The universes expansion accelleration solved.

Posted by: Marchimedes

The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 05/27/07 08:12 PM

I usually go by the screen name teacher.





Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 05/28/07 01:25 AM

Thanks for another entertaining post. Just a few points:-

The current estimate for the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.

The Big Bang started without any matter - it was too hot, so there was only energy. The matter could form only after expansion had begun.

"Now they say we might just barely be able to see the edge of our universe"

- The universe has no edge, but the observable universe does. That's not a limitation of observation technology. We can observe only that part of the universe from which light has had time to travel, i.e., within a distance of about 13.7 billion lt.yrs.

"I say our visible universe is just one spot on our ball"

- Yes, so do the experts. It's estimated that the actual size of the universe is at least 156 billion lightyears.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

"The outside edge of our universe would have to be travelling faster than the inside edge."

- The Big Bang started from an infinitely small point, in an infinitely dense state. So, the Big Bang happened everywhere. So, there is no centre, i.e., no one place where the Big Bang happened - it happened everywhere; and there is no edge. On large scales, matter is mutually receding a rate proportional to the separation distance.

"All the mass gets hurled out at the same velocity"

- No, it doesn't. The Big Bang was not like a conventional explosion. Matter was not ejected 'through' space. Space itself expanded. This expansion caused wavelengths to stretch and temperature to fall. This allowed matter to form. Since space was expanding, matter was separated by ever increasing distance, except where that was prevented by gravity, the electroweak force and the strong force. There is no single point in the universe from which all else is receding. The whole universe was that 'point'; so, the velocity of any object can be measured not in relation to a point of origin 'within' the universe, but only relative to another object, and these velocities, on the large scale, increase with distance.

"All moving away from the centre at pretty much the same speed. Leaving the middle empty, and the empty center growing larger as the material expands"

- The material doesn't expand, only the space.

- Studies of the large scale (observable) universe show that the distribution of matter is regular, i.e., the universe is homogenous and isotropic, throughout. There is no 'middle' and, on the large scale, there is no empty region:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~colbert/lecturecosmoI.htm

"So, the egg heads came up with something called dark matter"

- They didn't just "come up with it". The evidence for it is very strong, since it's effects are observable in the rotation of galaxies and in gravitational lensing.

"They theorised this dark matter is "pushing" matter away."

- No, they didn't do that. I think you're confusing "dark matter" with "dark energy"

From: http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/dark-energy.html

"In an article titled "The Cosmic Triangle: Revealing the State of the Universe," which appears in the May 28, 1999 issue of the journal Science, a group of cosmologists and physicists from Princeton University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory survey the wide range of evidence which, they write, "is forcing us to consider the possibility that some cosmic dark energy exists that opposes the self-attraction of matter and causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate." "

"In physics we have 4 known forces. weak and strong nuclear, electronegativity and gravity"

- You mean "electromagnetic". True, but these days we often find the term 'electroweak' applied as a unified description of electromagnetism and the weak interaction, because current theory models them as two different aspects of the same force.

"A pushing force is not really in the mix here"

- Not entirely true. Like magnetic poles repel each other, and like charges also repel. For example, protons repel each other (by electrostatic repulsion) and are held together only by the strong force (from mesons). Furthermore, it's accepted that the standard model of physics is an approximation of reality, so there's room for new discoveries.

"Quasars are the force that is pulling our universe apart"

- Quasars are not actually at the edge of the universe, nor is their gravitational force significant. Among all the 100,000,000,000 galaxies, only 100,000 quasars have yet been discovered. The consensus is that they are super-massive black holes within a halo of matter. Their distance (therefore, their age) is consistent with the theory that they are proto-galaxies, as is the fact that they exhibit many of the same properties as active galaxies (those containing just such a super-massive black hole). The theory is:- primordial gas cloud >> black hole >> quasar >> active galaxy.

Marchimedes, thanks for making me think about these things. I've had to check a few facts, and I'm sure I learned something in the process! smile
Posted by: samwik

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 05/28/07 03:12 AM

This should probably be on the physics forum (or NQSci.), but....

I'll begin at the end.
[Hey, cool! Now I see how your post works (...that I can't cut n' paste from it)].

So you end with acceleration due to getting our mass closer to the quasers?
I think observations show their getting farther away.
But that could still be due to expansion from the original explosion, I guess.

