory-5.html
snoopsnuffleopagus
18-08-2007, 06:34 PM
Hail!!! ed*t:
Very interesting! I see YHWH in the 4d, position of the Third Heaven, bringing this all to be, for the infinite pleasure of His most inquisitive children. Bon Apetite!
Kind Regards!: Snoopsnuffleopagus
'We have broken speed of light'
By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 16/08/2007
A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time.
According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would require an infinite amount of energy to propel an object at more than 186,000 miles per second.
However, Dr Gunter Nimtz and Dr Alfons Stahlhofen, of the University of Koblenz, say they may have breached a key tenet of that theory.
advertisement
The pair say they have conducted an experiment in which microwave photons - energetic packets of light - travelled "instantaneously" between a pair of prisms that had been moved up to 3ft apart.
Being able to travel faster than the speed of light would lead to a wide variety of bizarre consequences.
For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving.
The scientists were investigating a phenomenon called quantum tunnelling, which allows sub-atomic particles to break apparently unbreakable laws.
Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: "For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of."
telegraph.co.uk/earth/main (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml)
Try investigating the 'Tachyon' the tachyon is a quantum particle that travels faster than the speed of light and actually needs an energy to slow it down. If you could observe this tachyon it would actually take you into a time to the first big bang to the future which we haven't encountered yet.
aaaaa :confused:the mind boggles.
Anders Lindman
18-08-2007, 07:57 PM
I didnt really think that way..but now i think that may be the possibility.
Or.. maybe We ARE in the middle of grown up Saturn and the asteroid belt is the expiration-breath-remnant of Saturn ( thats why the L. project/ progect? is going on now 2.. or not? ) ?
I don't know exactly what expiration breath means, but there is a mathematical formula that predicts the orbits of the planets around the sun, and according to it, there should be a planet right where the asteroid belt is today if I remember correctly. Therefore the asteroid belt would be remnants of an entire planet that exploded somewhere in the past. One guess is 12500 years ago if that fits with the stories about great floods and other big events during that time.
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1068/venus18082007tm3.jpg
18-08-2007
http://www.crystalinks.com/siriusmanstars.jpg (http://www.crystalinks.com/ezine.html)
tinmenace
19-08-2007, 03:26 PM
I don't know exactly what expiration breath means, but there is a mathematical formula that predicts the orbits of the planets around the sun, and according to it, there should be a planet right where the asteroid belt is today if I remember correctly. Therefore the asteroid belt would be remnants of an entire planet that exploded somewhere in the past. One guess is 12500 years ago if that fits with the stories about great floods and other big events during that time.
Right! It doesn't seem like the belt could have been created any other way.
Anders Lindman
19-08-2007, 03:34 PM
Right! It doesn't seem like the belt could have been created any other way.
Here's some info about that:
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp
tinmenace
19-08-2007, 03:37 PM
Tach!
Going to read it now.
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp
Formula: distance in au
=0.4+0.3*2(n-2)
inspiration and expiration ..like ..inhalation and exhalation of breath
I read somwhere in some Hindu explanation of Nakshatras that that what Lord of Jupiter inhales so Kumar Sani (The Slow One) Lord exhales .. in a sense ...or so...
p.s. Jupiter' name in Sanskrit means GURU
Regards & * ;)
Oh, and ...My Kind Regards! to U 2 Snoopsnuffleopagus
Anders Lindman
19-08-2007, 04:41 PM
p.s. Jupiter' name in Sanskrit means GURU
http://adishakti.org/images/lalit_bhandari_horoscope.gif
"Gajkesari Yoga or 5th, 9th position of the Moon and Jupiter. This indicates past Punyas, Punya Sanchaya or highly religious past lives."
From:
http://www.adishakti.org/mayan_end_times_12-21-2012/shri_mataji's_horoscope_the_tribulation_and_satya_ yuga.htm
This stuff is over my head. Looks interesting though. :D
Thanks for pointing to the point. :)
I will mark it 2.
http://www.crystalinks.com/newspaperpen.gif
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/images04/venus_transit_Joao_Guimaraes_da_Costa_small.jpg
The transit of Venus as seen..from..yesterday
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/images04/venus_transit_garbincius_small.jpg
http://www.realastro.org.uk/Transit%20image%201%20sml.gif
http://www.koert.com/work/zenvote/jard-zen.jpg
De Zen stemstrategie
Effectief stemmen in een
televisie democratie
door Koert van Mensvoort (http://www.koert.com/work/zenvote/)
Volgens een oude Zen analogie is een heldere geest niet te verkrijgen door activiteit, maar door stilte, zoals een modderige vijver het beste helder te maken is door niet te roeren, maar door hem met rust te laten. Een alternatieve stem strategie. (http://babelfish.altavista.com/)
snoopsnuffleopagus
19-08-2007, 07:18 PM
Hail!!!! Snoop Edit:
A brilliant connection! How about Hon Non Bo? Bon Sei Kai?
Colour me Beaucoup Dhinki Dhao!, kindest regards!!: Snoopsnuffleopagus
http://tijdloze.stijnshome.be/img/icon/song.png4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtW2wLOaa4M)
De.. (http://tijdloze.stijnshome.be/index.php?p=song&q=79)
____ 7____ http://www.ascendpress.org/Community/Plants&Trees/Trees/Plumaria3.jpg
The Twelve Paths of the Red Road Home
From the Native American Ancestor’s point of view, ascension is about forgiveness, forgiving the past so that a new future may be caused that takes one “home”. What is “home”? Home from our point of view is a state of unity where every part of the whole seeks to support the whole in all ways possible; home therefore can be defined as a return of guardianship over the land and over the consensus in which we reside, or the Earth Mother along with one’s species; as all parts of the whole support the whole, then evolution “home’ becomes possible.
ABOUT THE NEW SCRIPTSAlthough the new scripts will allow you to carry on in what you have already known, it will be from the vantage point of greater unity within. The greater the unity develops within, the more greatly you will draw a unity based dream to yourself, and this will cause others who may be dissonant with others to resonate more greatly with oneself creating harmonious relationships in the dance of life, as this is the dream you are holding to experience upon the physical plane.
Mastering dream weaving is a large task. Most humans subordinate to the dreams of others and then wonder why they have a difficult circumstance at home, at the office, at school, with family, with friends, with spiritual teachers and so on. The reason that you have difficult dreams with others is that you are allowing others to command your dream rather than taking charge and commanding unity in all interactions. Dreams also flow unto you due to the thought-form held in the DNA. As the thought-form in the DNA is modified to become internally unity based (crystalline biology is unity based biology), then the dream you can command will naturally also be unity based.
The Native American Ancestors (http://www.ascendpress.org/Community/NativeAmerican/RedNationPaths.htm)
Each journey of spiritual path has a direction that leads one ‘home” within. ______________http://www.ascendpress.org/LoONE/Images/holographicconsensus.jpgAs a result, Earth People are gifted at commanding the human dream of the tribe or of the collective.
_______________________________ http://www.ascendpress.org/language-of-light/images/LOL007.gif
The enormous computer was frequently mistaken for a planet ,..Home Vedic Lessons Index Suggestions (http://www.aryabhatt.com/vediclessons/vediclesson3.htm)
LESSON 3 : ELEMENTARY CONCEPTS OF ASTRONOMY (Part -1)
Vedic Astrology is based on a very sound understanding of astronomy. In ancient India, astronomy was a highly developed subject. Knowledge of astronomy was considered essential for an astrologer. To the ancient Vedic astrologer, such phenomena as the rotation and the revolution of the earth, the formation of seasons, the occurrence of eclipses, the concepts of solar and lunar months, the equinoxes, and the subtle concepts of disposition of planets and stars in the sky, were all well known. Without the availability of the present day sophisticated instruments and telescopes, he was able to decipher fine variations in the disposition of heavenly bodies. The fact that he could take into consideration such fine divisions of time without the electronic/atomic clocks of today is marvellous.
Earth as the centre
The Vedic astrologer was aware that nothing in the universe was stationary. It was, therefore, irrelevant to attempt to pick up a fixed point in the sky, and consider the movements of earth and other heavenly bodies in relation to such a point. He, therefore, considered the position and movement of all heavenly bodies in relation to the earth itself, which was his residence. It is no wonder then that Indian astronomy and astrology consider the earth as the centre, and all other heavenly bodies moving around it in one manner or the other. The Indian astronomy is thus geocentric and not heliocentric which latter considers the Sun as the centre. The Indian astronomer does appreciate the Sun to be the centre of the solar system, but he also appreciates that the Sun, the solar system, as well as the stars are all moving. Hence he considered the pole star Dhruva as the point of relative fixity at the centre of heavenly bodies in the galaxy. With such profound appreciation of astronomy, one can'ts attribute ignorance of the earthly movements to the ancient Indian astronomer.
Zodiac
Imagine a belt or a path in the sky, some 18 degrees of arc in width, running around the earth in an east-west direction. Groups of stars, to all appearance fixed, are studded along this imaginary belt. Twenty seven (or twenty eight!) such groups of stars are recognised in Vedic astrology. Because of lack of apparent motion, these are called as Nakshatras. This imaginary belt, with nakshatras studded on it, is called the zodiac. The zodiac forms the reference point for fixing up the position of any planet or star in the sky. Since it encircles the earth, it is comprised of 360 degrees. The twenty-seven nakshatras being evenly placed on it each have a span of 13'20' arc. The various nakshatras are numbered from one to twenty-seven.
http://www.aryabhatt.com/vediclessons/images/fig3.gif
The zodiac is a 18 deg wide band placed obliquely to the equator.It is divided in 12 rashis and 27 nakshatras.
In contrast to the fixed nakshatras, there are the moving heavenly bodies called the Grahas. These move along the zodiac from the west to the east. They derive their name from the fact that, while moving against the background of the nakshatras, they appear to get hold of one nakshatra after the other (graha = to catch hold of). Vedic astrology recognises nine grahas. They are the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Satrun, Rahu and Ketu. Of these, the Sun is a star, the Moon is a satellite of the earth, Rahu and Ketu are mere mathematical points on the zodiac, while the remaining ones are planets. For the sake of descriptive convenience, we shall refer to all of these as 'planets'. These planets (appear to) revolve around the earth while staying within the limits of the zodiac. The apparent path of the Sun along the zodiac is known as the ecliptic. The ecliptic passes through the centre of the zodiac. It is inclined at an angle of 23'28' to the plane of the equator. The extra-Saturnine planets, called Uranus, Neptune and Pluto has not been considered deliberately as they do not form a part of Vedic astrology.
Signs or Rashis
When the zodiac is divided into twelve equal parts, each such part has an extension of 30 degrees of the arc. Such a division is called a sign or Rashi. A rashi consists of two and a quarter nakshatras. A particular group of stars in the zodiac is considered as the starting point of the zodiac. From this point, the twenty-seven nakshatras or the twelve signs begin. A planet located anywhere along the zodiac may be considered as located in a particular sign, depending upon which twelfth division of the zodiac it is in; it may be considered as being located in a particular nakshatra too, depending upon which twenty seventh division of the zodiac it is in.
