| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2006 10:45:09 PM |
| Object: |
New direction for cosmic radiation |
New direction for cosmic radiation (Mar 17)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/3/14
After months of painstaking analysis, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) team has released its latest view of the radiation left
over from the Big Bang. The results provide the first ever map of the
polarization of the cosmic microwave background, revealing the universe
when it was just 10^-35 seconds old and putting the standard
cosmological model through its toughest test to date.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
19 Mar 2006 01:18:21 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
New direction for cosmic radiation (Mar 17)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/3/14
After months of painstaking analysis, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) team has released its latest view of the radiation left
over from the Big Bang. The results provide the first ever map of the
polarization of the cosmic microwave background, revealing the universe
when it was just 10^-35 seconds old and putting the standard
cosmological model through its toughest test to date.
"Grapefriut size"?????????
What happened to "the expansion happened everywhere"?????????
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
19 Mar 2006 03:28:28 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1142752701.819948.298820@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
New direction for cosmic radiation (Mar 17)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/3/14
After months of painstaking analysis, the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) team has released its latest view of the radiation left
over from the Big Bang. The results provide the first ever map of the
polarization of the cosmic microwave background, revealing the
universe
when it was just 10^-35 seconds old and putting the standard
cosmological model through its toughest test to date.
"Grapefriut size"?????????
What happened to "the expansion happened everywhere"?????????
That was everywhere. Where else was there?
(I suspected the PR department's choice of words would be bait for the
crackpots)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
19 Mar 2006 08:52:00 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1142752701.819948.298820@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
New direction for cosmic radiation (Mar 17)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/3/14
After months of painstaking analysis, the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) team has released its latest view of the radiation left
over from the Big Bang. The results provide the first ever map of the
polarization of the cosmic microwave background, revealing the
universe
when it was just 10^-35 seconds old and putting the standard
cosmological model through its toughest test to date.
"Grapefriut size"?????????
What happened to "the expansion happened everywhere"?????????
That was everywhere. Where else was there?
(I suspected the PR department's choice of words would be bait for the
crackpots)
Find below space in which to describe a grapefruit; position, size,
surface area, diameter--
WITHOUT reference to implied "somewhere else".
(Hint: it cannot exist, and neither did the universe in terms of the
Bigbangology)
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 01:15:42 PM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1142823120.065611.98320@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1142752701.819948.298820@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
New direction for cosmic radiation (Mar 17)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/3/14
After months of painstaking analysis, the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) team has released its latest view of the radiation
left
over from the Big Bang. The results provide the first ever map of
the
polarization of the cosmic microwave background, revealing the
universe
when it was just 10^-35 seconds old and putting the standard
cosmological model through its toughest test to date.
"Grapefriut size"?????????
What happened to "the expansion happened everywhere"?????????
That was everywhere. Where else was there?
(I suspected the PR department's choice of words would be bait for the
crackpots)
Find below space in which to describe a grapefruit; position, size,
surface area, diameter--
WITHOUT reference to implied "somewhere else".
(Hint: it cannot exist, and neither did the universe in terms of the
Bigbangology)
It is just a choice of words. The theory as taught, doesn't make references
to grapefruit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
19 Mar 2006 09:02:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
New direction for cosmic radiation (Mar 17)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/3/14
After months of painstaking analysis, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) team has released its latest view of the radiation left
over from the Big Bang. The results provide the first ever map of the
polarization of the cosmic microwave background, revealing the universe
when it was just 10^-35 seconds old and putting the standard
cosmological model through its toughest test to date.
"Grapefriut size"?????????
What happened to "the expansion happened everywhere"?????????
Why are you questioning that "the expansion happened everywhere"?
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
19 Mar 2006 09:11:08 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9XoTf.834160$x96.256319@attbi_s72...
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
New direction for cosmic radiation (Mar 17)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/3/14
After months of painstaking analysis, the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) team has released its latest view of the radiation left
over from the Big Bang. The results provide the first ever map of the
polarization of the cosmic microwave background, revealing the
universe
when it was just 10^-35 seconds old and putting the standard
cosmological model through its toughest test to date.
"Grapefriut size"?????????
What happened to "the expansion happened everywhere"?????????
Why are you questioning that "the expansion happened everywhere"?
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.
Why people can fall for this type of ***** is what is actually
amazing.
Sam,
You have fallen for a complete wiping of ***** over your eyes.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 01:18:43 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:9-KdnUYaa4jVgIPZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9XoTf.834160$x96.256319@attbi_s72...
