 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008energy creation
This redunctant view of the universe was espoused by steady state cosmology. The obvious question raised, if we support a view that energy isn't created, is when did the universe stop creating matter \energy? and what mechanism caused this to happen? at what point will the expanding universe force energy\matter to become so diffuse so as not to be able to form galaxies, quasars etc? > This redunctant view of the universe was espoused by steady state > cosmology. The obvious question raised, if we support a view that > energy isn't created, is when did the universe stop creating matter > \energy? and what mechanism caused this to happen? > at what point will the expanding universe force energy\matter to > become so diffuse so as not to be able to form galaxies, quasars etc? Think of the universe as having zero net energy and everything we measure in the observable universe is "borrowed" from the vacuum. >> This redunctant view of the universe was espoused by steady state >> cosmology. The obvious question raised, if we support a view that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > we measure in the observable universe is "borrowed" from the > vacuum. ROFLOL! vacuum (a nothing) that loans nothing energy to everything. LOL  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > > This redunctant view of the universe was espoused by steady state > > cosmology. The obvious question raised, if we support a view that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Think of the universe as having zero net energy and everything > we measure in the observable universe is "borrowed" from the vacuum. Think of the universe [God] as having infinite net energy and everything we measure in the observable universe is "borrowed" from the vacuum. You see, muser, you have been sucked into the false (widespread) belief that the universe is expanding. This nonsense has led you away from a proper perception of things. It is the multi-dimensional nature of the universe that creates the effects that have been widely and erroneously interpreted as expansion. Ever wonder how the "power" which is to say "energy" of God could be infinite? Suppose just for example that the world is actually a massive AI "program" and all the things we view as "reality" are actually just algorithms in that "matrix"? Now once one attains the ability to move OUTSIDE of the program and alter the programming, things WE regard as mass-energy can come and go at will although INSIDE the program a "balance" is maintained by the mathematics which we interpret as "energy conservation". A being with administrative programming access would be a "god" who could alter anything at will even make the entire "universe" disappear and reappear without the slightest problem with so-called "energy conservation". OK? >>> This redunctant view of the universe was espoused by steady state >>> cosmology. The obvious question raised, if we support a view that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > everything > we measure in the observable universe is "borrowed" from the vacuum. Infinite energy... obviously not.... Benj... do you know the meaning of "infinite"? > You see, muser, you have been sucked into the false (widespread) > belief that the universe is expanding. This nonsense has led you away > from a proper perception of things. It is the multi-dimensional > nature of the universe that creates the effects that have been widely > and erroneously interpreted as expansion. Word salad... cite evidence. > Infinite energy... obviously not.... Benj... do you know the meaning > of "infinite"? "obviously"? Do YOU know the meaning of the word "infinite"? Obviously not. Do you know the extent of the Universe? Obviously not. Do you know the extent of change that is POSSIBLE for the universe to make? Obviously not. What is "obvious" is that your physics is "faith- based" and any consideration of theory outside your fence is automatically rejected by you. I believe that is the definition of "infinite stupidity". > > You see, muser, you have been sucked into the false (widespread) > > belief that the universe is expanding. This nonsense has led you away [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Word salad... cite evidence. No facts or theory presented to disprove anything I asserted. Cite evidence that your dogma is correct. >> Infinite energy... obviously not.... Benj... do you know the >> meaning of "infinite"? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > automatically rejected by you. I believe that is the definition of > "infinite stupidity". Oh dang that was a good one! Nice one Benj. So true, so true. :) > No facts or theory presented to disprove anything I asserted. Cite > evidence that your dogma is correct. He will post his "copy and paste" group of snippets from his relativity bible. :) >> Infinite energy... obviously not.... Benj... do you know the meaning >> of "infinite"? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > No facts or theory presented to disprove anything I asserted. Cite > evidence that your dogma is correct. No need... you are the challenger. > > > This redunctant view of the universe was espoused by steady state > > > cosmology. The obvious question raised, if we support a view that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Think of the universe [God] [snip crap] That was quick. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > > > This redunctant view of the universe was espoused by steady state > > > > cosmology. The obvious question raised, if we support a view that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 Think of an amoeba with a telescope. Can it see the moon? Yet we think that because everything we can see is expanding, EVERYTHING is expanding. We always think we're at the center of everything, but the Universe could extend a billion billion times farther than we can see, and even if this little bit is expanding, that doesn't mean the whole thing is expanding. We're not that important- not even you, Al. John > Think of an amoeba with a telescope. > Can it see the moon? Yes... the amoeba can react to the light of the moon. > Yet we think that because everything we can see > is expanding, EVERYTHING is expanding. Space is observed to be expanding stretching the wavelength of CMB light with it.... We also observe galaxies and clusters of galaxies receding from us due to this cosmic expansion > We always think we're at the center of everything, No we have learns the the is no "center" of the expansion. We are no more the center than any other point in the cosmos. No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.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 http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.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 > but the Universe could extend a billion > billion times farther than we can see, and even if > this little bit is expanding, that doesn't > mean the whole thing is expanding. What we can observe of the universe is expanding. A non static universe was predicted by Albert's equations 90 years ago... The equation have held up well and so have their predictions.. In fact, John, there has never been a prediction of relativity that's been contradicted by an observation. Think about that John. None of us may be important, but the observations surely are. > We're not that important- not even > you, Al. > > John > > Think of an amoeba with a telescope. > > Can it see the moon? [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - All we need now is archimedes plutonium and the circle of unintelligible post\posters would be complete. > > > Think of an amoeba with a telescope. > > > Can it see the moon? [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > - Show quoted text - sam I'm not referring to you in anyway. I mistaken replied to your post, though I hope we all know to whom I'm referring. >>>> Think of an amoeba with a telescope. >>>> Can it see the moon? [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > sam I'm not referring to you in anyway. I mistaken replied to your > post, though I hope we all know to whom I'm referring. Rats... I'm disappointed! :-) > >>>> Think of an amoeba with a telescope. > >>>> Can it see the moon? [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dark energy was the original energy that became concentrated into matter. Mitch Raemsch > > Think of an amoeba with a telescope. > > Can it see the moon? [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > In fact, John, there has never been a prediction of > relativity that's been contradicted by an observation. This is outright false. I suggest that interested readers look up the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly. Their observed trajectories directly contradict the prediction of relativity. André Michaud > Think about that John. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > John >>> Think of an amoeba with a telescope. >>> Can it see the moon? [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > André Michaud André, some thermal emission on a few spacecraft does not contradict GTR... All other bodies don't behave like those spacecraft... What prediction? What prediction, I say, do you think is contradicted? Which prediction? >> Think about that John. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> you, Al. >>> John > André, some thermal emission on a few spacecraft does not > contradict GTR... All other bodies don't behave like those > spacecraft... In short, Sam is saying the king is not naked. He is clothed in the finest linen and silk. (although he is actually naked) LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > I suggest that interested readers look up the Pioneer 10/11 > anomaly. Their observed trajectories directly contradict the > prediction of relativity. Sam can't do that. It would be against his religion. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On 3 juil, 23:02, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > > I suggest that interested readers look up the Pioneer 10/11 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Sam is an unconditional Einstein fan. He probably kneels each morning thanking Einstein for his "seamless" theories and spends the rest of the day spreading his gospel. Easily verified by the numbers of posts he finds time to cook up and post each day in support. The rest of the world however, at least all who even minimally research the Pioneer 10/11 case, including of course Anderson himself et al. who led most of the research, are well aware that the hyperbolic trajectories of both crafts directly contradict Einstein's prediction. Past attempts have shown that nothing can be done to help Sam out of his bubble. André Michaud > On 3 juil, 23:02, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > André Michaud I don't think you get it André--Relativity, nor the quantum mechanics, is likely to be the "final word"... What they are, in their respective domains, are remarkably fruitful tools. It is true that their predictions have not be contradicted by observations. When