There's a couple of points early on in your idea that are open to discussion, i.e. "the center," and "explosion;" but I'll respond more generally based on your statement, 'It makes no sense logically or common sense-wise; so I'm gonna stick with what's known'.

Hey, even relativity is counter-intuitive.

Overall I'd say it's fairly impossible to construct a viable model based on 3-dimensional, inside the box vs. outside the box, kind of thinking.

If you think of our familiar spacetime as being only one dimension, and then think of the "Forces" as being other dimensions, intercalating in a fractal manner with "our" dimension; then you'll get beyond problems like "the "center" of the universe being in every direction that you can look."

Hey! Google "fractals" for a beautiful little journey.
...or try "anti deSitter space"
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/nut.html
for a look at higher dimensional spaces

...and there's books like,

The landscape of theoretical physics : a global view : from point particles to the brane world and beyond in search of a unifying principle/ by Matej Pavsic.

Physics meets philosophy at the Planck scale : contemporary theories in quantum gravity / edited by....

Parallel worlds : a journey through creation, higher dimensions, and the future of the cosmos / Michio Kaku.

Also I'd suggest you browse back through some of the different topics on the Physics Forum. There is some great stuff!

I'd also love to get your fresh perspective on some of the Climate Change Forum topics.
For instance:

That is why the oceans seem so important to me. If we're going to "invest" in something to soak up CO2, why not put it where the byproduct would be food. Maybe I'm too optimistic about the oceans ability to soak up CO2, but isn't it orders of magnitude greater than anything we could produce?
-Converting CO2 to fuel #20702

It sounds as if someone could make a lot of money sequestering CO2 in this way.
Well, I'm trying to say that this process (in general) might be better at saving the planet than just cutting CO2 emissions (though that's important too).
-Peat Bogs to solve Warming? #21338

Overall, my thought is that it'd be easier to soak up CO2 rather than cut emissions; and we'd be increasing our food supply and net diversity at the same time.
p.s. ...cutting emissions is also good, but...it'll be too slow; look at the numbers.
-Peat Bogs to solve Warming? #21470

It's a complex problem, and there are lots of "positions" with their advocates; but that makes it more fun!

Keep on keepin' on....

~Samwik
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/08/07 04:49 PM

-------------------------------------------------------
The Big Bang started without any matter
-------------------------------------------------------

how would you accomplish that feat?

are you saying there was nothing except energy?
and if so then could I ask what was the catalist for the energy expansion?

in my world energy cannot exist without matter.

after all if a particle is charged (-) or (+) it is still a particle correct?

how can a nothing hold a charge?






Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/08/07 09:20 PM

Hi Paul

[The Big Bang started without any matter]
"How do you accomplish that feat?"
I don't. I don't have the slightest clue how it can be.

"are you saying there was nothing except energy?"
Yes. Well, at least, that's what the Big Bang theorists are saying...

"in my world energy cannot exist without matter."

We have to remember that, since Einstein's E=mc^2 (and notably, since the atomic bomb) it's been known that matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. Note also:

"Physicists at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in California have succeeded in producing particles of matter from very energetic collisions of light. The team, which included researchers from Stanford University, the University of Rochester in New York, the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, and Princeton University in New Jersey, published an account of their work in the September 1, 1997, issue of the journal Physical Review Letters." Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The initial conditions in the Big Bang, prior to 10^-43s (the Planck Epoch), are unknown, because the known laws of physics could not have applied. After that time (for an instant) there was only energy in the form of photons. As space expanded, temperature dropped and some of the photons became quarks. As temperature dropped more, quarks formed protons and neutrons (baryogenesis). Eventually, the lightest elements - hydrogen, helium, and lithium - formed.

The theory says that there were almost equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and all the matter in this unbelievably immense universe is just the minute fraction (one billionth) that wasn't involved in the mutual annihilation with antimatter.

http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/academy/AM-travel02.html

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_history.html#qc
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/09/07 04:31 PM

"Physicists at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in California have succeeded in producing particles of matter from very energetic collisions of light."

I havent read this yet but I speculate that the particles that were produced were already there in another form of matter.

you cannot create matter all that is here has always been here in some form or another.

I think I will wait on this one and see what the final report says in instance.

it may be that , and this is just my opinion or conjecture , that the light used borrowed matter from the device itself.

you cannot create energy or matter or anything.
you may only change its various forms.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/09/07 04:53 PM

"you cannot create matter all that is here has always been here in some form or another."
"you cannot create energy or matter or anything.
you may only change its various forms."