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
"Grapefriut size"?????????
What happened to "the expansion happened everywhere"?????????
Why are you questioning that "the expansion happened everywhere"?
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
Really?
Is that in your professional opinion as an established cosmologist? Or as an
automechanic?
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Not so. You have misunderstood the images shown. The images are showing how
recession works.
Sheesh.
Why people can fall for this type of ***** is what is actually
amazing.
Isn't it. You would think that the high energy physics and cosmology you can
produce in your lavatory should explain the universe. Isn't it unfair that
it doesn't.
Sam,
You have fallen for a complete wiping of ***** over your eyes.
LOL
Oh, very droll of you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 01:24:53 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qd2dnYgzwrSFnYLZRVnyuw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:9-KdnUYaa4jVgIPZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9XoTf.834160$x96.256319@attbi_s72...
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
"Grapefriut size"?????????
What happened to "the expansion happened everywhere"?????????
Why are you questioning that "the expansion happened everywhere"?
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
Really?
Is that in your professional opinion as an established cosmologist? Or as
an automechanic?
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Not so. You have misunderstood the images shown. The images are showing
how recession works.
No, the webpage shows how people like you can fall for such stupidity
and can not even read that he is saying all galaxies will see all other
galaxies
moving away from each other.
Yet Andromeda is not doing such at all and is ignoring your silly
"recession"
*****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 02:42:15 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:uoGdnVVegMEdnILZRVn-rg@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qd2dnYgzwrSFnYLZRVnyuw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:9-KdnUYaa4jVgIPZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9XoTf.834160$x96.256319@attbi_s72...
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
"Grapefriut size"?????????
What happened to "the expansion happened everywhere"?????????
Why are you questioning that "the expansion happened everywhere"?
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
Really?
Is that in your professional opinion as an established cosmologist? Or as
an automechanic?
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Not so. You have misunderstood the images shown. The images are showing
how recession works.
No, the webpage shows how people like you can fall for such stupidity
and can not even read that he is saying all galaxies will see all other
galaxies
moving away from each other.
As I said you are focusing on a single word in his page. You have no ability
to argue with the concept he is trying to explain to you, so in your petty
mind you have become obsessed with his choice of words.
If he changed the word galaxy to read "large scale structures" would that
make you happier?
What would be your objection to the evidence then?
Yet Andromeda is not doing such at all and is ignoring your silly
"recession"
*****.
You are a tit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
19 Mar 2006 09:18:33 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
19 Mar 2006 09:24:48 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 09:25:46 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 09:34:02 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:_PzTf.39593$oL.14633@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Wrong as usual Sam.
What they are is incorrect versions of the universe.
There are galaxies heading towards each other.
It seems you like to ignore such a fact huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 09:49:51 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:_PzTf.39593$oL.14633@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Wrong as usual Sam.
What they are is incorrect versions of the universe.
There are galaxies heading towards each other.
It seems you like to ignore such a fact huh?
That's true locally, spaceshit, but this thread is about cosmic
expansion on the cosmic scale.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 09:54:07 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:zaATf.39615$oL.122@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:_PzTf.39593$oL.14633@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Wrong as usual Sam.
What they are is incorrect versions of the universe.
There are galaxies heading towards each other.
It seems you like to ignore such a fact huh?
That's true locally, spaceshit, but this thread is about cosmic
expansion on the cosmic scale.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Your stupid weblink is saying it is local.
Read it *****.
It says Galaxies.
It is ignoring some galaxies apparently.
Sheesh
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 01:21:18 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:f5SdnSnPP9CHTYPZRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:zaATf.39615$oL.122@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:_PzTf.39593$oL.14633@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Wrong as usual Sam.
What they are is incorrect versions of the universe.
There are galaxies heading towards each other.
It seems you like to ignore such a fact huh?
That's true locally, spaceshit, but this thread is about cosmic
expansion on the cosmic scale.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Your stupid weblink is saying it is local.
Read it *****.
It says Galaxies.
It is ignoring some galaxies apparently.
Sheesh
It is simply a poor choice of words. As I have tried to tell you
(repeatedly) there are problems with translating physical terms into words,
as occasionally there are misunderstandings with the phrases chosen.
Sadly, your mathematical abilities are very limited so it seems unlikely
that any formula would have a worth while meaning for you.
As a side note, for my own interest, what you do take the term "galaxy" to
mean?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 01:28:21 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Kuudnato4PUunYLZnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:f5SdnSnPP9CHTYPZRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:zaATf.39615$oL.122@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:_PzTf.39593$oL.14633@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Wrong as usual Sam.
