| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mitchell" |
| Date: |
04 Jul 2004 04:16:10 PM |
| Object: |
As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
The Big Bang singularity is wrong. It could not have started
that way. The instance there was mass(energy) there was gravity.
The entire universe's gravity as a singularity would be impossible
to escape. There could be no expansion against such infinite
gravity(singularity).
That you cannot divorce gravity from the begining mass is the lesson of the
unified field. There is no time before which there is no gravity.
The naked singularity and consequential inflation are excuses for
the singularity failure.
There is inflation but there are no singularities.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
05 Jul 2004 03:07:27 AM |
|
|
(Mitchell) wrote in message news:<9c3da975.0407041316.6b2730f9@posting.google.com>...
[snip crap]
There is inflation but there are no singularities.
Prove it.
You can't but ill ask anyway.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
05 Jul 2004 04:02:44 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <fsegg@uaf.edu> wrote in message news:fd0fc2fa.0407050007.25cdd325@posting.google.com...
macromitch@internetCDS.com (Mitchell) wrote in message news:<9c3da975.0407041316.6b2730f9@posting.google.com>...
[snip crap]
There is inflation but there are no singularities.
Prove it.
You can't but ill ask anyway.
Never ask a question to an idiot.
He will say something silly that makes you want to ask
two more questions.
You always lose.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
05 Jul 2004 02:56:12 PM |
|
|
(Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.0407050007.25cdd325@posting.google.com>...
macromitch@internetCDS.com (Mitchell) wrote in message news:<9c3da975.0407041316.6b2730f9@posting.google.com>...
[snip crap]
There is inflation but there are no singularities.
Prove it.
Inflation is obviously right and singularities are obviously absurd.
There are no curved space-time infinities.
You can't but ill ask anyway.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
The end of time is the end of space and mass as well. No time- no
space or mass is possible.
Singularities don't exist because they are the End of the unified field.
The End of time is the End of everything(else).
That is the law of unification - Disprove that principle.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light falls --
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter K." |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
04 Jul 2004 11:07:02 PM |
|
|
Compelled to reply and the answer is No way because there was a way.
Big Bang's Energy had a direction (outwards), the strenght of this
direction was proportional to the Energy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
05 Jul 2004 04:43:46 PM |
|
|
In article <9c3da975.0407041316.6b2730f9@posting.google.com>,
Mitchell <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote:
The Big Bang singularity is wrong. It could not have started
that way. The instance there was mass(energy) there was gravity.
The entire universe's gravity as a singularity would be impossible
to escape. There could be no expansion against such infinite
gravity(singularity).
Escape to where? The universe was smaller then, but it was still the
universe; how would you escape from the universe, and where would you go
that's not in the universe?
That you cannot divorce gravity from the begining mass is the lesson of the
unified field. There is no time before which there is no gravity.
Looks like you're trying to use general relativity to disprove general
relativity. But the expansion of the universe is not analogous to an
astronaut orbiting a black hole. The theory allows cosmological models
with a universe expanding from a Big Bang.
--
"Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler."
-- Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
05 Jul 2004 10:12:00 PM |
|
|
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<ccci2i$m29$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9c3da975.0407041316.6b2730f9@posting.google.com>,
Mitchell <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote:
The Big Bang singularity is wrong. It could not have started
that way. The instance there was mass(energy) there was gravity.
The entire universe's gravity as a singularity would be impossible
to escape. There could be no expansion against such infinite
gravity(singularity).
Escape to where? The universe was smaller then, but it was still the
universe; how would you escape from the universe, and where would you go
that's not in the universe?
Time-space istelf would be unable to escape a gravitational singularity.
There would be no possible way for expansion against such infinite gravity.
Show me where I am wrong.
That you cannot divorce gravity from the begining mass is the lesson of the
unified field. There is no time before which there is no gravity.
Looks like you're trying to use general relativity to disprove general
relativity. But the expansion of the universe is not analogous to an
astronaut orbiting a black hole. The theory allows cosmological models
with a universe expanding from a Big Bang.