What you mean, of course, is that the sum of energy+matter remains constant.

In the 19th century matter and energy were thought of as two entirely different concepts. For almost a century, now, it's been known that such a distinction was erroneous, and by the end of 20th century, not only had matter been converted to energy, but energy had been converted to matter. It wouldn't surprise me to find that a great many kids leave school without knowing this, such is the sad state of science education in some parts of the world.

Here's one of many reports on the conversion of energy to matter:

http://www.skybooksusa.com/time-travel/physics/matter.htm
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/09/07 07:24 PM

no what I mean is what I said.

I know that it is extreamly hard to do but matter and energy is not constant.

energy can be drained from matter by reducing the temperature of matter until all of the electrons slow to almost the point of zero energy.
--------------------------------------
In a hot gas atoms are moving around with the increased kinetic energy inherent in their temperature.
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~bank/index.html
--------------------------------------

as temperature approaches zero kelvin energy approaches constant.

for the most part the energy that is inherent in matter is due to its environment or surroundings.

a piece of ice is moving , it has energy.

but not moving as fast as it would were it boiling water.

the reason ice forms is because the slowing of electrons.

the surrounding temperatures drop the electrons move inwards to the center they give off heat (energy).

the bonding of atoms also decrease as temperatures drop.
steel becomes brittle in extreme temperatures.


the matter has not changed.

the matters energy has.

when the steel comes close to a object that is warmer than itself it will become warmer and stronger.

unless it is too hot and the steels electrons go into a much higher orbit and the bond becomes weaker and weaker and this results in the steel melting.






















Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/09/07 07:45 PM

----------------------------------------------------------
the reason ice forms is because the slowing of electrons.
----------------------------------------------------------

the reason electrons go into a closer orbit is because they slow down after they release (heat) to the matter in their surroundings and they are not capable of sustaning the higher orbit
their angular acceleration or (kinetic energy) has decreased resulting in the inability to sustain the higher orbit in the same exact way that a satelight must sustain a certain velocity to orbit at higher or lower altitudes.



Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/09/07 08:29 PM

Paul, as we know all too well, nuclear fission produces energy. How does your explanation differ from the conventional explanation? Example:

Total mass before the reaction ( mass of U-235 + n)
= 235.0439u + 1.0087u
= 236.0526u
Total mass after the reaction ( mass of Nd + Kr + 2n)
= 147.9169u + 85.9106u + 2 x 1.0087u
= 235.8449u
There is a decrease in mass by 0.2077u. This mass has been converted to energy.
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/10/07 04:38 AM

redewenur , I would like to give you an example of what Im talking about in the form of a lab experiment.

in this example it will be shown that matter and energy are two seperate entities.

what you will need:

1) a small boiler with steam engine.
( availiable on the internet)
2) a canister filled with compressed air.
3) a tank filled with water
4) a fuel source ( for heating the water )
5) a small generator
6) a large container to hold the small power plant you will be building.

connect the generator to the steam engine.
drill a hole to allow wires to escape the large container

you may want to use a remote control to ignite the fuel in the boiler.

completely seal your small power plant up inside the large container so that nothing can escape or enter the container.

connect a light bulb of proper wattage to the wires comming out of the container from the generator.
--------------------------------
measure the weight of the container and everything in it
--------------------------------

remotely trigger the release of the compressed air and the fuel and ignite the boiler.

watch as the boiler builds pressure and the steam engine begins to turn the generator.

the light bulb lights up and it will run until it runs out of air or fuel.

--------------------------------
measure the weight of the container again
--------------------------------

although most of the fuel and air is gone.

it will all weigh the same , because the matter did not decrease.
it was converted into another form of matter not into energy.

but how then did the bulb light up , if the energy came from the matter?

as for the fission equations you replied with it is my personal opinion that the energy did not come from the matter , it was converted into another form , perhaps one that you dont know about yet , or cannot see.

but if you have lost matter then I sudgest that you try to find it or where its going , because we exist in a
matter / antimatter
environment and upsetting that balance might result in something we cant fix on this end.




















Posted by: samwik

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/10/07 05:23 AM

"the reason ice forms is because the slowing of electrons." -paul

Paul, you're confusing the kinetic energy of atoms (and molecules) with the "energy of electrons" (whatever that may be).