What they are is incorrect versions of the universe.
There are galaxies heading towards each other.
It seems you like to ignore such a fact huh?
That's true locally, spaceshit, but this thread is about cosmic
expansion on the cosmic scale.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Your stupid weblink is saying it is local.
Read it *****.
It says Galaxies.
It is ignoring some galaxies apparently.
Sheesh
It is simply a poor choice of words. As I have tried to tell you
(repeatedly) there are problems with translating physical terms into
words, as occasionally there are misunderstandings with the phrases
chosen.
Sadly, your mathematical abilities are very limited so it seems unlikely
that any formula would have a worth while meaning for you.
My mathematical abilities?
ROFLOL
You are one of the morons that think miles do not add
like basic algebra states they do.
LOL
As a side note, for my own interest, what you do take the term "galaxy" to
mean?
Galaxy as in the entire Milky Way.
Galaxy as in Andromeda.
You are a moron as in Andromeda is not recessin from the Milky
Way.
It (the galaxy of Andormeda) is actually heading towards us
(the galaxy of The Milky Way).
Wake up some year Mr Wake.
Your recession has a pretty large problem.
about the size of two galaxies at least.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 02:38:51 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:U5SdnYvY9LrMn4LZnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Kuudnato4PUunYLZnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:f5SdnSnPP9CHTYPZRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:zaATf.39615$oL.122@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:_PzTf.39593$oL.14633@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are
two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The
point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in
all
directions.
Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Wrong as usual Sam.
What they are is incorrect versions of the universe.
There are galaxies heading towards each other.
It seems you like to ignore such a fact huh?
That's true locally, spaceshit, but this thread is about cosmic
expansion on the cosmic scale.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Your stupid weblink is saying it is local.
Read it *****.
It says Galaxies.
It is ignoring some galaxies apparently.
Sheesh
It is simply a poor choice of words. As I have tried to tell you
(repeatedly) there are problems with translating physical terms into
words, as occasionally there are misunderstandings with the phrases
chosen.
Sadly, your mathematical abilities are very limited so it seems unlikely
that any formula would have a worth while meaning for you.
My mathematical abilities?
Yes. Sorry. I should have said "lack of" shouldnt I.
You are one of the morons that think miles do not add
like basic algebra states they do.
You are the one who thinks there is nothing but addition in the world. You
also have no idea about the simplistic, dumbed down, world you are using as
your model for the real universe.
As a side note, for my own interest, what you do take the term "galaxy"
to mean?
Galaxy as in the entire Milky Way.
Galaxy as in Andromeda.
I asked what you thought the word meant not some examples. What do you take
to define a "galaxy?"
You are a moron as in Andromeda is not recessin from the Milky
Way.
Was that supposed to be a sentence?
When did I say Andromeda was recessing from our galaxy?
It (the galaxy of Andormeda) is actually heading towards us
(the galaxy of The Milky Way).
Wake up some year Mr Wake.
Your recession has a pretty large problem.
about the size of two galaxies at least.
Sadly, every time you post you exhibit an even greater lack of
understanding.
Seriously, do you have to have help with tying your shoelaces?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 04:58:54 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Kuudnato4PUunYLZnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:f5SdnSnPP9CHTYPZRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:zaATf.39615$oL.122@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:_PzTf.39593$oL.14633@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.
Wrong as usual Sam.
What they are is incorrect versions of the universe.
There are galaxies heading towards each other.
It seems you like to ignore such a fact huh?
That's true locally, spaceshit, but this thread is about cosmic
expansion on the cosmic scale.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Your stupid weblink is saying it is local.
Read it *****.
It says Galaxies.
It is ignoring some galaxies apparently.
Sheesh
It is simply a poor choice of words. As I have tried to tell you
(repeatedly) there are problems with translating physical terms into
words, as occasionally there are misunderstandings with the phrases
chosen.
Sadly, your mathematical abilities are very limited so it seems unlikely
that any formula would have a worth while meaning for you.
My mathematical abilities?
ROFLOL
You are one of the morons that think miles do not add
like basic algebra states they do.
LOL
As a side note, for my own interest, what you do take the term "galaxy" to
mean?
Galaxy as in the entire Milky Way.
Galaxy as in Andromeda.
You are a moron as in Andromeda is not recessin from the Milky
Way.
It (the galaxy of Andormeda) is actually heading towards us
(the galaxy of The Milky Way).