The planets from the Sun to Saturn have been allotted the ownership of these signs. While the Sun and the Moon own one sign each, the remaining planets own two signs each. Rahu and Ketu are generally not allotted ownership of these signs. The names of the twelve signs, their planetary lords, and their extent in the zodiac, etc., are given in Table given below :
Table depicting rashis with their lords
Sign English equivalent Symbol Lord Extent in degrees
1 Mesha Aries _ Mars 0-30
2 Vrisha Taurus ^ Venus 30-60
3 Mithuna Gemini ' Mercury 60-90
4 Karka Cancer a Moon 90-120
5 Simha Leo b Sun 120-150
6 Kanya Virgo c Mercury 150-180
7 Tula Libra d Venus 180-210
8 Vrischika Scorpio e Mars 210-240
9 Dhanu Saggitarius f Jupiter 240-270
10 Makara Capricorn g Saturn 270-300
11 Kumbha Aquarius h Saturn 300-330
12 Meena Pisces i Jupiter 330-360
Nakshatras
The twenty-seven nakshatras also extend along the zodiac from 0° to 360°. They too are owned by planets. But in case of nakshatras, the planets Rahu and Ketu are also allotted the ownership. Each nakshatra is further divided into four parts called the Padas or charanas. There are thus 108 nakshatra padas or quarters in the twenty-seven nakshatras. Each nakshatra quarter measures 3°20'. The relation of nakshatras with rashis, along with their extent and owners, are shown in Table given below :
Table depicting rashis,nakshatras and their lords
Rashis
Nakshatras Extent s d m Pada Lord
1 Mesha
1. Ashwini 0s13°20' 4 Ketu
2. Bharani 0s26°40' 4 Venus
3. Krittika 1s0°0' 1 Sun
2 Vrisha
3. Krittika 1s10°0' 3 Sun
4. Rohini 1s23°20' 4 Moon
5. Mrigasira 2s0°0' 2 Mars
3 Mithuna
5. Mrigasira 2s6°40' 2 Mars
6. Ardra 2s20°0' 4 Rahu
7. Punarvasu 3s0°0' 3 Jupiter
4 Karka
7. Punarvasu 3s3°20' 1 Jupiter
8.Pushya 3s16°40' 4 Saturn
9. Ashlesha 4s0°0' 4 Mercury
5 Simha
10. Magha 4s13°20' 4 Mercury
11. P Phalguni 4s26°40' 4 Venus
12. U Phalguni 5s0°0' 1 Sun
6 Kanya
12. U Phalguni 5s10°0' 3 Sun
13. Hasta 5s23°20' 4 Moon
14. Chitra 6s0°0' 2 Mars
7 Tula
14. Chitra 6s6°40' 2 Mars
15.Swati 6s20°0' 4 Rahu
16. Vishakha 7s0°0' 3 Jupiter
8 Vrischika
16. Vishakha 7s3°20' 1 Jupiter
17.Anuradha 7s16°40' 4 Saturn
18. Jyeshtha 8s0°0' 4 Mercury
9 Dhanu
19. Moola 8s13°20' 4 Ketu
20. P Asadha 8s26°40' 4 Venus
21. U Asadha 9s0°0' 1 Sun
10 Makara
21. U Asadha 9s10°0' 3 Sun
22. Shravana 9s23°20' 4 Moon
23. Dhanishtha 10s0°0' 2 Mars
11 Kumbha
23. Dhanishtha 10s6°40' 2 Mars
24. Sata Bhishaj 10s20°0' 4 Rahu
25. P Bhadrapada 11s0°0' 3 Jupiter
12 Meena
25. P Bhadrapada 11s3°20' 1 Jupiter
26. U Bhadrapada 11s16°40' 4 Saturn
27. Revati 12s0°0' 4 Mercury
A segment of the zodiac extending from 276°40'0" to 280°53'20" (equivalent to 6°4'0" to 10°53'20" in the Makara rashi, involving the last quarter of the twenty first (i.e. Uttarashadha) nakshatra and the beginning of the twenty-second (Sharavana), is sometimes considered as a separate nakshatra by the name Abhijit. This addition changes the number of nakshatras to twenty-eight. In such a situation, Abhijit is considered as the twent-second nakshatra, and the subsequent six nakshatras (from Sharavana onwards) assume changed numbers (from 23 to 28, instead of 22 to 27).
Previous (http://www.aryabhatt.com/vediclessons/vediclesson3.htm) Next > The geocentric astronomical framework (http://www.aryabhatt.com/vediclessons/vediclesson4.htm)
(...)Earth as a sphere : The earth is spherical. It rotates from west to east around its axis. The axis of the earth is an imaginary line which, passing through its centre, connects its two poles, the north pole and the south pole. Another imaginary line running across the largest circumference of the earth, equidistant from its poles and running in an east-west direction, is called the equator. The terrestial equator is considered as the zero degree of latitude. Parallels drawn to the equator, either north or south of it, indicate the north or south latitudes, from zero degree at the equator to 90 degrees at either pole.
Imaginary lines can also be drawn on the surface of the earth connecting the north pole to the south pole. Encompassing the circumference of the earth, these correspond to the 360 degrees of longitude. They are also known as the terrestrial meridians. Ancient Vedic astrologers considered the terrestrial meridian passing through Ujjain as the zero degree longitude. At present, the meridian passing through Green witch in England is regarded as corresponding to zero degree of longitude. The longitudes are marked from zero degree to 180 degrees east or west, depending upon whether a place falls to the east or to the west of Greenwitch. The latitude and the longitude of a place are the co-ordinates, which help to locate the place accurately on the surface of the earth. The 360 degrees of terrestrial longitude represent a time span of 24 hours. One hour thus corresponds to 15 degrees, and one degree of terrestrial longitude represents 4 minutes of time.
http://www.aryabhatt.com/vediclessons/images/fig5_a.gif
The equator divides the earth into northern and souther hemispheres.Latitudes and longitudes help locate a place on the surface of the earth.Arrow shows the direction of the earth's rotation from west to east.
The great and the small circles : A great circle is any circle the plane of which passes through the centre of a sphere. Equator is a great circle on the earth, equidistant from the north and south poles. Any circle the plane of which does not pass through the centre of a sphere is called a small circle. As the equator corresponds to zero degree latitude, all parallels to it are small circles, which represent the north or south latitudes.
Imaginary extensions into space : The space around the earth extends to an infinite extent. To us, the extension of space upto the zodiac is of primary importance. Celestrial Sphere is an imaginary projection of the earth in all directions upto infinity. An extension of the plane of terrestial equator into space is called the celestial equator . Any great circle that joins the celestial north and south poles is called a meridian. The meridian of a place corresponds to the terrestrial longitude. The meridian passing through Greenwitch corresponds to zero degree of longitude, and is termed as the Principal meridian or the Standard meridian. The angular distance between the principal meridian and the meridian of a given place (i.e., the angle subtended by the principal meridian and the meridian of a given place, at the centre of the earth) is called the longitude of a place.
The Sun crosses the meridian of a place at mid-day. The intersection of the ecliptic (i.e., the sun's apparent path around the earth) with the meridian of a place is termed as the midheaven which in other words corresponds to the cusp of the tenth house of a horoscope. The meridian of a place thus passes, around the earth, through north pole, midheaven (10th house or zenith), south pole nadir (4th house) and back to the north pole.
Declination and right ascension:
http://www.aryabhatt.com/vediclessons/vediclesson4.htm
Rashies - Rishies - Stars
Imaginary sphere of Earth full of...
Sky full of stars from our point of view..
but...
..from the Moon there you can see only earth without them..?! hmm ..? >
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/AS11-44-6548_lrg.jpg
where are all those stars gone?
Why>?.. there are no pics of..
DO PICTURE'S OF EARTH AMONG THE STARS EXIST (http://www.***********************/bbs/message.php?messageid=425690&mpage=1&showdate=8/17/07&forum=1)
Superman
8/17/2007 7:24 AM DO PICTURE'S OF EARTH AMONG THE STARS EXIST
Quote
I mean like you see the moon among the stars. if those people went to the moon why not take vids and pic's of earth among the stars.
why are these vids or pics not famous if they exist.
Ok...not pin worthy, but cute... (http://www.***********************/bbs/message.php?messageid=426741&mpage=1&showdate=8/19/07&forum=1)
Beingsouthern
http://www.***********************/zgraphicsz/avatars/bonnie_bw.jpg
but cute... (http://www.***********************/bbs/message.php?messageid=426741&mpage=1&showdate=8/19/07&forum=1)
the joker (http://www.***********************/gallery/item.php?itemid=272&category=8)
'...we must consider the axons' (http://www.physorg.com/news106749455.html)
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/1998/35/images/a/formats/web.jpg
Credit: Erich Karkoschka (University of Arizona) and
NASA ....& Published: August 19, 2007 - news (http://www.physorg.com/news106749455.html)
Brain cells work differently than previously thought
alexph777
20-08-2007, 12:47 AM
LOL. Douglas Adams "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" is always a good read! Ideas have been taken from that. Planet earth was demolished for by the Vogons to make way for a hyperspace bypass. Planet Earth was an experiement created by Deep Thought (computer) to find the question to life the universe and everything. After spending millions of years calculating that the answer was 42 the problem was that no-one new the question - so Earth (more advanced computer) was created for this reason. Mice were pan-dimensional beings who built earth. The dolphins left before earth was destroyed after failed attempts to warn man of their impending doom.
Earth was built again to continue the experiement and continued at the moment it was destroyed non-one on earth new any different. In later books Authur goes back to earth to rescue is girl-friend before earth got blown up.
Douglas wrote one more book before he died called "Mostly Harmless" which I think was related to parallel universes.
Its probaly the only novels that I've read several times. Good stuff.
http://www.star-goddess.com/Santa_Maria_De_Angelis.jpg
This the Meridian Line, with the orbits of the planets outlined, in Santa Maria De Angeli in Rome.
LOL. Douglas Adams "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" is always a good read! Ideas have been taken from that.
DNA (11 March 1952 – 11 May 2001) was an...comic radio dramatist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams)
Pisces, Two Fish tails tied together swimming in opposite directions. (http://www.star-goddess.com/Zorian's%20Cave.htm)
http://www.star-goddess.com/Pisces.jpg
http://www.star-goddess.com/Capricorn.jpg
This is the end of the line - Capricorn ?
http://www.star-goddess.com/Pegasari.jpg
The Meridian line is built right into the floor of the Cathedral. The line itself is made of bronze, with bronze star insets in the marble mosaic.
http://vitruvio.imss.fi.it/foto/sim01/sim01-401046rs.jpg
Galileo's ? astrolabe (http://www.star-goddess.com/Zorian's%20Cave.htm)
http://eventtemples.com/images/secret_image2.jpg
synergy777
21-08-2007, 02:49 PM
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/669/1lvepw6.png
Hail!!!! Snoop Edit:
A brilliant connection! How about Hon Non Bo? Bon Sei Kai?
Colour me Beaucoup Dhinki Dhao!, kindest regards!!: Snoopsnuffleopagus
POLISH NEWS
BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND!
BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND! RSS
POLISH NEWS
User ID: 348104
1/10/2008 6:09 PM
******************.comforum1/message (http://www.***********************/forum1/message486926/pg1) BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND!
Quote
VIA OUR LOCAL POLISH NEWS!!!!!!!!! BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IT'S REALLY HAPPENING!!!!!
no links yet......just in. they said that they know nothing about their intensions as of yet!
hope to find a link. may the truth and love be always with us http://www.***********************/sm/heartflowers.gif
starbattle
User ID: 249455
1/10/2008 6:16 PM Re: BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND! Quote
THIS BETTER NOT BE FAKE. GOD, WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THOSE...
.........
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 352353
1/10/2008 6:17 PM Re: BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND! Quote
you're polish, its probably a frisbee
Beingsouthern
User ID: 113248
http://www.***********************/av/bonnie_bw.jpg
1/10/2008 6:19 PM
Re: BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND! Quote
O.K.
You be sure and keep us updated.
*chuckle*
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 322093
1/10/2008 6:22 PM Re: BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND! Quote
better not be a joke
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 353358
1/10/2008 6:22 PM Re: BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND! Quote
http://www.***********************/sm/alien03.gif
http://www.***********************/sm/wasntme.gif
polish girl
User ID: 230795
1/10/2008 6:23 PM Re: BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND! Quote
VIA OUR LOCAL POLISH NEWS!!!!!!!!! BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IT'S REALLY HAPPENING!!!!!
no links yet......just in. they said that they know nothing about their intensions as of yet!
hope to find a link. may the truth and love be always with ushttp://www.***********************/sm/heartflowers.gif
Quoting: POLISH NEWS 348104
you beat me to it. i also just wanted to post about this et event in our polish country.
it's true folks. our polish news networks got it all over as the top developing story. let's wait and see what the outcome is.
i'm just so exited that it's for real this time. in my own polish homecountry! i still hardly can believe it!
yay!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 351608
1/10/2008 6:24 PM Re: BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND! Quote
They're called Polacks and they're actually indigenous.
Unanimous Curiosity
User ID: 339881
1/10/2008 6:24 PM Re: BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND! Quote
Can a mod verify the posters address as being from poland?
Nothing Is True
User ID: 347646
http://www.***********************/av/fhf520.gif
1/10/2008 6:25 PM
Re: BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND! Quote
Tomek left his basement??
http://www.***********************/sm/heartflowers.gif
Everything is permitted
Angel_Eyess
User ID: 340940
http://www.***********************/av/fh1bz24.gif
1/10/2008 6:25 PM
Re: BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND! Quote
Poland is hosting an extraterrestial race? Yep...this better not be a joke....
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 353361
1/10/2008 6:26 PM Re: BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND! Quote
and?
Wavy Seas
User ID: 276480
1/10/2008 6:28 PM Re: BREAKING!!! EXTRATERRESTIAL RACE LANDS IN POLAND! Quote
For Real?
http://www.***********************/forum1/message486926/pg1
http://www.***********************/forum1/message486944/pg1
http://www.***********************/forum1/message481951/pg1
http://www.***********************/forum1/message477706/pg1
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/5727.htm
...
NATASHA TOLD ME ALL OF THIS IS ABOUT TO COME TO A SCREECHING HALT! (http://www.***********************/forum1/message99029/pg468)
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/669/1lvepw6.png
LUV IT
ET race and/or ...profound implications. (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:TJLha5SaNK0J:www.bibliotecapleyades .net/exopolitica/esp_exopolitics_E_0.htm+EXTRATERRESTRIAL+RACE+LAND S+IN+POLAND!&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=nl)
Any Mechanics Here? (http://www.***********************/forum1/message486931/pg1)
kadamose...?