According to Stephen Hawking General Relativity predicts its own
downfall by predicting singularities.
I am not alone here. But I have more to say: the End of time-space
is also the end of the Unified Field; leaving nothing at all.
But there is no such end therefore there are no singularities.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light slows --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
06 Jul 2004 03:32:05 AM |
|
|
"Mitchell" <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message news:9c3da975.0407051912.4838de7a@posting.google.com...
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<ccci2i$m29$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9c3da975.0407041316.6b2730f9@posting.google.com>,
Mitchell <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote:
The Big Bang singularity is wrong. It could not have started
that way. The instance there was mass(energy) there was gravity.
The entire universe's gravity as a singularity would be impossible
to escape. There could be no expansion against such infinite
gravity(singularity).
Escape to where? The universe was smaller then, but it was still the
universe; how would you escape from the universe, and where would you go
that's not in the universe?
Never ask two questions to an idiot.
He will say something silly that makes you want to ask
four more questions.
You always lose.
Time-space istelf would be unable to escape a gravitational singularity.
There would be no possible way for expansion against such infinite gravity.
Show me where I am wrong.
We always lose.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
06 Jul 2004 08:45:05 AM |
|
|
In article <9c3da975.0407051912.4838de7a@posting.google.com>,
Mitchell <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<ccci2i$m29$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9c3da975.0407041316.6b2730f9@posting.google.com>,
Mitchell <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote:
The Big Bang singularity is wrong. It could not have started
that way. The instance there was mass(energy) there was gravity.
The entire universe's gravity as a singularity would be impossible
to escape. There could be no expansion against such infinite
gravity(singularity).
Escape to where? The universe was smaller then, but it was still the
universe; how would you escape from the universe, and where would you go
that's not in the universe?
Time-space istelf would be unable to escape a gravitational singularity.
There would be no possible way for expansion against such infinite gravity.
Show me where I am wrong.
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/friedman.html
That you cannot divorce gravity from the begining mass is the lesson of the
unified field. There is no time before which there is no gravity.
Looks like you're trying to use general relativity to disprove general
relativity. But the expansion of the universe is not analogous to an
astronaut orbiting a black hole. The theory allows cosmological models
with a universe expanding from a Big Bang.
According to Stephen Hawking General Relativity predicts its own
downfall by predicting singularities.
That's in reference to black holes, not the Big Bang.
I am not alone here. But I have more to say: the End of time-space
is also the end of the Unified Field; leaving nothing at all.
But there is no such end therefore there are no singularities.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light slows --
--
"The result of this experiment was inconclusive, so we had to use
statistics." (Overheard at international physics conference)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
06 Jul 2004 10:47:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <9c3da975.0407051912.4838de7a@posting.google.com>,
Mitchell <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<ccci2i$m29$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
Looks like you're trying to use general relativity to disprove general
relativity. But the expansion of the universe is not analogous to an
astronaut orbiting a black hole. The theory allows cosmological models
with a universe expanding from a Big Bang.
According to Stephen Hawking General Relativity predicts its own
downfall by predicting singularities.
That's in reference to black holes, not the Big Bang.
Also the idea is not that GR has shown itself to be false because it
predicts curvature singularities, but rather that GR must be *incomplete*
because there are points in spacetime that cannot be properly described by
it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
06 Jul 2004 06:24:26 PM |
|
|
Creighton Hogg <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0407061044310.9121-100000@azalea.hep.wisc.edu>...
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <9c3da975.0407051912.4838de7a@posting.google.com>,
Mitchell <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<ccci2i$m29$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
Looks like you're trying to use general relativity to disprove general
relativity. But the expansion of the universe is not analogous to an
astronaut orbiting a black hole. The theory allows cosmological models
with a universe expanding from a Big Bang.
According to Stephen Hawking General Relativity predicts its own
downfall by predicting singularities.
That's in reference to black holes, not the Big Bang.
Also the idea is not that GR has shown itself to be false because it
predicts curvature singularities, but rather that GR must be *incomplete*
because there are points in spacetime that cannot be properly described by
it.
GR is incomplete and I know how.