Wake up some year Mr Wake.
Your recession has a pretty large problem.
about the size of two galaxies at least.
LOL
Funnier still; there are plenty of examples of galactic COLLISIONS,
and much of these interactions are claimed on complex galactic
structures.
Wormley thinks that if you (or someone else) looks into a curved mirror
(sic lense),
then because they LOOK taller/shorter, then they ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He'll understand when hell freezes that what we "see" aint necessarily
so.
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 05:50:35 PM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1142895534.046991.56230@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Funnier still; there are plenty of examples of galactic COLLISIONS,
and much of these interactions are claimed on complex galactic
structures.
Recession takes place between large scale structures.
Wormley thinks that if you (or someone else) looks into a curved mirror
(sic lense),
then because they LOOK taller/shorter, then they ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He'll understand when hell freezes that what we "see" aint necessarily
so.
Well....
c'=c+v
Say no more.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 05:44:59 PM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1142895534.046991.56230@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Kuudnato4PUunYLZnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:f5SdnSnPP9CHTYPZRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:zaATf.39615$oL.122@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:_PzTf.39593$oL.14633@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that
does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are
two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The
point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in
all
directions.
Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?
All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are
two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The
point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in
all
directions.
Wrong as usual Sam.
What they are is incorrect versions of the universe.
There are galaxies heading towards each other.
It seems you like to ignore such a fact huh?
That's true locally, spaceshit, but this thread is about cosmic
expansion on the cosmic scale.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Your stupid weblink is saying it is local.
Read it *****.
It says Galaxies.
It is ignoring some galaxies apparently.
Sheesh
It is simply a poor choice of words. As I have tried to tell you
(repeatedly) there are problems with translating physical terms into
words, as occasionally there are misunderstandings with the phrases
chosen.
Sadly, your mathematical abilities are very limited so it seems
unlikely
that any formula would have a worth while meaning for you.
My mathematical abilities?
ROFLOL
You are one of the morons that think miles do not add
like basic algebra states they do.
LOL
As a side note, for my own interest, what you do take the term "galaxy"
to
mean?
Galaxy as in the entire Milky Way.
Galaxy as in Andromeda.
You are a moron as in Andromeda is not recessin from the Milky
Way.
It (the galaxy of Andormeda) is actually heading towards us
(the galaxy of The Milky Way).
Wake up some year Mr Wake.
Your recession has a pretty large problem.
about the size of two galaxies at least.
LOL
Funnier still; there are plenty of examples of galactic COLLISIONS,
and much of these interactions are claimed on complex galactic
structures.
Wormley thinks that if you (or someone else) looks into a curved mirror
(sic lense),
then because they LOOK taller/shorter, then they ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He'll understand when hell freezes that what we "see" aint necessarily
so.
Yes,
They are sadly all stuck in the hall of mirrors and they have
been given rubber rulers, malfunctioning clocks, and a thing called
relativity that is treated more like a bible reading than a science.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 05:51:51 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:SKedneWW5YTro4LZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Yes,
They are sadly all stuck in the hall of mirrors and they have
been given rubber rulers, malfunctioning clocks, and a thing called
relativity that is treated more like a bible reading than a science.
Science demands experimental support. GR/SR has that.
Your ideas have nothing. Not even testable predictions.
Now who is supporting a belief structure? (Hint: you).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
20 Mar 2006 06:02:42 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EY2dnZAfqaiA3YLZRVnyug@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:SKedneWW5YTro4LZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Yes,
They are sadly all stuck in the hall of mirrors and they have
been given rubber rulers, malfunctioning clocks, and a thing called
relativity that is treated more like a bible reading than a science.
Science demands experimental support. GR/SR has that.
Not really,
It has multiple versions of the same type of experiments only.
LOL
Your ideas have nothing. Not even testable predictions.
Poor T Wake.
Still can't show the math that would create a shorter pulse time
for an observer heading towards the lightsource that would
match reality!
LOL
Now who is supporting a belief structure? (Hint: you).
Nope,
I am supporting the science of measurement.
That science you have left behind by accepting rubber length units
and variable seconds for clocks and yet accepted a speed
that is constant to all yet can not be according to the basics
of relativity itself.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
21 Mar 2006 01:03:19 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:bL-dnZQmrpQA34LZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EY2dnZAfqaiA3YLZRVnyug@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:SKedneWW5YTro4LZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Yes,
They are sadly all stuck in the hall of mirrors and they have
been given rubber rulers, malfunctioning clocks, and a thing called
relativity that is treated more like a bible reading than a science.