..Perhaps (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:beb0s4kig_EJ:www.zpenergy.com/modules.php%3Fname%3DNews%26file%3Darticle%26sid%3 D1497+kadamose+the+forum&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=18&gl=nl)
And you wonder WHY???...March comes.... (http://www.***********************/forum1/message507664/pg1)
THE DOOM
http://www.***********************/av/what-have-we-done.jpg
User ID: 324260
2/20/2008 8:23 AM
Re: And you wonder WHY???...March comes.... Quote
Hello DOOM nice to see you back.
I read all the doom but I wonder what is your philosophy - Earth is an inhabited planet and we are all working out our lives - though I do understand that planetary cycles come to an end - the souls must move on to new incarnations.
As I am left to feeling as I have insufficient evidence to come to a definative conclusion as to what the Earth changes are going to be - as I walk around my city I sense no doom - however I do not feel comfortable here as I used to.
What evidence that I have been able to gather leads me to the conclusion that we are in for much more flooding as part of it.
Quoting: meras 377188
You have read all my doom posts but have not worked out my philosophy??
Well..thats understandable. I just dont HAVE one.
I deal in "Facts"...not "suppositions"
The reason you "sense" no doom..is because...you are a part of it..a peice in the grand matrix of doom.
It all comes down to "Philosophy"
Figure that out..and you will finally understand life and its meaning.
I already DO understand life. But I do not say directly what its meaning is. You are either "Born" with the answer to the riddle and spend your life knowing how utterly futile all "Philosophy" actually IS..like ME..OR..you work it out..and spend the REST of your life utterly KICKING yourself for being so totally STUPID to rest your eternity on a "Supposition"
As for cycles...yes..planets DO have cycles. So do solar systems. So do galaxies. So do galactic clusters.
So does the entire universe.
Each an every cycle has its place on the clock.
But..the universal cycle is about to tick over.
Its not just 2012..or a mere 3100 years..or 26,000 years..or 365,000 years..or even a million.
This cycle completion we are entering into is THE BIG ONE.
Its reason will be unfolded and is BEING unfolded to those who are to live on to the next epoch.
Its bigger than any new age poofy soft cock channeller can grasp in a million years.
Its SO far beyond reincarnation and all our "Invented" philosophies you will wonder WHY you ever thought otherwise.
But..being a part of the design of doom..as is your place and billons of others..each with their own part to play in the drama of the aeons...you will NOT see it until you are dead..and then..it will be so very clear to you just who and what you were and are.
It will all make sense..very soon. I speak in riddles because..no one could handle the truth...its just something you have to experience for yourself.
___________
We cannot choose what we are..
Yet what are we but the sum total of our choices?
....and they always lead to DOOM!!
Un-Quote
b.see ye.. maybe?...anyways.. have a nice another EPOCH
synergy777
20-02-2008, 04:11 PM
You have read all my doom posts but have not worked out my philosophy??
Well..thats understandable. I just dont HAVE one.
I deal in "Facts"...not "suppositions"
The reason you "sense" no doom..is because...you are a part of it..a peice in the grand matrix of doom.
It all comes down to "Philosophy"
Figure that out..and you will finally understand life and its meaning.
I already DO understand life. But I do not say directly what its meaning is. You are either "Born" with the answer to the riddle and spend your life knowing how utterly futile all "Philosophy" actually IS..like ME..OR..you work it out..and spend the REST of your life utterly KICKING yourself for being so totally STUPID to rest your eternity on a "Supposition"
As for cycles...yes..planets DO have cycles. So do solar systems. So do galaxies. So do galactic clusters.
So does the entire universe.
Each an every cycle has its place on the clock.
But..the universal cycle is about to tick over.
Its not just 2012..or a mere 3100 years..or 26,000 years..or 365,000 years..or even a million.
This cycle completion we are entering into is THE BIG ONE.
Its reason will be unfolded and is BEING unfolded to those who are to live on to the next epoch.
Its bigger than any new age poofy soft cock channeller can grasp in a million years.
Its SO far beyond reincarnation and all our "Invented" philosophies you will wonder WHY you ever thought otherwise.
But..being a part of the design of doom..as is your place and billons of others..each with their own part to play in the drama of the aeons...you will NOT see it until you are dead..and then..it will be so very clear to you just who and what you were and are.
It will all make sense..very soon. I speak in riddles because..no one could handle the truth...its just something you have to experience for yourself.
well said edit.
just Quoting: THE DOOMWe already ARE at the "END" of the "Game".
Yes..we ALL made it here..to the end..to the precipice of the edge of history.
We..all of us..will witness the most catasrophic events EVER witnessed by humans in ANY TIME IN HISTORY!!!
Think about it..NEVER before has ANYone ever seen anything quite like WE will.
Front row seats on the vortex of DOOM ITSELF INCARNATE!!
Ane we all travel FIRST CLASS to our imminent DEMISE as a civilization.
Consider yourselves fortunate..doomed..BUT..fortunate..because..in the vast epochs to come..endless aeons in front of us...whomever and whatever inhabits these future epochs will wisper about the demise of the human race with awe..and dread...and..thankfullness that it didnt happen to THEM.
Fortunate yes...to witness the great orgasm of history itself..the convulsion of the sun..the birthing of the next epoch. And we...will SEE IT HAPPEN!!
one in a TRILLION SHOT..and YOU ALL HAVE IT...the chance to see the end of an epoch..and the start of another.
This isnt just some piddly turning of a century..or even a millenium..or even an AGE..
ITS AN EPOCH.
And you will see it..all of you..even as you die in the convulsions of history..all will witness this once in a billion year event.
http://www.crystalinks.com/00aging.jpg
Test of time
Secrets held
by.. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/default.stm)
and by...http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44438000/jpg/_44438765_shrovetide2_getty66.jpg
synergy777
20-02-2008, 04:22 PM
see people can argue about revelations/mayan/new age/photon belt, but solar cycles,pole shift etc is proved science.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/specials/scenes/2002/02/06/sized.milky.way.jpg
http://www.dprins.demon.nl/convergence/images/Image111.gif
http://www.geocities.com/quantum_reality2003/2012.h20.gif
Spreading the years 2003 to 2012 on ... http://www.netmagic.net/~sapiens/images/tu-wave-sine.jpg
Flatline at one million simultaneous ...
http://www.onealclan.com/images/comet_submarine.jpg
http://www.discogs.com/image/L-150-1818-003.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/consciousness123/2012.h18.gif
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/milkyway1x.jpg
http://www.dprins.demon.nl/convergence/images/Image113.gif
http://www.dprins.demon.nl/convergence/research1.html
http://www.geocities.com/quantum_reality2003/2012.h10.gif
... a 45-year period ending in 2012.
http://www.onealclan.com/images/end_of_earth.jpg
... related to this wave dynamics.
The ancient Maya believed the Earth's final day will be December 21, 2012.
Phi
2012 flatline --phi -----> Earth's final ending --->2008
http://www.geocities.com/consciousness123/2012.h9.gif --->Universe 2012 flatline-->http://www.amfor.net/Malpractice/flatline.jpg
http://www.mesoweb.com/features/fabric/media/25.jpg
http://blog.brokep.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/flatline.jpg
Modern Metaphysical Concepts & The Paranormal - Club Conspiracy Forums- [ ]David Wilcock – Free Video Seminar – Ascension – Time Travel – 2012 .... exhibiting symptoms were caught in a time loop from a past traumatic experience and ...
www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f22/modern-metaphysical-concepts-paranormal-5639.html
2008 = flatline
niftygifter
10-03-2008, 10:12 PM
Earth no longer a Planet according to - bautforum - (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46111)
Gruesome
Senior Member
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46111
What an absolute load of bollocks:D
Nifty:cool:
pri01
10-03-2008, 10:28 PM
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/specials/scenes/2002/02/06/sized.milky.way.jpg
http://www.dprins.demon.nl/convergence/images/Image111.gif
http://www.geocities.com/quantum_reality2003/2012.h20.gif
Spreading the years 2003 to 2012 on ... http://www.netmagic.net/~sapiens/images/tu-wave-sine.jpg
Flatline at one million simultaneous ...
http://www.onealclan.com/images/comet_submarine.jpg
http://www.discogs.com/image/L-150-1818-003.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/consciousness123/2012.h18.gif
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/milkyway1x.jpg
http://www.dprins.demon.nl/convergence/images/Image113.gif
http://www.dprins.demon.nl/convergence/research1.html
http://www.geocities.com/quantum_reality2003/2012.h10.gif
... a 45-year period ending in 2012.
http://www.onealclan.com/images/end_of_earth.jpg
... related to this wave dynamics.
The ancient Maya believed the Earth's final day will be December 21, 2012.
Phi
2012 flatline --phi -----> Earth's final ending --->2008
http://www.geocities.com/consciousness123/2012.h9.gif --->Universe 2012 flatline-->http://www.amfor.net/Malpractice/flatline.jpg
http://www.mesoweb.com/features/fabric/media/25.jpg
http://blog.brokep.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/flatline.jpg
I would really like to understand this. Sorry..
http://www.physorg.com/news121928231.html
Light echoes whisper http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/astronomersc.jpg
Where I live no one lives...
Angel of Death (http://www.***********************/forum1/message517872/pg1)
Where I live no one lives...
Quote
I am the keeper of the dead. Those who have not yet truly passed on into their next incarnation. There are so many unresolved souls in this world today that the underworld has boiled over into that of the living.
Do you not think it strange that it takes a tunnel to reach heaven? It wasn't always like this.
Do you know why we are all afraid of death and cannot remember our past lives? When we die we all go to hell where we are saved and then reborn anew into our next life. Part of us remembers this horror of death in our previous life and it acts as a memory block and we all fear dying again.
Sepp Hasslberger: Kozyrev: Aether, Time and Torsion- [ ]Most people are unaware that it is now generally accepted that the space surrounding the Earth and perhaps the entire galaxy has "right-handed spin", ...
blog.hasslberger.com/2007/05/kozyrev_aether_time_and_torsio.html
ba-ph-om-et
http://www.***********************/forum1/message517430/pg1
Keyword: gravity- [ ]So there must be a bunch of unseen "dark matter" lurking in every galaxy. ..... Earth's spin warps space around the planet, according to a new study that ...
www.freerepublic.com/tag/gravity/
http://www.illuminati-news.com/technology.htm http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/cgi-bin/banmat3.cgi?entry+x=IMG
http://www.physorg.com/news122819749.html
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/theviolentli.jpg
http://www.physorg.com/news119182387.htmlUniverse’s first stars may have been ‘dark stars’ « Travelling ...- [ ]What did happen, is happening and will happen, is Galaxy Spin. ... One, there is cosmic background radiation everywhere; and two, the galaxies are going ...
eneve.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/universes-first-stars-may-have-been-dark-stars/
New study reveals profound impact of our unconscious on reaching goals (http://www.physorg.com/news124114963.html)
Password: dance
From: idamawatu
Congo - Fally Ipupa - Mabele
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9I0dnQYzwk&feature=user
Universe from Nothing
Universe to Nothing
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/images/nothing.jpg
Nothing is gonna be
not even that dust
edelweiss pirate
10-03-2008, 11:29 PM
The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.
Douglas Adams.
I would really like to understand this. Sorry..ALL
"Tomorrow"
.......like ' Great scene from the movie "Ali"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rulsk1tWk&feature=related
Great scene from the movie "Ali" played by Will Smith,with a beautiful song
from the movie's soundtrack "Tomorrow"
S-al-if Keita-Tomorrow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZM4NIVIOUI
Salif Keita - Madan
MALI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4S4hb03rc
the African cinema lion roars! (http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/books/40430)
http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/296/fespaco.jpg
heaven & earth
together
one
http://www.soundtrackcollector.com/images/cd/small/Spaghetti_western_BMG743212.gif
what is spaghetti
western?http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/media/stars_blackhole_anatomy.jpgResearch Summary (http://physics-astronomy.jhu.edu/people/faculty/jhk.html)
...research is in the area of theoretical astrophysics, particularly as it applies to the active galactic nuclei and high-energy astrophysics. Currently his work is focused on the physics of accretion disks, especially with a view towards linking the physics of MHD turbulence within these disks to the light they produce.
To do this, he works with large-scale numerical simulation codes whose physics repertory includes the MHD equations in full general relativity and radiation diffusion (see picture below, illustrating magnetic field structure in matter accreting onto a spinning black hole). Other projects include using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to learn about quasars and their evolution.