It needs to become a limited strength gravity theory. If infinite gravity
is the problem then the obvious answer is that it must be limited.
Black hole physics is the very failure of GR.
The first fact to testify to this failure is that matter falls at
the speed of light in a "black hole."
It's the infinite Einstein shift prediction that spells its absolute failure
though. There would be light of infinite wavelength at an event horizon.
Energyless light?
Popyock.
Dead light?
If you wish to know the limit: it is a below light speed acceleration.
That is for freefall as well as weight(acceleration equivalence).
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
07 Jul 2004 03:55:34 AM |
|
|
(Mitchell) wrote in message news:<9c3da975.0407061524.3a7c1cef@posting.google.com>...
Creighton Hogg <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0407061044310.9121-100000@azalea.hep.wisc.edu>...
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <9c3da975.0407051912.4838de7a@posting.google.com>,
Mitchell < > wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<ccci2i$m29$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
Looks like you're trying to use general relativity to disprove general
relativity. But the expansion of the universe is not analogous to an
astronaut orbiting a black hole. The theory allows cosmological models
with a universe expanding from a Big Bang.
According to Stephen Hawking General Relativity predicts its own
downfall by predicting singularities.
That's in reference to black holes, not the Big Bang.
Also the idea is not that GR has shown itself to be false because it
predicts curvature singularities, but rather that GR must be *incomplete*
because there are points in spacetime that cannot be properly described by
it.
GR is incomplete and I know how.
It needs to become a limited strength gravity theory. If infinite gravity
is the problem then the obvious answer is that it must be limited.
You stoopid *****, its been said many times - infinite gravity does not
exist in GR in ANY FORM outside r=0. Everywhere else is finite.
Black hole physics is the very failure of GR.
Idiot.
The first fact to testify to this failure is that matter falls at
the speed of light in a "black hole."
Matter does not. You are an idiot. Both you being an idiot and matter
not falling at c has been mentioned before but will be repeated.
It's the infinite Einstein shift prediction that spells its absolute failure
though. There would be light of infinite wavelength at an event horizon.
Energyless light?
Popyock.
Dead light?
Whats the problem outside your obvious inability to come to terms with
that concept?
If you wish to know the limit: it is a below light speed acceleration.
That is for freefall as well as weight(acceleration equivalence).
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
It has been said before, the term 'light speed acceleration' means
jack.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
07 Jul 2004 05:22:00 AM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
GR is incomplete and I know how.
It needs to become a limited strength gravity theory. If infinite gravity
is the problem then the obvious answer is that it must be limited.
Ok show us where it says it's infinite..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
07 Jul 2004 12:43:08 PM |
|
|
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<c9QGc.5$857.1@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
Mitchell wrote:
GR is incomplete and I know how.
It needs to become a limited strength gravity theory. If infinite gravity
is the problem then the obvious answer is that it must be limited.
Ok show us where it says it's infinite..
The thinking goes like this: since the Schwarzschild coordinate system
blows up at the event horizon, gravity is infinite!
Or even better: since photons get redshifted to infinity at the event
horizon when viewed by an outside observer, gravity is infinite!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
07 Jul 2004 08:10:10 PM |
|
|
(Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.0407070943.e7b0a2c@posting.google.com>...
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<c9QGc.5$857.1@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
Mitchell wrote:
GR is incomplete and I know how.
It needs to become a limited strength gravity theory. If infinite gravity
is the problem then the obvious answer is that it must be limited.
Ok show us where it says it's infinite..
The thinking goes like this: since the Schwarzschild coordinate system
blows up at the event horizon, gravity is infinite!
No.
Or even better: since photons get redshifted to infinity at the event
horizon when viewed by an outside observer, gravity is infinite!
Almost.
The infinity of the singualrity is infinite gravity or
infinite space-time curvature.
There is limited gravity.
There is another infinity Eric - that sets the limit to the strength
of gravity - and that is the infinite Einstein shift at the event
horizon.
Energyless Light?
Absolute Poppycock.
Limited gravity is the law.