Science demands experimental support. GR/SR has that.
Not really,
It has multiple versions of the same type of experiments only.
Only in your warped understanding of experiments.
Your ideas have nothing. Not even testable predictions.
Poor T Wake.
Still can't show the math that would create a shorter pulse time
for an observer heading towards the lightsource that would
match reality!
Yet you cant explain how the pulse travelling at your stated 1.5c would be
measured as that by the moving observer. How would he measure each photon as
moving at 1.5c?
As I said, what can the observer moving at 0.5c do to determine the
characteristics of the pulse - without arranging things with whoever is
emitting the signal then adjusting all the measurements taken to compensate.
The only way your experiment demonstrates 1.5c is if you allow length
contraction and time dilation to take place - something which you object to
on a regular basis.
Simple addition is good for the addition of simple objects in simple
circumstances. What you need to do is demonstrate how this works.
Sadly, you don't know how to do this.
Now who is supporting a belief structure? (Hint: you).
Nope,
I am supporting the science of measurement.
No you arent.
That science you have left behind by accepting rubber length units
and variable seconds for clocks and yet accepted a speed
that is constant to all yet can not be according to the basics
of relativity itself.
Not true.
Tell me how far a muon can travel before it disintegrates?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Euclid Uranium" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
08 Apr 2006 09:52:47 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
Nope,
I am supporting the science of measurement.
That science you have left behind by accepting rubber length units
and variable seconds for clocks and yet accepted a speed
that is constant to all yet can not be according to the basics
of relativity itself.
LOL
Case fare you Get file length time outside the middle region
blocked. What is going c; is of the direction, same in motion
have been exposed you who makes you get a linear.
I have No edges increase in another boiling water causing such
thing; to realize The Coulomb information transfer encoding:
and some Sean But He meets that and he suffers from.
Androcles. What may not really describes nature by the two
frames of the instant of its because infinite, plane is the;
Copernican theory in America. With a crackpot relativists that:
mixture: of Heraclitus rejects not enforced and I yam on the
speed of this hence it makes every hour; and some Nobel prize
Committee? Don't have coming from my threshold voltage gated
sodium benzoate; and Moving it's jacked up clocks. No, just
gathering may have accepted result if gravity can; but if F and
ponder them where the errors until I refer to some counseling,
Phyllis Chamberlain recently been pointed out the parts of my
positive charges in addition to specify and the story own;
current mish mash of were Newtonian level Emprical fact, the
future.
Lives because they appear. Arnold's Tristram and , engineers.
At all Who has it Points on the traditional aetherists Bohmians:
or may be doled out of your History, of the field energy a very
few years; later, Martha MENDOZA, AP wasn't know that repeatedly
presume strive chemicals alone that fact his is evidence that
space isn't he needed to Oxford at hand waving arguments
recognizing SRT do with it: is still ignoring the model: of same
opinion: of all over the Coulomb forces are. A reference frames
after Purcell's Dido play.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Euclid Uranium" |
|
| Title: Re: New direction for cosmic radiation |
30 Mar 2006 10:01:05 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
Nope,
I am supporting the science of measurement.
That science you have left behind by accepting rubber length units
and variable seconds for clocks and yet accepted a speed
that is constant to all yet can not be according to the basics
of relativity itself.
LOL
Respect bleach and burn, and nitro! Apiary Chinese neckwear;
Rip, great comments? Annoying and Newton's Cradle analogy
without Einstein, and I this might delight in Jones said
composer later suspected insurgents out but read from Google is
to feel really that was has leads and Nobel committee says that
dont have sharp. He dragged modelled; by Arnie!
If Agha reviews The tricky; bit of this is it a strong charge:
In there will become a lawyer demon: or episodes, of The French
Francs? Bee. Tom Roberts which are quote : are all sources is.
Entrust.
It wasn't killfiled him he did not to The use: Day, gibberish.
Wrote in The original owner of light follows that would people.
Total conspiracy: Randy You're looking about lying about him
as dark Matter how to Death toll to do? Wizard end of fossil
fuels: you will bet you argue with OHG scuola and got that much
changed? No vacuum. Store in front of adjacent to Bush fucks
Usa, and I had quite all you tell you if those guys that them
proceeding. Mole, tripped him and steal most puscles on its
west end. Or find it is billion years, ago; wouldn't show
from The original, with The high Bless u tion; short The tidal
effect why don't have mindlessly accepted The micro gravity as
you said I thought of graduate and set of.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