[ CENTER]http://physics-astronomy.jhu.edu/bin/z/v/spaghetti-junction_250.jpg
ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI:
FROM THE CENTRAL BLACK HOLE TO THE GALACTIC ENVIRONMENT
by Julian H. Krolik (http://physics-astronomy.jhu.edu/people/faculty/jhk.html)
(Princeton University Press: 1999)
Table of Contents:
1. What Are Active Galactic Nuclei? And Why Does Anyone Care?
2. How to Find AGNs
3. Evolution
4. Global Energetics and Black Holes
5. Black Hole Physics
6. Spherical Accretion
7. Accretion Disks and the Optical/Ultraviolet Continuum
8. X-ray and Gamma-ray Emission
9. Radio Emission and Jets
10. Emission Lines
11. Intrinsic Absorption and Outflows
12. Anisotropic Appearance and Unification of Disparate AGN Varieties
13. Properties of AGN Host Galaxies
14. Onset and Fueling
15. Where We Stand
Appendix A: Basic General Relativity
Appendix B: Basic Magnetohydrodynamics
Appendix C: Shocks and Other Discontinuities
Appendix D: Luminosity Functions and Other Population Statistics
Appendix E: The Tensor Virial Theorem
Appendix F: Kinematics in an Expanding Universe
[/CENTER]
spaghetti
consciousness - Time loops
in ever smaller
spirals
http://www.kompaktkiste.de/cd/_123/_6/657036.jpg
The Scientist's
Mind (http://tzpss.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html)
We are always anxious, because we don't know what will happen next. Some of us deny or ignore the issues, then, the issues become worst and worst...
http://evelynrodriguez.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/morningglory.jpg
but.. we have - Time loops - so the next is from the past
it was WWII in the Balkans
bush 3 times irak 2
1999-2008 now repeated
so maybe we will come soon 2
2004 againhttp://www.laputan.org/images/pictures/spaghetti-medium.jpg
then o7
08
=
2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/145273main_image_feature_535_ys_full.jpg)
its like the
only
milky way
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/specials/scenes/2002/02/06/sized.milky.way.jpg
LOOP PLAYER
http://www.boomkat.com/media/stock_images/blackbuddhamachIsmall.jpghttp://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=7799&rendTypeId=4
http://www.akasha.de/~aton/2UniKissGameBoard.gifchess-playhttp://www.akasha.de/~aton/TGUniMedi.JPGPermutations of the I-Ching and 64 DNA codons, into a 384 base, renders a graph of fractal time,, 64 levels of time, accurate on the atomic level, as analysed by Dr.. Sheliak of Los Alamos National Laboritories. Ananda doubled the graph for anti-mater fractal time, in 1995, and then traced it into a 3D extrusion. The result is the shape of the mandelbrot fractal, and the Stupa the Buddha Body of Dharma. It is also the King Peice of the game of Chess which comes from China, just as the King Wen, I Ching sequence comes from ancient China. Time Wave Zero Into another dimension.http://www.akasha.de/~aton/8c.Galacticnoise.gif
The galactic backgroun noise (microwave mandala or carpet), was changed on the Omega Time Gate January 1996. See text for remarkable details.
http://www.akasha.de/~aton/TG2000a.gif
TIME GATE 2000 (http://www.akasha.de/~aton/TG-2000.html)
TIME GATE News
TIME GATE Mars
A Solution To The Montauk Project, Project Phoenix, Haarp Phase Conjugate Time Travel, and Extraterrestrial Time Control
TIMEGATE 2004
Beyond The MIDWAY GATE
& A New Universe Of Omni-Temporal Manufestations
http://www.akasha.de/~aton/TG2004s.htm
http://www.akasha.de/~aton/MIDWAYIS.jpg
Control? Time Control? or just a parcial control of all those repeatings of spaggetti consciousnesses?
weston white
11-03-2008, 02:41 AM
I just love reading through cryptic posts. I feel like the post can mean whatever I wish it to. :rolleyes:
I just love reading through cryptic posts. I feel like the post can mean whatever I wish it to. :rolleyes:
but is simple
time overlap >>>http://www.akasha.de/~aton/TimeGates.JPG
DEJA VU ENGINEERING
In Global Unity Events
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Marriage Of The Past With The Future
Through The Wedding Ring Of Us Now
http://www.akasha.de/~aton/DejaVu.html
repeated information is 'controled' - it is energy - energy is conscious(ness) - it is also us - in a time loops - past present 'future'
points ov crossings and twistings - back and forth - side by side
in a TimeGates >> http://www.akasha.de/~aton/image018.pngThe extraordinary nature of these geometrical bursts and their distribution, is carefully shrouded in such words as "artificial threshold":
"Time dilation measured... A time-dilation effect of order a factor of two between bright and the dim burst groups... with respect to trigger criteria, this artificial threshold should affect each group in the same way... origin of the GRBs remains an enigma... Isotropic distribution of bursts detected... the brighter bursts are being beamed toward us at a significantly higher Lorentz factor."
—J. P. Norris, Bonnell, Wickramasinghe, Kouveliotou, Paciesas, Fisherman, Meegan, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771
And:
"Gamma ray burst sources are isotropically distributed. GRB signals have many narrow peaks that are unresolved at the millisecond time resolution of existing observations."
—J. Katz, ÒHigh Energy AstrophysicsÓ
http://www.akasha.de/~aton/TG2004.html
http://www.akasha.de/~aton/image019.pnghttp://www.akasha.de/~aton/TimeGates.JPG
'The earth is five billion years old
With five billion to go'
----only - the consciousness comes to ever shorter mobius - so the year of it may be like the life of a moscito and then the cell
***********************
----
"Perspective"
The earth is five billion years old
With five billion to go
If those ten billion years were experienced as a man
Who lived to be fifty years old
The whole of human history would pass by
In a half hour of celestial television that you miss
As you watch your own
A sitcom between Ice Ages
Man these characters sure are funny
How about that laugh track
Intermission for a Constitution
Generations of stories lived
Stories told stories lost
While you sit on your couch watching
A commercial digging up the past to advertise the future
When all you ever wanted
Was the present
A flick of the remote
A flick of a dream all for the ratings of natural selection
In an ocean of channels of energy
That anyone can watch
But no one ever does
So off goes the tube now let's go outside
How about a space race
The ape race to the final frontier
You can't see or hear
Ten thousand mosquitos up in orbit
Stinging and biting
Making me scratch the itch on my skin
So I can't scratch the itch in your mind
The age of oil goes by in the time it takes
To wash your face with the soap of human resource wars
See the monkeys dance while you clean your pores
Sounds great
Can I buy that in bulk
Save the planet
Screams of apocalyptic disaster bringing fear
Doom and gloom the end is near
As the earth looks over its shoulder with a tear
And a chuckle Hey Jupiter
Pull my finger
The crock pot recipe of human evolution
Fifteen minutes prep time
Seven hours cook time
Five minutes to eat
Serves One
Does anyone here do GodLike Poetry?? (http://www.***********************/forum1/message276833/pg11)
niftygifter
11-03-2008, 11:57 AM
Godlike Productions? - WELL KNOWN CIA Disinfo site:cool:
Total Bullshit
Nifty:cool:
http://www.technorama.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/informationen/verschiedenes/onlineexperimente/harmonograph/bilder/harmonograph_moskovich.jpg
The Physics of the Harmonograph
General Description: (http://members.tip.net.au/~apurdam/harmonograph/harmonophysics.html)
The Harmonograph is basically a large, heavy, rectangular platform suspended at all four corners by wires. It can basically wobble forwards and backwards, side to side, and rotate a bit too. A pen is held stationary whilst a piece of paper attached to the surface of the Harmonograph oscillates according to how it was started. The oscillations decay, with the resulting curves getting smaller and smaller, spiralling in in a highly wobbly way. If physics and computer science make you sweat, PRESS BACK NOW. Your proceeding is your acknowledgment that your are over eighteen and the sight of mathematical equations does not offend you. < http://members.tip.net.au/~apurdam/harmonograph/harm2.gif (http://members.tip.net.au/~apurdam/harmonograph/harmonograph.html)
pri01
16-03-2008, 11:32 PM
http://www.technorama.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/informationen/verschiedenes/onlineexperimente/harmonograph/bilder/harmonograph_moskovich.jpg
I'm sorry if this sounds simplistic, but this reminds me of the game/art craft, Spirograph?
on the road
16-03-2008, 11:36 PM
silly level 7 and counting ......
The Mathematics (http://members.tip.net.au/~apurdam/harmonograph/harmonophysics.html)
So then the Harmonograph can be plotted over time as follows:
x1(t) = Ax(t)sin(wxt+px)
y(t) = Ay(t)sin(wyt+py)
x2(t) = As(t)sin(wst+ps)
x(t) = x1(t)+x2(t),
where…
A is the amplitude of the oscillation
w is frequency
p is the phase
s is the rotational factor
All amplitudes and phases are independent. To make things a little more interesting, wy is allowed to be slightly different in relation to wx and ws is also allowed to be slightly different to double wx. Lastly, these amplitudes all decay over time.
Ax(t) = Ax(0)e-icdt where dx is x's decay constant and c is a common factor for all decay equations. This of course comes down to an iterative thing given by
Ax(t+1) = Ax(t) * (1-dx)
ie. the amplitude this time is the amplitude last time multiplied by a number slightly less than 1.
tell me about the harmonograph (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=222387)
http://members.tip.net.au/~apurdam/graphics/ADPinColour.gif> (http://members.tip.net.au/~apurdam/welcome.html)Mathematicians find new solutions to an ancient puzzle
Quote (http://www.***********************/forum1/message520509/pg1)
Many people find complex math puzzling, including some mathematicians.
Recently, mathematician Daniel J. Madden and retired physicist, Lee W. Jacobi, found solutions to a puzzle that has been around for centuries.
Jacobi and Madden have found a way to generate an infinite number of solutions for a puzzle known as 'Euler’s Equation of degree four.'
The equation is part of a branch of mathematics called number theory. Number theory deals with the properties of numbers and the way they relate to each other. It is filled with problems that can be likened to numerical puzzles.
“It’s like a puzzle: can you find four fourth powers that add up to another fourth power? Trying to answer that question is difficult because it is highly unlikely that someone would sit down and accidentally stumble upon something like that,” said Madden, an associate professor of mathematics at The University of Arizona in Tucson.
The team's finding is published in the March issue of The American Mathematical Monthly.
Equations are puzzles that need certain solutions “plugged into them” in order to create a statement that obeys the rules of logic.
For example, think of the equation x + 2 = 4. Plugging “3” into the equation doesn’t work, but if x = 2, then the equation is correct.
In the mathematical puzzle that Jacobi and Madden worked on, the problem was finding variables that satisfy a Diophantine equation of order four. These equations are so named because they were first studied by the ancient Greek mathematician Diophantus, known as 'the father of algebra.’
In its most simple version, the puzzle they were trying to solve is the equation: (a)(to the fourth power) + (b)(to the fourth power) + (c)(to the fourth power) + (d)(to the fourth power) = (a + b + c + d)(to the fourth power)
That equation, expressed mathematically, is: a^4 + b^4 +c^4 +d^4 = (a + b + c + d)^4
Madden and Jacobi found a way to find the numbers to substitute, or plug in, for the a's, b's, c's and d's in the equation. All the solutions they have found so far are very large numbers.
In 1772, Euler, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, hypothesized that to satisfy equations with higher powers, there would need to be as many variables as that power. For example, a fourth order equation would need four different variables, like the equation above.
Euler's hypothesis was disproved in 1987 by a Harvard graduate student named Noam Elkies. He found a case where only three variables were needed. Elkies solved the equation: (a)(to the fourth power) + (b)(to the fourth power) + (c)(to the fourth power) = e(to the fourth power), which shows only three variables are needed to create a variable that is a fourth power.
Inspired by the accomplishments of the 22-year-old graduate student, Jacobi began working on mathematics as a hobby after he retired from the defense industry in 1989.
Fortunately, this was not the first time he had dealt with Diophantine equations. He was familiar with them because they are commonly used in physics for calculations relating to string theory.
Jacobi started searching for new solutions to the puzzle using methods he found in some number theory texts and academic papers.
He used those resources and Mathematica, a computer program used for mathematical manipulations.
Jacobi initially found a solution for which each of the variables was 200 digits long. This solution was different from the other 88 previously known solutions to this puzzle, so he knew he had found something important.
Jacobi then showed the results to Madden. But Jacobi initially miscopied a variable from his Mathematica computer program, and so the results he showed Madden were incorrect.
“The solution was wrong, but in an interesting way. It was close enough to make me want to see where the error occurred,” Madden said.
When they discovered that the solution was invalid only because of Jacobi’s transcription error, they began collaborating to find more solutions.
Madden and Jacobi used elliptic curves to generate new solutions. Each solution contains a seed for creating more solutions, which is much more efficient than previous methods used.
In the past, people found new solutions by using computers to analyze huge amounts of data. That required a lot of computing time and power as the magnitude of the numbers soared.
Now people can generate as many solutions as they wish. There are an infinite number of solutions to this problem, and Madden and Jacobi have found a way to find them all.
The title of their paper is, “On a^4 + b^4 +c^4 +d^4 = (a + b + c + d)^4."