one wants to make progress understand in new phenomena in these area... one needs these tools. Just because you don't understand either in depth is no justification for disparaging the theories or implying they are religions. Get real! > srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 3 juil, 23:02, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > justification for disparaging the theories or implying they are > religions. Get real! --------------------------- Qm is nothing but a tool to take data and make interpolations or extrapolations of data nothing more it is a mathematical machine and a machine no matter which one can only output the imput it cant create new ideas or new understandings or make any revolusionin science untill now there is no substitution to the lille factory that is above our shoulders no other ' machine' can compete with it and even that above super sophisticated machine that goes with us wherever we go can do it as for now the best way by TRIAL AND ERROR curved space time' for instance, was a wonderful trial but a colosal error !! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------- > srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 3 juil, 23:02, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > true that their predictions have not be contradicted by > observations. Flat out wrong! Even Anderson and Nieto, the best informed parties on the Pioneers so-called trajectory anomaly, freely conclude that GR is inadequate to cover the case. But who are they to contradict such a devout GR fan as you? > When one wants to make progress understand in new > phenomena in these area... one needs these tools. > > Just because you don't understand either in depth is no > justification for disparaging the theories or implying they are > religions. Get real! Sure. Since I disagree with your certainty, I obviously know nothing. The usual condescending orthodox line to any hint of looking out of the beaten path for solutions. Pityful as usual. André Michaud srp2...@gmail.com wrote: [...] > Flat out wrong! Even Anderson and Nieto, the best informed > parties on the Pioneers so-called trajectory anomaly, freely > conclude that GR is inadequate to cover the case. That's because it isn't a GR problem. http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2656 [...] > Sure. Since I disagree with your certainty, I obviously know > nothing. The usual condescending orthodox line to any > hint of looking out of the beaten path for solutions. It just wouldn't be an Andre Michaud post without a whine about "the orthodoxy". > Pityful as usual. > > Andr� Michaud >> srp2...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On 3 juil, 23:02, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > parties on the Pioneers so-called trajectory anomaly, freely > conclude that GR is inadequate to cover the case. They clearly state that they don't have the final answer. One of the reasons they published was with the idea that there could be new physics... but they certainly did not say that "GR was inadequate" or that this was a problem for GR. > But who are they to contradict such a devout GR fan as you? I think the like of you, André, would benefit by understanding the successes of GTR and what the theory is really about, before attempting to claim it is wrong without "suitable" evidence that contradicts GTR. Hell you even reject the evidence for Dark Matter. >> When one wants to make progress understand in new >> phenomena in these area... one needs these tools. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > nothing. The usual condescending orthodox line to any > hint of looking out of the beaten path for solutions. I don't claim certainty, but I do respect a tool that has yet to have one or more of its predictions contradicted by of observations. A few isolated (Note that is NOT ALL) spacecraft experiencing anomalous acceleration does not contradict GTR. > Pityful as usual. > > André Michaud > srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > >> srp2...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > say that "GR was inadequate" or that this was a problem > for GR. Anderson certainly did. You obviously did not read the whole file since he specifically asserted the fact. Besides, what do you think he was alluding to with the "new physics" bit that you are aware of ? What other new physics on relativistic inertial trajectories can there that would not leave GR behind ? You should get your data straight. You did not even find the info on the second unrelated anomaly, this one putting SR on the stand, that of the spin slowdown. So how could your opinion be worth anything. > > But who are they to contradict such a devout GR fan as you? > > I think the like of you, André, would benefit by understanding > the successes of GTR and what the theory is really about, before > attempting to claim it is wrong without "suitable" evidence > that contradicts GTR. I do understand the successes of GR up to the level of precision that it allows. Just as I understand the successes of classical mechanics up to the lesser level that it allows. The Pioneer trajectories anomaly simply is beyond the level of precision that GR allows. A more precise theory simply is required. > Hell you even reject the evidence for Dark Matter. Evidence ? What evidence ? Undetectability ? > >> When one wants to make progress understand in new > >> phenomena in these area... one needs these tools. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I don't claim certainty, You do with your flat out assertion that "GR predictions have not be contradicted by observations" Very misleading and utterly false. > but I do respect a tool that has > yet to have one or more of its predictions contradicted by > of observations. A few isolated (Note that is NOT ALL) > spacecraft experiencing anomalous acceleration does not > contradict GTR. I also respect GR within the limits that it can account for events with sufficient precision. But it is useless for these trajectories, just like classical mechanics is useless when relativistic considerations are at play. Your "not all" is meaningless since no other craft on solar escape trajectory has transmited long enough for the data to be meaningfully analyzed. They are the only such crafts for which we have sufficient data for meaningful study. And they both confirm the inadequacy of GR to deal with their real inertial escape trajectories. Both in opposite directions. But of course nothing can swerve your belief. However, any inquisitive mind can follow the Anderson and Nieto trail from 1998 on and study the case through the succession of papers that they issued and do the math if they can. This obviously always was beyond you (or beneath you, more to the point) however. André Michaud On Jul 11, 6:18 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > > srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> srp2...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > André Michaud ----------------- one of the biggest lies of 'modern science' is that curved space time' IDEA -- predicted anything!! it was only fiddling in experimental data and the most it could do is interpolate or extrapolate data sapce is nothing and cant have any properties curved motion of some basic particles IS ANOTHER STORY !!! ( i called it -- the Circlon and onl;y that the bigger particles move as Newtons first law of movement !!!) so some masses move in curved pathes and others move in straight lines ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------- > On Jul 11, 6:18 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 147 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Acceleration creates more kinetic energy by the Gamma factor. Mitch Raemsch > [snip crap] > > That was quick. [snip Al who had nothing intelligent to say as usual] That was quick. >>> This redunctant view of the universe was espoused by steady state >>> cosmology. The obvious question raised, if we support a view that [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > even make the entire "universe" disappear and reappear without the > slightest problem with so-called "energy conservation". OK? I'm calling Poe's Law on this > This redunctant view of the universe was espoused by steady state > cosmology. The obvious question raised, if we support a view that > energy isn't created, is when did the universe stop creating matter > \energy? and what mechanism caused this to happen? > at what point will the expanding universe force energy\matter to > become so diffuse so as not to be able to form galaxies, quasars etc? The issue of obvious energy induction though acceleration was put to bed with the reciprocal notion of potential energy because the implications were too impressive to consider coming to term with. However, if you take away this made up notion, you do end up with energy indeed being created through acceleration. Back to square one. Some day, physical reality will have to be faced squarely and dealt with, with all the now unforeseeable benefits that increase in knowledge usually provides. André Michaud On Jul 1, 7:49 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > > This redunctant view of the universe was espoused by steady state > > cosmology. The obvious question raised, if we support a view that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > André Michaud ---------------- of course energy or mass are not created they are there since ever **energy is mass in motion** and knowledge is the key issue (unlike delusion of knowledge !!which is worse than ignorance!!) we have to stride to knowledge that will enable us to know were and on what to 'sit' in order of 'getting a ride' on that mass in motion !! ---------------- ATB Y.Porat -------------------------- > On Jul 1, 7:49 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Gamma energy is the concentrated energy of mass in motion. E=Gamma MC^2 Mitch Raemsch > > On Jul 1, 7:49 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > E=Gamma MC^2 > Mitch Raemsch -------------------- photons is indeed mass in motion as any other energy butthe gamma does not belong to it because for the massof the photon there is no magnifing factor do you know why?? because c is (apparently) the top limit velocity for anything (you cant magnify the maximum (:-) ok ??? 2 every mathematical physics formula or eqaution has its limits of validation you cant extrapolate it or interpolate it endlessly !! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------- Y.Porat ---------------------------- > > > On Jul 1, 7:49 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It takes deceleration energy to lower kinetic energy or speed. This is energy destruction. Mitch Raemsch > > > > On Jul 1, 7:49 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch --------------------- hey Mitch there is a law of conservation of energy energy is never destructed!! may be you mean that energy was *extracted ** form the decelerated mass but guess what ?? it went to another place... can you imagine were ?? ATB Y.Porat ------------------------- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.