The limit of gravity is a finite Einstein shift.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light falls --
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
05 Jul 2004 10:41:06 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
According to Stephen Hawking General Relativity predicts its own
downfall by predicting singularities.
Hawking's statement refers to places of extreme gravitation such
as inside event horizons were we have now way of making measurements.
However, were we can make measurements, there has NEVER been a
prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted by an experiment or
observation. NEVER!
It is a testament to human imagination that we have developed such
fruitful tools to help us understand nature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
06 Jul 2004 03:55:51 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40EA1F4F.A9C3C16E@mchsi.com>...
Mitchell wrote:
According to Stephen Hawking General Relativity predicts its own
downfall by predicting singularities.
Hawking's statement refers to places of extreme gravitation such
as inside event horizons were we have now way of making measurements.
However, were we can make measurements, there has NEVER been a
prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted by an experiment or
observation. NEVER!
It is a testament to human imagination that we have developed such
fruitful tools to help us understand nature.
The physics fails on the way to singularities.
Black holes are the very failure of General Relativity.
Gravity is limited and there are no singularities.
The testing ground of GR is the solar system. This is very weak gravity
and GR as a limiting case will be very close.
The effects of a limited gravity theory will not show themselves until
very powerful gravitational fields are tested.
We're no where near doing that.
I can wait.
Mitch Raemsch
-- LIGHT FALLS --
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
05 Jul 2004 11:39:41 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
It is a testament to human imagination that we have developed such
fruitful tools to help us understand nature.
Amen.. Mitchell reminds me of the maxim, "If the only tool you have is a hammer,
then all your problems look like nails."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
05 Jul 2004 10:38:06 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
Show me where I am wrong.
blah blah blah... you have demonstrated that you will not accept anyones
evidence.. you'll just argue it ad nauseum..
Anyways, it's no skin off anybodies nose if you refuse to educate yourself. The
rest of the world will go on quite happily whether you get it or not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
04 Jul 2004 05:10:47 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
The Big Bang singularity is wrong.
Empirical idiot.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
It could not have started
that way. The instance there was mass(energy) there was gravity.
Hey stooopid - the Weil tensor, gravitation without matter.
[snip agrammatical crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
04 Jul 2004 09:24:43 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<40E88067.B393C986@hate.spam.net>...
Mitchell wrote:
The Big Bang singularity is wrong.
Empirical idiot.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
It could not have started
that way. The instance there was mass(energy) there was gravity.
Hey stooopid - the Weil tensor, gravitation without matter.
I said you cannot have matter without gravity; not the other way
around- you little mensa baby.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
04 Jul 2004 10:39:44 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
I said you cannot have matter without gravity; not the other way
around- you little mensa baby.
Show us math..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
04 Jul 2004 04:20:57 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
The Big Bang singularity is wrong. It could not have started
that way. The instance there was mass(energy) there was gravity.
The entire universe's gravity as a singularity would be impossible
to escape. There could be no expansion against such infinite
gravity(singularity).
That you cannot divorce gravity from the begining mass is the lesson of the
unified field. There is no time before which there is no gravity.
The naked singularity and consequential inflation are excuses for
the singularity failure.
There is inflation but there are no singularities.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
Show your calculations!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
04 Jul 2004 06:35:48 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
The Big Bang singularity is wrong. It could not have started
that way. The instance there was mass(energy) there was gravity.
The entire universe's gravity as a singularity would be impossible
to escape. There could be no expansion against such infinite
gravity(singularity).
That you cannot divorce gravity from the begining mass is the lesson of the
unified field. There is no time before which there is no gravity.
The naked singularity and consequential inflation are excuses for
the singularity failure.
There is inflation but there are no singularities.
Show the math.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity |
06 Jul 2004 07:24:59 PM |
|
|
gravity is a low in the energy presure of space.
Energy is pushing the universe out .
Gravity wount push energy. Mass is condenced energy any is bouyant in
energ allways displaced to less .
There was no gravity till some energy paservated into motion , an eddy
in energy as a partical that is not expanding with the universe and
takes up space in time.
Standing outside the universe looking in
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