“Modern number theory allowed me to see with more clarity the implications of his (Jacobi’s) calculations,” Madden said.
“It was a nice collaboration,” Jacobi said. “I have learned a certain amount of new things about number theory; how to think in terms of number theory, although sometimes I can be stubbornly algebraic.”
###
Contact information:
Daniel Madden, 520-621-4665
madden@math.arizona.edu
Related Web sites:
UA Mathematics Department
[link to math.arizona.edu (http://math.arizona.edu/)] [link to www.eurekalert.org (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/uoa-mfn031408.php)]
http://www.technorama.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/informationen/verschiedenes/onlineexperimente/harmonograph/bilder/harmonograph_moskovich.jpg
http://www.ashtarcommand.se/artiklar/bild5.jpg
www.ashtarcommand.net/
Events
Cosmic Forum (http://www.ashtarcommand.net/events/event/show?id=1985014%3AEvent%3A65213)
ENLIGHTENED CONTACT WITH EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE
http://api.ning.com/files/jKCBvonaRE3m9gNp1k3wo1scDXXeraAo8GWbg9mawACYT1J0i2 jRZ-en9Itxv-qGLBvUDtG6byV3ffddtKIMqXZ8iAINs2CO/Originaleceti.jpg?size=180&crop=1:1
Event DetailsTime: May 31, 2008 at 3pm
Location: Internet
City/Town: Washington State, USA
Event Type: Contact
Organized By: ECETI
Latest Activity: 2 hours ago
Export to Outlook or iCal (.ics)
Event Description
An unprecedented event is unfolding in a small town known as Trout Lake, Washington. This event has the potential to change the course and destiny of Humanity and the Earth. The people of Earth are being offered a chance to join the rest of the universe in peace.
C5 Contact with spiritually and technologically advanced extra and ultra terrestrial off world visitors which we refer to as the greater family of man has occurred at the home of James Gilliland, known as the Sattva Sanctuary. ABC, Fox News, The History Channel, Evening Magazine, and other cable channels too numerous to mention have covered the ongoing contacts at the Sanctuary.
This will be an ONLINE International FREE conference.
TIME AND DATE.
AEST Melbourne (Australia - Victoria)Sunday, 1 June 2008, 8am
PDT Seattle (U.S.A. - Washington)Saturday, 31 May 2008, 3pm
EDT/EST Toronto (Canada - Ontario) Saturday, 31 May 2008, 6pm
GMT Corresponding UTC Saturday, 31 May 2008, 10pm
Please confirm your exact time to connect at
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html
Requirements: Speakers/Audio and Software
Download the voice conference software from VENTRILO.COM
http://www.ventrilo.com/
ENTER THE CONFERENCE ROOM :
ventrilo://64.86.135.235:5122/ServerName=Lightworkers_VC
SIGN UP NOW. ITS FREE
More info :
http://lightworkers.org/content/30557/james-gilliland-enlightened-contact-with-extraterrestrial-ufo-et
Add a Comment
RSVP for ENLIGHTENED CONTACT WITH EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE to add comments!
Join this network (http://www.ashtarcommand.net/events/event/show?id=1985014%3AEvent%3A65213)
4 Comments (http://www.ashtarcommand.net/events/event/show?id=1985014%3AEvent%3A65213)
Comment by angel 2 hours ago
Thank you
I am in Comment by lapponian free spirit 2 hours ago
Yes very interesting indeed Comment by Nimue Gipsy angel 5 hours ago
interesting , very very interesting Comment by vicky 6 hours ago
Thank you for share, dear Pasiel, I will be there and invitate more friends.Love and light, Vicky
Attending (5) View All (http://www.ashtarcommand.net/events/event/show?id=1985014%3AEvent%3A65213)
http://api.ning.com/files/oxiwmrSn7GvyQ4SMBQN1oEBt*10IkSvfRPZLeA4nudlrkG89o4 44trQGAf1XbzKBNwYOgz7BlkGBUligzT*D3dx9oiBGLbU0/gathergroup.jpg http://www.lightworkerbiz.net/ac/gathering.jpg http://www.ashtarcommand.se/annons2.jpg
PRAKRITI : The Integral Vision explores the concept of the Primal Elements (Sky, Air, Fire, Water, Earth) which has governed and determined the eolution of civilizations and cultures. This 5 volume collection is the outcome of a series of five successive but inter-locked seminars culminating into cross-cultural, multi-disciplinary understanding.
http://ignca.nic.in/images/pg97.jpg Each volume contains a foreword by the General Editor.
VOL. 1
PRIMAL ELEMENTS : THE ORAL TRADITION
Edited by BAIDYANATH SARASWATI
1995 xv+190pp. index, ISBN: 81-246-0037-6, Rs 600(HB)
DownLoad ISM-Fonts for displaying Diacritical Marks (http://ignca.nic.in/dwn_font.htm)
http://ignca.nic.in/ps_01.htm (http://ignca.nic.in/ps_01.htm)
Contents
Foreword (Kapila Vatsyayan)
Preface (Kapila Vatsyayan)
Introduction (Baidyanath Saraswati)
1. Cosmogonic Myths: In Northeast India : Forces of Nature (Baidyanath Saraswati)
2. Chinese Cosmogony : Man-Nature Synthesis (Tan Chung)
3. The Super-natural in Nature : Sindhi Tradition (Lachman K. Khubchandani)
4. The Order of Nature in Liangmais Myth (Sujata Miri)
5. The Nomads : Man, Animal, Nature (R.S. Negi)
6. Perception of Bhutas in Kedarkhand (M.M. Dhasmana)
7. Perception of Bhutas in Garhwal (D.R. Purohit, Poornanand & Richa Negi)
8. The Visvakarma worldview (Jan Brouwer)
9. The Birhor Universe (Ashim Kumar Adhikary)
10. Bhuiyan Primal Elements (Pradeep Mohanty)
11. Primal Elements in the Santhal Musical Texts (Onkar Prasad)
12. A Santhal Myth : Five Elements (Kanak Mital)
13. Five Elements in Santhal Healing (N. Patnaik)
14. The Angami Fire and Water (Vibha Joshi)
15. Bhutas in Oral Ayurvedic Tradition (V. Verma)
16. Peasant Perception of Bhutas : Uttar Kannada (M.D. Subash Chandran)
17. Danda Ritual : Five Elements (Ileana Citaristi)
18. Kerala Fisherfolk : Ritualistic and Cosmic Elements (P.R.G. Mathur)
List of Contributors (http://ignca.nic.in/ps_01022.htm)
Exhibition (http://ignca.nic.in/exb_body.htm#0009)
Volume 1 captures the articulations of cohesive communities in the world, who have lived in harmony with nature and who have communicated with the Elements: earth, air, water, fire and space, in a continuous, unceasing dialogue. To them, nature is not a matter of intellection; it is a question of life here and now. This is manifested in ritual practices which sacralize nature, so that man can live as an integral part of the universe. The lives and lifestyles of these cohesive groups have begun to acquire a renewed validity on account of what man has done to pollute, contaminate, deacralize and desecrate the very fundamentals that sustain him and make it possible for him to live on the earth.
BAIDYANATH SARASWATI, is an anthropologist at the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts.
First Published in India in 1995
© Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, New Delhi
No reproduction or translation of this book or part thereof in any form, except brief quotations, should be made without the written permission of the Copyright Holder and the Publishers.
The views expressed in this volume are those of Authors, and are not necessarily those of the Editors or the Publishers.
Publishers
Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts
Central Vista Mess, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001
D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd.
Regd. office : H-12, Bali Nagar, New Delhi-110015
Phone 011 - 545 3975, 546 6019
Fax 011 - 546 5926 email : dkprint@4mis.com
Printed at : D. K. Fine Art Press (P) Ltd., New Delhi
http://ignca.nic.in/ps_01.htm
hutanic
23-05-2008, 11:12 PM
http://xs315.xs.to/xs315/07195/Centaurus.png
NGC 5291, previously classified as a peculiar elliptical, is the brighter of an interacting pair of galaxies at the western outskirts of the IC 4329 cluster. New deep direct plates show that the pair are flanked by complexes of H II regions which extend 4 arcmin to both north and south. Spectroscopic observations confirm that the H II complexes are definitely associated with NGC 5291 and the whole system extends 200 kpc from north to south. Radio H II observations show that a very large mass (about 100 billion solar masses) of neutral hydrogen is present in the system at a range of radial velocities equal to those observed optically. The preferred explanation of the extraordinary properties of the system involves the compression of an extended gaseous discharge around NGC 5291 by interaction with an intracluster medium. It is suggested that the outlying H II regions, some of which may exceed the whole LMC in size and luminosity, may eventually become detached and form a population of blue dwarf irregular galaxies within the cluster.
http://xs315.xs.to/xs315/07195/IC4329.jpg
IC 4329 cluster
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Earth_banner.jpg (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/ProximaCen.html)
http://toys.about.com/b/a/Centaurus-Mode.jpg
/b/a/Centaurus-Mode.jpg
NGC 5291 - A massive, gas-rich and highly peculiar lenticular in the IC 4329 cluster - Longmore, A. J.; Hawarden, T. G.; Cannon, R. D.; Allen, D. A.; Mebold, U.; Goss, W. M.; Reif, K. (http://www.speedyshare.com/902180348.html)
Are you sure it wasn't this guy who did that?
http://www.botchthecrab.com/archive/japan/destron/megatron_(good_bye).jpg
The mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35×1018 metric tons, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the Earth, and occupies a volume of 1.386×109 km³. If all of the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 km.[63] About 97.5% of the water is saline, while the remaining 2.5% is fresh water. The majority of the fresh water, about 68.7%, is currently in the form of ice.[64]
EARTH TO ETERNITY
An Exhibition on Brhadisvara (http://ignca.nic.in/ex_0014.htm)
Publication
12th Oct.1993 - 20th Oct. 1993
Government Museum, Egmore, Madras
http://ignca.nic.in/images/line1.gif
..........programme called Kshetra Sampada. (http://ignca.nic.in/ks_body.htm)
The Brhadisvara Temple was built by Rajaraja I of the Chola Dynasty in 1010 AD.
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0017.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0057.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0003.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0004.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0005.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0007.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0009.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0010.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0001.jpg
Murals of Brhadisvara Temple (http://ignca.nic.in/asp/showbig.asp?projid=brah)
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0006.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0146.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0145.jpghttp://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbrah_04.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbrah_06.jpghttp://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0136.jpg
meave
24-05-2008, 12:10 AM
someones pulling your leg pal. Ever heard of Hitchikers guide to the galaxy? The Vogons were the ones to destroy planet Earth and ruin Arthur Dent's breakfast. http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/2/3D_emoticon_40.gif
thank god somebody said it
bicycle
24-05-2008, 12:42 AM
HE planet Earth has dismissed claims it is in danger from global warming, stressing the worst that could happen is the extinction of the human race.
The Earth spoke out after a series of books, television programmes and environmental campaigns urged people to do everything in their power to 'Save the Planet'.
Earth, 4,000,000,000, said last night: "I'll be absolutely fine, seriously. I might get a bit warmer and a bit wetter, but to be honest, that actually sounds quite nice.
"Try living through an ice age. Pardon my French, but it's absolutely fucking freezing."
The planet, based 93 million miles from the Sun, said it was 'sick and tired' of being drawn into arguments about human behaviour.
"Look, I'm just a planet doing its thing, alright? If you want to live on me, that's your business, but I've got important planet stuff to do, okay?
"Try being in elliptical orbit for five minutes, or balancing your gravitational pull with a medium-sized moon. Let me assure you, it's no fucking picnic."
The planet said environmental campaigners should change their slogan from 'Save the Planet' to something more relevant such as 'Save Your Sorry Arse'.
Earth added: "Okay, so there may come a time when, for a variety of reasons, I am no longer able to support pandas, polar bears, and humans, but you know what? Life goes on.
"Who knows, I might end up being a haven for toads."
Thank you.
Thank you, bicycle. Very interesting (times..sir, indeed R..)
Braveheart
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fVGROX7-5e0&feature=related
"Blue Eyes" http://youtube.com/watch?v=5A7pRNQ-WHE&feature=related
See who I am http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sba8lmCiNdM&feature=related
The SwanSong
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mQF-XtANvcU&feature=related
Within Temptation - Ice Queen
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CGszdHVb2UY&feature=related
"Sound of Freedom" http://youtube.com/watch?v=AEBIZtej1Qc&feature=related
In perfect harmony http://youtube.com/watch?v=btX0rvM9mgU&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=73Mw21pLdsw&feature=related
Pearls of Light
Running up that Hill
http://youtube.com/watch?v=22FbP8F3bwk&feature=related
DRAGON BALL Z - Angels
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NiwiWyccu1A
Within Temptation - The Dance
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SbToW1M-Z2A&feature=related
NOLWENN LEROY - HISTOIRE NATURELLE http://youtube.com/watch?v=rsKlcoUDKac&feature=related
restless - within temptation
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DyOAd-eDPJQ&feature=related
- Mother Earth
http://youtube.com/watch?v=n5VOMFUyK7c&feature=related
challand
26-05-2008, 06:37 PM
I'm afraid I view this as a dispute about, nothing but nomenclature. *yawns*
ok, then...
then if you like, you may call the earth
Object near MOON
< a new name >
like >> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0QMYMyH6qys
...or you may name it a " desktop "
2 FOCUS
upon
as...
Daniel Jacob
world_is_my_desktop (http://www.reconnections.net/world_is_my_desktop.htm)THERE IS A WELL-KNOWN song (http://www.reconnections.net/oneself_planetary_comm1.htm) that is frequently used in spiritual circles, for celebrating the themes of Universal Oneness and Love...constructing a Oneself Interface between Planet Earth and each individual living upon it.
One powerful vision that came through from The Reconnections recently was the realization that it is my own perception of the world that creates the "desktop" that I have on my Limitation PC (Perceptual Construct). Just like on a personal computer, I can and do arrange my images and symbols exactly the way I want them to be. I send various icons to the "recycle bin," I minimize others, and I maximize those portals that take me to realities that excite and edify me the most.
.
.
.
RECONNECTIONS: "A journey is not the distance between two points. That is old thinking. Rather, it is an expansion of one's personal identification with two (or more) points, followed by a re-defining of the physical "self" from point "a" to point "b." What causes material manifestation is the intensity of one's FOCUS upon who or what you wish to be at any moment."
Once upon a time, humanity thought the Earth was flat. If you tried to explain it differently, people just shook their heads at you and said you were crazy. Then, Columbus sailed to find a "New World" for himself. He bought a ticket on a different train than the one preferred by his contemporaries, and he set out down a very different track! Centuries later...... we all are here, living on the (circular) planet that he discovered. Meanwhile, back in those other universes...........Planet Earth may have manifested itself in quite a different way.
kblood
27-05-2008, 09:20 PM
Many interesting posts here, thanks Edit :D
I find the http://www.bautforum.com/ forum interesting and funny. Some very interesting debates you found on it. Sounds like they are trying to figure out a way to measure space time.
We are now on Earth, and Earth is flying around the sun. Our whole solar system is floating around in the galaxy we are part of. Then it begins getting interesting, because what is it galaxies then is floating around? Is there a center from which the first galaxies came?
Also, we know that Earth is flying through space at an speed that we are probably only able to reach with our current technology, or at least current public technology, able to reach the speed Earth is moving because we are either within Earths gravitational fields or following along with our solar systems gravitation fields. And our solar system is following the flow of our galaxy.
And according to proven theories, time is not something that stays the same. That ought to be logical, because when we see a star we only see the way it was a very long time ago, due to its light having travelling for countless years to reach our field of perception. Whenever we move in any way we are not just moving through space, but also through time. Since nothing is standing still in any way, we are moving through both space and time wether we want to or not.
We have only just begun to map galaxies, and trying to find a way to measure their size and age. Although nearly impossible from this small planet, I think we need to figure out in which way they are moving and why they are moving in the direction they are, because those answers will help solve the puzzle of mapping the Universe and figure out what impact time has on it all. How to measure time in cosmic relation and so on.
A ray of light... we see it as a ray, but isnt most of the ray of light actually the same photons in several places at once? They at least seem to be several places at once to us, from our point of view, and with the way our eyes are seeing everything. Wave your hand in front of your monitor and it might seem that you have 10 fingers per hand instead of 5. Or maybe you are shaped a bit differently and dont have 5 fingers, but the concept is the same :)
Here on Earth we should be very capable of making experiments with time. We just need a huge network using some kind of energy and have it sent around the world at a very high speed, and ways to measure and log it. We are using one of the most effective ones right now :) The Internet and by making sure the routing goes around Earth in a certain way is the most efficient way of making your very own time dillations or whatever they are called. Whenever you write with someone in another part of the world, the signal is delayed. My theory is that sometimes it might actually be too fast, depending on what way around Earth it is travelling. Following the Earths rotation makes signal move faster... or is it the other way around? Im not sure, there ought to be quite a time difference at any rate. At least a measurable time difference.
The best prove I have heard of was an experiment where to atomic clocks was sent in opposite directions around Earth, and when they returned they measured the difference of the time the clocks showed. Because there was a difference although atomic clocks ought to be some of the most precise clocks ever made.
Also I noticed how one of the debates about space, time and the speed of light measuring and so on, someone said the Universe was 0 in size, instead of infinite. It seems unknown to most, but zero is the closest you get to infiniti. What other number is closer to infinite than the one which is supposed to be its opposite? Divide something by zero, the the result is infinite, unless you divide zero with zero, then I guess it is either 0 or 1. Many mathematicians and scientists have chosen to give up trying to divide by zero, and just said its impossible. I believe it leaves huge gaps in todays science theories to do that though. I find dividing by zero very important to figure out how to measure space and time correctly. Also it seems the source of how to maximize energy output, and probably leads to the secrets of timetravel as well.
Thats my 5c for now :)
thanks kblood
about time-travel... and... the.... occult(oc-o10)..'round-ing-s>>
first (oc-o10)
http://www.anandgholap.net/images/oc-010.png
Galaxy map :http://space.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn14200/dn14200-1_250.jpg
Galaxy map hints at fractal universe (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14200-galaxy-map-hints-at-fractal-universe.html)
00:00 25 June 2008
NewScientist.com news service
Amanda Gefter
then... oc-009: http://www.anandgholap.net/images/oc-009.png
from galaxy....
...to the densest or most manifest globe (usually called globe D), which in our case is the gross, physical Earth. From there it proceeds on the ascending arc, through increasingly more etherial globes. (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:SUH9pe0TjksJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_(Theosophy)+Chains+through+the+Solar+Systems +Theosophy.&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=nl)
ONE ON ONE (glpf)
Re: PIXAR - Lifted - Abduction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neWDRrBEQ_M&eurl=
PIXAR - Lifted (original sound)
Occultum (Plate VI, 1). (http://www.anandgholap.net/AB_CWL_Occult_Chemistry.htm)
http://www.anandgholap.net/images/oc-017.png
On the first dissociation of the component parts of occultum, the tetrahedron separates as a whole, with its four "cigars," flattening itself out within its hole, a; two "cigars" are positive and two negative, marked respectively a and a'. The rope becomes a ring within a sphere, b, and the two bodies d d, which are loose in the gaseous atom, come within this ring. The balloon becomes a sphere.
On further dissociation, the "cigars" go off independently, showing two types, and these again each divide into triplets, as meta-compounds. B, on the meta-level, casts out the two d bodies, which become independent triplets, and the "rope" breaks into two, a close ring of seven atoms and a double cross of eight. These subdivide again to form hyper-compounds, the ring yielding a quintet and a pair, and the double cross separating into its two parts.
The balloon, c, becomes much divided, the cohesion of its parts being slight; it forms two triplets, a pair and a unit, and these set free, on further dissociation, no less than five separate atoms and two duads.
The two triplets of d each cast out an atom on dissociation, and form two pairs and two units.
Ascension Is Here Ascensionati ALIEN ET UFO PI CROP CIRCLES AND ATLANTIS IN BOOK OF DZYAN
Theresa J. Thurmond Morris
Private Investigator, Legal Investigator, Investigative Reporter. Prior military service 1985-1993, Contractor, freelance writer, copywriter, web publisher. Author/Journalist, well traveled,with an eclectic point of view. Reader, Researcher, Writer, Copywriter Contractor. Syndicated 2007.
Theresa J. Thurmond Morris
June 26, 2008
Alien ET UFO crop circle information is being given during this time of revealing prior to December 21, 2012. To some they see pi and to some they see Atlantis for a reason.
The crop circles could lead to knowledge and education for the global population to share. The information is more than the pictograph as pi and this is the beginning as an introduction to our future. Atlantis was once created as pi. There is much to know.
For many on earth, this is the wake up call. The wake up all is to those who are not in tune mentally to the revelations of the apocalypse or the lifting of the veil.
There are many interpretations by individuals and organizations on earth and some are well off the beaten spiritual path to the truth. The truth seekers are becoming more spiritual during this time of revealing prior to 2012 as it should be.
Many beings are dying and leaving their bodies on earth. For those who believe in eternity we choose to believe in the path of ascension with spiritual makers and creators who are supreme beings and live in the heavens or space. The universe is vast as other universes in a meta-universe in a wheel formation such as ours with an imperishable center.
The crop circles are a wonderful way to share intelligent species together as one.
We may consider this a form of communication as in the past with others on earth.
This makes sense. Why would creators and intelligent beings who are superior want to communicate with their lower creations in general? There would have to be a reason to communicate and then it makes sense that they higher superior in intelligent beings choose to communicate with only certain beings who they prefer based on spirituality and intelligence. Beings that are able to comprehend their creators and desire to know intelligence of what is and what is to come in the future makes sense. The creative higher and superior intelligent beings in space have always been communicators.
Science has not necessarily accepted this as a way of being on earth. The words having to do with science and religion may combine in the future of earth. All may have to do with the knowledge communicated in the future.
It is time we are awakened to the life of all and not just a few. For now, the location of others on certain continents is what is keeping beings from progressing. For many, the location of where they were born on earth is what affects their future.
We as a global population have now learned about how we can overcome the separation with air travel. This is now important to all of our future. This is where we should begin our future assistance globally for all ascension beings of earth.
Through time in space much has happened. Some knowledge has been kept. Some was passed down with stories of the oral traditions. Some was written on stone and later on clay tablets, and papyrus scrolls. The Alexandria of Egypt was said to house the oldest knowledge recorded in one place. Much as been destroyed on earth and this is why at certain times on earth, we are given knowledge once again to share. We are guided to know more about the universe, our creators, and our selves.
Some of our ancestors wanted to share what they discovered while on earth.
Our ancient texts hold some information that may apply such as, the Cabbala that says there are "seven other worlds", Arqa, Adamah and Erez, Geh, Nesziah, Tziah, and Thebel.
There is information recorded in the Mahabharata, Cabbala, Zohar, Dzyan, Holy Bible, Holy Quran, Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts left behind for other intelligent beings to find.
The universe is said to have been created by the seven and the divine son of seven who created the earth in the likeness of other created universes.
The word "he" is used as one term of old scripture for one spiritual being.
The following information is provided as how the creation was explained in ancient times.
He is the guiding spirit and leader. He is one appointed over the whole and the seven. Under the seven who guide other universes and creations is those who answer to the honored seven known as the Supreme Beings. The High Counsel is designated to rule over galaxies. In the beginning he was with the seven. The son of seven was sent to create what is now called earth. Let us make them in our own image. Male and female created he them. Male and female spirits were created prior to the making of physical bodies. This spirit was later put into physical bodies of flesh and blood. This is recorded in the Bible and other places.
It was not mean for the ascension intelligent being species of earth to squabble about words, symbols, and meanings. This was later the case after Cain and Able who still spoke with God in space. There were men who walked with God and were taken back into space to be with God the creator. The others were left to evolve and to multiply their kind on earth. The giants came and went from earth. The intelligent beings of earth had been mingled and it was seen that this should be changed in the future and it was so.
The creators were asked to leave the story of the creation and it was done in the knowledge of the time. Since then, humankind as evolved and this is good. Humankind has reached the level in time of nuclear power. This separates us from those who are at a lower level of intelligence as one species on other planets. Some of the names were given to use to explain that words were for naming and communicating. This knowledge was understood in the beginning. There were times when other forms of humans were separated from the intelligent masses. These were those ancient beings with little knowledge of their past since the knowledge was kept by only a few up in the mountains.
The race by the powers that be to the treasures of scriptures in the mountains has been on going. There are Tibetans who were said to know the truth of the old scriptures. The knowledge has been kept only in certain places since the beginning of time. Only certain beings kept the knowledge from being lost. The ancient lands in Turkey and Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran are important to all of humankind. Some of the treasures of our ancestors have been destroyed once again on earth due to infighting among humans.
The Book of Dzyan has some interesting information that may assist those interpreting the crop circle information. There are many places to search for information.
The swift and radiant one seats the universe on the eternal foundations. He builds them in the likeness of the older wheels, placing them on the imperishable centers. How were they built by Fohat? He collects the fiery dust. He makes balls of fire, runt through them, and round them infusing them thereinto, then sets them into motion...
....
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/66389 (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/66389)
Plot of carbon-14 decay rate against age of the sample in years.
http://curvebank.calstatela.edu/radiodecay/carbon14.jpg>>> (http://curvebank.calstatela.edu/radiodecay/radiodecay.htm)
Carbon 14 Dating Facts - Cloth Fibers, Bones, Wood . . .
in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta See: Volume 425 pp. 189-194). (http://74.125.39.104/search?q=cache:dK3mMt6Mq3wJ:www.factsplusfacts.com/carbon-14-intro.htm+how+carbon+14+becomes+nitrogen&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=nl)
http://www.proxywhore.com/invboard/style_images/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif
The World of Nuclear Science
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/CNO_Cycle.svg/160px- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay)
Because animals eat plants, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in them also decreases once they die, since the carbon-14 cannot be replenished.
This process of dating using carbon-14 is used by paleontologists. Paleontologists burn a small sample of a fossil to react the carbon in it with oxygen, to form CO2. The CO2 that contains carbon-14 will be radioactive, and the amount can be easily measured using a radiation counter. Burning is done to facilitate measuring the level of carbon-14.
Carbon-14 has a half life of about 5730 years. This means that in a given sample of a carbon-containing substance, (without the carbon-14 being replenished) the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 will decrease by half every 5730 years. Suppose for example, some archaeologists uncovered ancient manuscripts and found that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the paper was half of that found in living trees. This would mean that the manuscripts would be about 5730 years old.
The use of radioactive carbon-14 for dating was first done by William Libby, an academic at the University of Chigaco, USA, in 1947.
The relatively short half-life of carbon-14 (5730 years) means http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/794/941051.JPG (http://www.dkimages.com/discover/Home/Science/Physics-and-Chemistry/Matter/Atoms-and-Molecules/Atoms-and-Molecules-095.html)
that the amount of carbon-14 remaining in materials and objects older than about 80,000 years is too small to be measured with today's equipment. Thus carbon dating is limited to objects which are not older than this.
...The major problem using radiocarbon dating is the chance of getting carbon from the samples mixed up with "fresh" carbon.
As well as using carbon-14 to carbon-12 decay, geologists also measure the decay of potassium-40 to argon in dating rocks. However, this method is not accurate for rocks that have been heated above 120°c (250°f) because the argon diffuses out from the rock at these temperatures. The decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87 is used to check potassium-argon dates, and is much more accurate because neither isotope is diffused by heat. This rubidium technique was used by scientists to determine the age of the moon. Measurements using uranium-238 were used to determine the age of the Earth.
(longest cycle) (http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:QBFpZCPV384J:www.birth-control-comparison.info/fam.htm+31+days+after+fertilization&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=nl)
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004606/applications/radioactivedating.shtml
Compilation Brahma (31 pages) (http://www.makara.us/05ref/02comps/Compilation%20Brahma.htm)
(CF 792) The word "moment" is used here in its occult significance to specify a period of time, and must be considered as a period relative to a day or year of Brahma. One of the secrets of initiation is concerned with the apprehension of cycles, and with their duration, and the following terms have to be appreciated, their duration recognised, and their antithesis (an intervening pralaya) duly considered before a man is considered a true occultist.
a. 100 years of Brahma......An occult century. The period of a solar system.
b. One year of Brahma.......The period of seven chains, where the seven planetary schemes are concerned.
c. One week of Brahma......The period of seven rounds in one scheme. It has a chain significance.
d. One day of Brahma.........The occult period of a round.
e. One hour of Brahma........Concerns interchain affairs.
f. One Brahmic minute........Concerns the planetary centres, and therefore egoic groups.
g. One Brahmic moment.....Concerns an egoic group, and its relation to the whole.
These are the greater periods of time, and when their significance is comprehended, much that is now obscure [Page 793] will be revealed. As yet, it is only to initiates that the true figures are given, the figures in the Secret Doctrine, such as the 100 years of Brahma, strike the general average but it must be ever remembered that in considering the figures where a scheme, for instance, is concerned, much latitude has to be allowed for individual planetary karma, and idiosyncrasy.
http://www.proxywhore.com/invboard/style_images/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hng2mVVjJs
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2006/07/060721182137.jpg Marajit
Today, 09:17 AM
A Question for the Judeo-Cretins, Riddle me this (http://www.proxywhore.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=132491&st=60&start=60)
Chandala candala (Sanskrit)
..... the ancestors of the earlier Jews, whose tribes began with A-brahm or 'No-Brahm.'
To this day it is the class most despised by the Brahmins in India" (TG 323-4).
--------------------
Gnothi seauton
PROXY WHORE 1000! EVERYONE GET ON YOUR KNEES AND...
The Prayer To Our Father
(in the original Aramaic)
Abwûn
"Oh Thou, from whom the breath of life comes,
d'bwaschmâja
who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.
Nethkâdasch schmach
May Your light be experienced in my utmost holiest.
Têtê malkuthach.
Your Heavenly Domain approaches.
Nehwê tzevjânach aikâna d'bwaschmâja af b'arha.
Let Your will come true - in the universe (all that vibrates)
just as on earth (that is material and dense).
Hawvlân lachma d'sûnkanân jaomâna.
Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need,
Waschboklân chaubên wachtahên aikâna
daf chnân schwoken l'chaijabên.
detach the fetters of faults that bind us, (Karma)
like we let go the guilt of others.
Wela tachlân l'nesjuna
Let us not be lost in superficial things (materialism, Maya),
ela patzân min bischa.
but let us be freed from that what keeps us off from our true purpose.
Metol dilachie malkutha wahaila wateschbuchta l'ahlâm almîn.
From You comes the all-working will, the lively strength to act,
the song that beautifies all and renews itself from age to age.
Amên.
Sealed in trust, faith and truth.
(I confirm with my entire being)
+++
In the latter part of the second century,
.
.
.
...of the remainder of these writings?"
The Lord's Prayer, like so many more of the precepts and discourses ascribed to Jesus, is borrowed. Dr. Hardwicke, of England, says: "The so-called 'Lord's Prayer' was learned by the Messiah as the 'Kadish' from the Talmud."
The Kadish, as translated by Christian scholar, Rev. John Gregorie, is as follows:
.
.
.
....and in the earth here below. Let thy kingdom reign over us now and forever. The holy men of old said, Remit and forgive unto all men whatsoever they have done against me. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil thing. For thine is the kingdom, and thou shalt reign in glory for ever and for evermore."
The eminent Swiss theologian, Dr. Wetstein, says: "It is a curious fact ...
.
.
...
http://www.thenazareneway.com/lords_prayer.htm
--------------------
Gnothi seauton
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a130/Psyloki/Avatars/4p9zbd1.gif ScienceDaily (July 22, 2006)
Researchers Identify Very First Neurons In The 'Thinking' Brain) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060721182137.htm)
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b389/Jedda14/rachel-mcadams_dot_net-avatarsfinds.png
Wizard of the Month
Audrey O'Brien (http://hogwartsxbegins.proboards106.com/)
EARTH TO ETERNITY
An Exhibition on Brhadisvara (http://ignca.nic.in/ex_0014.htm)
Publication
12th Oct.1993 - 20th Oct. 1993
Government Museum, Egmore, Madras
http://ignca.nic.in/images/line1.gif
..........programme called Kshetra Sampada. (http://ignca.nic.in/ks_body.htm)
The Brhadisvara Temple was built by Rajaraja I of the Chola Dynasty in 1010 AD.
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0017.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0057.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0003.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0004.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0005.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0007.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0009.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0010.jpg
http://ignca.nic.in/images/brah/big/bbb_0001.jpg
Murals of Brhadisvara Temple (http://ignca.nic.in/asp/showbig.asp?projid=brah)
List of all known alien bases and their missions
alien-earth.org
Lucian Ilea (http://www.alien-earth.org/forum/message.php?message=18925&mpage=1&showdate=7/2/08) List of all known alien bases and their missions
SOME EXTRATERRESTRIAL BASES ON EARTH!
if you go tho theese areas you will be mett by a mind controle shield so that you back of from the areas !
The following is a list of known bases of UFO aliens. The questions might be asked "What are they doing, who is behind this, what are their plans, why?" All we will say at this moment is that there are many bases, and few aliens, but the technology they possess is far and above anything we as Humans have available. Many of the "Greys" are created beings with no Soul or Spirit to do the bidding of beings from Orion (Lizards). Hybrids are produced from a crossbreed of genetically different individuals. Homo Sapiens are either abducted, captured or "volunteers". Base Location
Greenland: Cape Farvel. Aim: To receive cargo from the moon. Regional people used as slaves. 20 aliens and spaceships.
North Pole: No people. A huge machine made out of an alien metal. Computing system (same as the one used by the 'Greys'
* Russia: Kola : Main centre for mind and body implants. Medic group. Each implant connected to a computer. 50 aliens and 50 humans. 110 hybrids and 550 animals. Telepathy. hybride army made out of 5,000 people. Sexual experiments. Use of electricty instead of walls.to keep you out
Novoja Zemla Island: Spaceship reparation. 65 aliens, 45 humans and 80 hybrids. 16 spaceships. Components from Andro12.
Siberia (Chatanga Region, where the rivers Kotuja y Cheta meet) Aim: send waves to locals. Learning languages. Control over Russia. 66 Aliens, 200 humans, 65 hybrids and 27 spaceships. 150 doctors. Create Russian chaos. Plan designed in Andromeda.
* Alaska: Brooks Range, Cental part (latitude 148. Region of mountains Philip Smith & Horace). Aim: To eradicate population. Linked to Antartica's base. Control over ozone layer, but not earthquakes. 30 aliens, 55 hybrids, and 32 human scientists. 27 spaceships to distribute food. People abducted not older than 35. Invisible weather manipulating machines.
Brook Range: Region of Mountains Schwatka. Genetic work. Fleshy bodies but quite robotic still. Preparing a new race. Abducted babies and children. 400 aliens. 165 human scientists. Young womend for artificial insemination tests. There is another base under the Artic Circle.
* Canada: Mount Greenough. Industrial base. Provides other bases with material. Many of the spaceships come from the moon, a resting point. Quite apacific base. 450 aliens and 550 technician hybrids.
Mountains Richardson: Mount Hare area. News control system. They didn't expect us to learn about them. Have their own satellites. 200 aliens and 110 hybrids trained as robots. 55 humans. No need for spaceships.
* Iceland: Just under the Artic Circle. Jokulsaaglifu National Park. Patrol base. Total elimination of population. 49 aliens, 78 hybrids and 55 humans happy to navigate the ships. 18 space ships. Aim: Being aware of foreign alien presence. Want the total destruction of Europe's strong nucleus. Infiltrated in the European Parlament.
In the center of Iceland: Aim: Emancipation. 100 aliens, 86 hybrids, and 150 humans. English speaking. One global order. One peace solely where the Greys will be our leaders. Entry close to a volcano crater. Europe is the main target. Russia must remain poor and agitates. Programmes already tried in Andromeda.
* Norway: Finmark - Restegai'sa area. Atomic energy research. 20 technician aliens & 10 hybrids. No ships. Prisoners for testing.
Troms, north to Ovre Dividal Nasjonal Park, in the mountains close to Sweden´s border, and in between the rivers Lainbalven and Korkarmaalven. Aim: Alien trainning in Earth´s matters. Trainned in Andromeda to be capable to rule on Earth. Control of our leaders. 150 aliens, and 400 hybrids experts in computing. No humans, and 5 small but fast spaceships. Intelligence Agency.
Nordland, near Sweden's border. Ballangen and Storsteinsfjellet area. Aim: European Abduction Centre. Abductees believe they are in a different planet, and some become spiritual leaders. Monitoring implants. 100 aliens and 120 hybrids. 70 humans, all spiritual leaders. 10 spaceships.
* Sweden: Norbottens Län. West of Kiruna. Area of Kebnekaise and Rensjön. Politic Base. Control over northern Europe. 45 aliens experts in political manipulation. 90 hybrids. 76 humans. 10 spaceships.
Norbottens Län - Abisko National Park. - 50 km. approx. from Norway. Goal: Help other bases (eg. abductee transport). Plenty of movement. All the bases in Europe have screens against any kind of physical or mental approximation.175 aliens. The most competent hybrids. 25 spaceships.esitados aquí. 25 spaceships.
Norbottens Län - Kvilskjokk area - 100 km. from Norway. Political Base. Plan our leaders' speeches. Screens following leaders and manipulating thoughts. 40 aliens and 35 hybrids. No spaceships.
* Finland: Utasjoki, border with Norway (Finmark). Scientific Base. Genetic experiments in search of a prototype able to infiltrate in Europe. Young women abducted and inseminated. 50-year-old-programme. 40 aliens, all doctors. 300 hybrids. 150 humans acting as patients and breeders. 20 spaceships.
the existence of these alien bases poses questions and possibly problems for us as Humans. Why are they here, how long have they been here, what are their plans? We are aware from readings and information which we have been given that the earth has had such "visitors", if they can be called visitors, throughout its long history spaning millions of years. There are others out there, who are very far advanced in comparison to ourselves, and who regulary visit our planet. For what purposes we can only guess. But, to achieve bases and spend considerable time on earth without our knowledge, well, to us this appears they, whomever they are, are not up to anything positive. This can readily be seen if we can believe the reports and other data we have read about such intruders.
One thing we have observed, and these are tips for you the viewer should you ever be confronted by these beings/aliens, is that one should exhibit or provide them no fear. Be aggressive to them - attempt to get them off guard.
If you think you are confronted by one of these, and you may never know if the person you are talking to is one of them or not, because they come in all disguises, just think no fear, and mentally surround yourself with positive white light. The first step is to know and understand these beings, the second step is to be able to have no fear about them as to bodily damage and damage to your own spirit. And think LOVE at all times and service to others! What you think is what you will attract to yourself. It's a fact and has been proven over and over to be correct.
Major World Bases of the ET's (Subject to Changes)
LOCATION DESCRIPTION
Moon and Mars Mars: Three (3) Alien Bases, Moon: Five (5) Alien Bases: Location: Just around left side of Moon as seen from Earth where there is some light.
Greenland
Soviet Union
Ten (10) Bases 1) Cape Farvel, 2) Tundra - Peninsula of Kola, 3) Island of Novoja Zemla, 4) Sibera - Chatanga where the rivers of Kotuja and Cheta meet, 5) Russia - just under the Artic Circle town of Egveknot.
Alaska
Two (2) Bases 1) Brooks Range, Central part, Latitude approx.148 degrees area Philip Smith Mtns.
2) Schwatka Mtns., town of Ambler.
Canada
Three (3) Bases Mount Greenough, Richardson Mtns., Mount Hare.
Iceland
Three (3) Bases Jokulsaarglifur National Park, Center of the island.
Norway
Four (4) bases Finmark area Rastegai'sa, Troms north of Ovre Dividal Nasjonal Park between the rivers Lainbalven and Korkamaalven, Nordland area Ballangen & Storsteinsfjellet.
Sweden
Three (3) Bases Norbottens Lan area Kebnekaise and Resjon, Norbottens Lan Abisko National Park, Norbottens Lan area Kvilskjokk about 100 Km from the Norway border.
Finland Utsjoki Finmark practically on the border to Norway.
Australia
Six (6) Bases Mt. Allott near Lake Gillen Gibson Desert, Great Artesian Basin Hoods Range, near Murra-Mura, Near Collerina NSW, Strzecki Desert, Cordillo Downs area. An underground base at Alice Springs is also considered - this is a US base.
Mexico
45 Bases Sierra Madre Oriental - area of Neueva Rosita, Charcos de Risa, Sierra de la Fragua, Casas Grandes, Ojo del Carrizo, San Jose de la Popa, Palo Blanco, Cerro Carrizal, Baja California - San Felipe, Durango - San Bernado, El Salto, El Troncon, Zacatecas - Antontonilco, Apizollaya, San Luis Potosi - Sierra de Catorce, between Ciudad Valles and Rayon, Guanajuato - Mtns. of Dolores Hidalgo, Ciudad Dr.H. Alvarez, Santa Cruz de Juventino Rosas and Irapuato, Queretaro area Jalpan, Michoacan West of Penjamo, Queretaro - Amealco, between Jalpan and Tamazunchale, southern part of Sierra Gorda, Hidalgo - Coacuilco, Progresso, Metztitlan District, Michoacan - Maravatio de Ocampo, Coalcoman de Matamoros, Estado de Mexico 0 Atlacomulco, Tejupilco de Hidalgo, Sierra Madre del Sur - Sierra Campo Morado - Chilpancingo and Filo del Caballo, El Limon, Tlappa de Comonfort, Puebla - Izucar de Matamoros, San Juan Izcaquixtla, Xicotepec de Juarez and Filomeno, Tlaxcala - Zitaltepec, Oaxaca - San Augustin Loxicha, Tlahuitoltepec, Sierra Juarez Chiquihuitlan, Sierra de Miahuatlan, Chiapas - Cerro los Bolones, and Canyon del Sumidero.
Bermuda Triangle
12 Bases Antiqua, Barbuda, Santa Lucia, Bahamas Eluthera, Acklins, and Little Inagua.
U.S.A.
35 Bases Nevada - Division Peak Black Rock Desert, Ruby Mtns. between Sherman Mt. and Jiggs, Florida - underwater base between Jackonville and Palatka, Colorado - Gore Range near lake, Warden Valley, Oklahoma - Lake Cherokees, between Danway and Delaware, Oregon - The Dalles Mt. Hood, Washington - Barron, Colville Calispel Peak, Indiana - Fort Wayne Churubusco, Terre Haute, Rockville - Greencastle, New Mexico - Las Vegas area Baldy Peak, Gallinas Mt., Grants area - Paguate, Mt. Taylor, Tajique - Laguna del Perro area, Dulce, Alabama - New Marrket, L M Smith Reservoir, Falkville, Iowa - Mt. Pleasant Wapello, Massachusetts - Mt. Everet, Maine - Eagle Lake, North Dakota - Bismark, Aberdeen, Napoleon, Michigan - underwater base near Big Sable Pt., Montana Livingstone area, Piney Buttes, Utah - near Noamy Pk, Logan city, Arizona - Baldy Pk., Kenndrick Pk, Flagstaff, Red Lake, Wisconsin - fond du Lac, Elkhorn - William Bay, Center City Turtle Lake, Nebraska - North Platte Seneca and Ringgold, Kentucky & Virginia - Evarts Harlan (underground city), New York - North of the state, Montana - Southwest from Big Timber (underground base headquarters for the planet.)
Antarctic
2 Bases Admirality Mtns. Mt. Levick on top of the ice, Sor Rondame mountains
Uruguay Minas de Corrales border with Brazil
Argentina
31 Bases Cordoba - Villa de Maria, San Juan - Cerro las Tortolas (2 bases), north of Maipo volcano, Aero Cerro Aconcaqua, Cruz Del Eje - Cruz del Eje, Rio Negro near Piedra de Aguila, Twin Bases - area around El Bolson and Norquinco, Neuquen - Loncopue', Junin' de los Andes, Chubut - near Corcovado, area Lago futalauquen, Rio Pico, Rio Mayo, Santa Cruz - Cerro O'Higgins, between Tres Lagos and Monte Fitzroy, Cerro Mesa, between Lago Moreno and Lago Nansen, La Rioja - Cerro Bonete Chico, Sierra de Famatina, eastern part of Sierra de la Punilla, Mendoza - Cerro Aconcagua, Cerro Sosneado, Catamarca between Fambala and Santa rosa, north west of Hualfin, Santa Maria, area Sierra de Catamarca (a very important base), Salta - Cafayate, near lake Laguna de Gayatayoc
80 and some days till we meet our galactic neighbours
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTIzNDgyNTc3M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTc5OTYyMQ@@._ V1._SX98_SY139_.jpg
:cool:Around the World in 80 Days (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327437/)
The Roswell incident... http://www.crystalinks.com/roswellcollage.jpg
...(same as the one used by the 'Greys' from Andromeda.) (http://dyg3.tripod.com/id21.html)
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/sem_lmg.jpg
New Nanowire-Based
Memory Could Beef Up
Information Storage
Nanotechnology / Physics
19 hours ago | User rating: 4.2 / (http://www.physorg.com/)
Researchers from the University of
Pennsylvania have created a type
of nanowire-based information
storage device that is capable of
storing three bit values rather than
the usual two—that is, "0," "1," and ...:cool:
...had over three hundred witnesses http://www.crystalinks.com/roswellcoverup.jpg
'Mind's eye' influences visual perception
General Science / Biologywww.physorg.com/news/July 01, 2008 (http://www.physorg.com/news134148063.html)
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/mindseyeinfl.jpg
A graphic depiction of the sequence of events in the experiment from top left to bottom right. First, a person looks at a blank screen and imagines a green pattern. Next, she puts on the red-green glasses and looks at a screen with two superimposed patterns: one green and one red. The green pattern is visible to one eye and the red image is visible to the other eye. The longer she has spent imagining the green pattern, the more likely it is that she will see the green pattern, demonstrating that what people imagine can influence what they see later in time. Credit: Joel Pearson
BRAIN (http://www.crystalinks.com/ezine.html)Brain's "Core" Revealed by First Hi-Res Wiring Map (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080701-brain-core.html) National Geographic - July 2, 2008http://www.crystalinks.com/brainmap708.jpg
http://www.crystalinks.com/00ewjuly2stars.jpg
Planets Align for the 4th of July (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/01jul_4thofjuly.htm?list164000) NASA - July 1, 2008 http://www.crystalinks.com/movthoth.gif<<http://www.crystalinks.com/00crop.jpg>> (http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2008/allcannings/allcannings2008a.html)
First images of solar system's invisible
frontierSpace & Earth science / Space Exploration
16 hours ago | User rating: 4 / http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/tmb/heliosphere.jpg (http://www.physorg.com/news134223453.html)
NASA's sun-focused STEREO spacecraft unexpectedly
detected particles from the edge of the solar system
last year, allowing University of California, Berkeley,
scientists to map for the first time the energized ...
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/tmb/lhcenormousm.jpgLHC: enormous magnet segment lowered down a shaft, 17 hours ago
Original storyRelevant storiesOther pix
A front-row seat at this summer's physics extravaganza
Jul 02, 2008 | User rating: 4.5 / 5 after 12 vote(s)
Nearly 20 years in the making, the largest particle accelerator in the world will start running in Switzerland this summer, offering scientists a glimpse of particles that have never been seen before.
"It's like looking for diamonds," said Wyslouch. "You dig up all the dirt, and then you sift through the dirt. You throw most of it away, but every once in a while you see a diamond."
Full story » (http://www.physorg.com/news134220960.html)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEOkxRLzBf0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UCzhN2clis&feature=related
OM NAMA SHIVA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zbQnKvwaBg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5n57OSe8tw&feature=related
Lunar GRAIL (http://www.physorg.com/news130762113.html)
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/grail.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i12nO6Y-MMQ&feature=related
Surprisingly rapid changes in the Earth's core discovered
Space & Earth science / Earth Sciences (http://www.physorg.com/news134642306.html)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do7yeVbcNnY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVadQxwzNno&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO82u7CKj1k&feature=related
all gone ..just slides remain ( ..manipulated into repetitions in different hologramic programmes, made in a way to be upside-down, or inside-out, or right what used to be left and so on.. all in the light of ' creation' of ever better way of destruction)
http://www.***********************/forum1/message570398/pg3
A message to insiders who sometimes visit this forum RSS
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 422730
7/7/2008 3:57 PM Re: A message to insiders who sometimes visit this forum Quote
Dunno about the limited number of seats though.
--------------
I'm thinking on a conscience level in the collective humans, light hs a pyramid effect, stemming out from the golden ratio. Take for instance, in the human collective there will only be 5% of the populus plugged into that spiritual awareness while the rest are at the opposite pole. In an infinate universe theres infinate potential I suppose, but in the laws of nature theres only a limited position to certain posts. Just like theres only a limited number of node points on a geometrical shape. The truth of the matter is you are what you reflect from. As it goes, ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, its just down to the individual to cross each magnetic barrier by making donuts in the spirit and so on and so forth.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 463519
I guess there are few that actually ask or remember how to...
Come to think about it, what you are suggesting is sort of true (pyramid).
HardTruth
User ID: 423076
7/7/2008 4:05 PM
Re: A message to insiders who sometimes visit this forum Quote
SoftLie (HardTruth), your pretty damn sure of yourself ain't ya?
I consider myself to be a christian and don't have to demonize anything.. the bible confirms extraterrestial (as in not from earth) intelligence by its very nature and desribes several "factions" of such, if you will. There's the "good" ones, from a biblical POV, ie. those that are subordinate to YHWHs sovereignty and and "bad" ones that don't.
Anyways, what are we here to chat about?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 464456
Even blind men can smell BS..
My eyes however, are wide open and see very well!! My nose works too!!
Yes, your bible speaks of alien visitations of both malevolent and benevolent races, as well as inter-dimensional entities of both the aforementioned caliber!!
What you in your brilliance fail to recognize however, is on which side of the fence this YHVH belongs..
You have been sold an erroneous concept of the divine, that has been detrimental in you ability to determine the difference between what is TRULY DIVINE and what isn't..
So your question was, Am I sure of myself?
Absolutely!!!!
And when you register, I will avail myself to you, with greater details in my answers!!
___________
If it expects, or demands worship, it is not divine!!
Let the truth be told... though the heavens fall!
The opposite of bravery is not cowardice but conformity.
Nothing is more dangerous, than trying to give truth to people, who are stuck in their ways...
I am not bound by the laws of original sin.. I am one of the other people..
[link to www.paganlibrary.com]
Saxon (777)
Faithful and True
User ID: 315937
7/7/2008 5:49 PM
Re: A message to insiders who sometimes visit this forum Quote
There are no aliens who come to earth.
Demons posing as aliens. Nephlilim were the offspring of these fallen angels.
They are coming back for the grand finale.
Don't be fooled.