Cooling does not slow electrons. Hmmm, well maybe it does have some effect on "energy level" (shells)...but I'm no physicist.
[cooling does slow the translational, rotational, and vibrational movements of atoms (and molecules)]

Still, I think you're making a fundemental mistake in thinking kinetic energy refers to the electrons.

*_*

But thanks for my heartiest laugh of the day with your:
"you may want to use a remote control to ignite the fuel in the boiler."

What you're talking about is a calorimeter. Try googling that and see if you get some examples. Many tests have been done as you describe (roughly), and conservation laws don't seem to be broken.

I also enjoyed the mud-plugger; you should be an engineer. Getting all those functions into a tube-shaped rov would be quite a challenge.

Enjoy the journey....
~SA
Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/10/07 05:38 AM

Paul, with regard to your experiment, certainly, we can be confident that the 'before' and 'after' mass is identical. We know that, in normal terrestial conditions, processes that convert mass to energy don't occur naturally except in radioactive decay. If they did, none of us would be here to witness it. Such experiments as you describe are not news, and are totally irrelevant to mass/energy conversion in nuclear reactions, such as in a fission power station, or the fusion processes of a star.

Paul: "as for the fission equations you replied with it is my personal opinion that the energy did not come from the matter, it was converted into another form , perhaps one that you dont know about yet , or cannot see."

So, Paul, it's your opinion. Fine. But if you intend to refute established science, and want to avoid dogmatism, you need to come up with a better argument than a personal 'feeling' that it must be wrong.

I'm listening. Go ahead.
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/10/07 03:26 PM

(((( refute established science ))))

Thank you ... thats me!!!!!
Thats what I do...BEST.

you speak of my opinions as if they were against some type of
main stream dogma.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE RIGHT ?

have you filmed the matterlesss energy?
do you have a sample of this theoretical belief of yours?
does established science have a example?

NO its ALL conjecture isnt it?

you may want to use our galaxies black hole for your example of a local occurance as the hole spews out energy.

but I hold that even though the center of the galaxy is extremely dense (((( everything )))) that has ever entered it is still there except its energy.

now since you cant show me a feasible example then WHAT you speak of is THEORY or CONJECTURE be it yours or thousands of others combined personal thoughts.

I have a brain that processes thoughts and you do to.
should I ever lease part of that brain out to CONJECTURE and tell my brain that this is the way things happen then I might start beleving that a 757 aircraft could actually fit through a double door size hole.

or that (1) of those engines (6 ton )
delivering a impact force of 9.3 million pounds
could not punch a hole in the pentagon.

I might even start to believe that some strange mystical occurance just made them vanish into thin air.

WOOOOOOSH.....POOF ... woops ...

maybe this would be a good example of how matter is converted into energy for you to use.

although almost none of the aircraft survived the conversion, every single passenger survived enought to be identified.

so perhaps people cannot be totally converted into energy the way that 757 was.








Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/10/07 03:49 PM

- No, it doesn't. The Big Bang was not like a conventional explosion. Matter was not ejected 'through' space. -

see heres more evidence.

the ejecta from the explosion should have blowback.
there should have been massive amounts of blowback matter on the lawn.

where is it?

maybe its lost in the numbing.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/10/07 05:40 PM

Scientific Method: - Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?
Pseudoscientific Method: - Here's the conclusion. Now, what facts can we find to fit it?
Paul's Method: - Here's the conclusion. Never mind the facts.
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/10/07 08:04 PM

suppose I was in a room and in an adjacent room I heard a noise.

I get up and look in the adjacent room and there is a picture on the floor.

imediately I ASSUME that it just fell off of the wall.

because I didnt see it fall.

after close examination of the nail in the wall and the wire that is used to hang the picture on the nail I find that my initial ASSUMPTION was in error.

the nail was not bent in a way as to allow the wire to slip off and cause the picture to fall.

the wire was still attached.

so it must have fallen off some other way.

but I dont have a clue as to why it fell off.

I DID NOT SEE IT FALL.

everything I have ever known tells me that the picture could not have just fell off the wall.

but I see it on the floor.
----------------------------------------------

Scientific Method: says the picture is still there on the wall.

Pseudoscientific method : says the picture could have fallen off when all the matter was converted into energy.

I awoke from my dream and sure enough the picture is still on the wall.

you can do many things with science but you cannot create anything nor can you destroy anything.





Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/10/07 09:06 PM

to allow you a way out of your BIG BANG theory.

suppossing that this universe will collapse in on istelf at some point in the future.

everything will move toward one point in this universe.
as the matter in the center gathers , heat will result due to the pressures of gravity.

the heat will try to expand the matter closer to the center.

however because the other matter that is gathering is pushing inwards it cannot expand.

the heat causes the inner matters energy to transfer to the outer matter.

( heat moves from hot to cold )

the inner matter shrinks with every release of energy however it weighs the same ( retains its mass ).

more matter piles in on the center and this keeps occuring.

when all the matter has gathered at the center then
soon the matter at the verry center begins to expell energy that can pass through the outer matter.

the ball continues to shrink.
and continues to expell energy.

after all the releasible energy has been released.
and the matter is in its smallest configuration.

then a moment of stillness occurs.

the mass cools.

the energy is swirling in a caotic manner around the mass.

the energy begins its return.

the outer layers of the mass accept the energy , the electrons move out to a higher and higher orbit and explode with great force as the energy is passed to the electrons , the mass expands and pushes itself away.

layer after layer is ripped from the mass and ejected away from the center of the mass.

the new universe forms.






















Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/10/07 10:23 PM

I stand corrected. Mass cannot be converted to energy. Energy cannot be converted to mass. Now, do I get a reprieve, or am I still to be burned at the stake? BTW - does the sun go around the Earth, or vice versa? No! Don't answer that! grin
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/11/07 01:51 AM

Paul's Method: - Here's the conclusion. Never mind the facts.

where did you show me a fact?

point to an instance of matter converting to energy or vice versa if you believe me to be wrong.

you say you stand corrected , I did not correct you I injected my personal thoughts about the (matter).

I only dissagree with your shared opinion.











Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/11/07 05:06 AM

This is unproductive. You have some fascinating views, Paul, and I thank you for your opinions. No offence intended, but neither of us can learn from the other. There's a logical divide. So, good luck with the theories, there will no doubt be many others more receptive.
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/11/07 02:25 PM

I agree this is unproductive. and you also have some shared views that are to say the least facinating.

when it comes to logic I dont focus on theory , I focus on the here and now , the known instances , not theory.

and from those instances I build my own theory.

you cant have a can of gas without the can.

when Nikola Tesla transported energy without wires , there was still a medium for transportation.

1/2 that medium was the earth --> GROUND
1/2 was the particles in the air --> the aether as some call it.

Tesla invented the way that we transport electrical energy today , the AC alternator or generator.

yet he was ridiculed until he died.
his thoughts were not main stream either.

but every one of his thousands of patents and inventions worked.

I wouldnt think that he relied on main stream thoughts and/or theories.

I think he had an extremely , amazing , grasp on physics
and that was the foundation he used to build on.

if I had a boat only a few hundred years ago I could not go far because the main stream was that I would fall off the edge of the ocean.

11 years ago when I first participated in this forum nobody here believed that global warming was true.

nobody here believed that pressures in liquids can increase by a factor of (4) when velocity doubles if rotated as in a centrifuge.

I came here to get help from people who I thought to be smart but was opposed by ( main stream ) theory.

they were not concerned with helping , only in ridicule and the dreaded LAWS OF PHYSICS that they so heavily relied on yet didnt understand the physics itself.

it was a cheat sheet crowd more concerned with peer pressure than anything else.

now these things are ( main stream ).

all they could say is that there is no outward force in rotation.
and that it would VIOLATE the KNOWN laws of physics.




















Posted by: Marchimedes

Oh no, not him again... - 06/15/07 09:40 PM

Sorry kids, my image hoster got all dead like.

So I been a tad busy. I'll splain in a sec.






There's the two I started this train wreck with. Glad to see I'm not banned.

Yet.

Sumpin fresh...




I'm still putting the pyramids back together, I get round to it.

Ive also constructing Stonehenge, but that is exclusive for the site of a couple of my friends. But you can lurk that, and it's got stuff that pretains to pyramids.

http://www.hardcorepolitics.com/history-civilization/2547-how-construct-stonehenge.html#post54636

Of course the original pyramid deal is at...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-technology/4934-how-build-pyramid.html

Ya I know, shameless self promotion. I feel just aweful about it.

But feel free to join BOTH sites, and reference me, teacher, it's free and they send you a case of beer after your first post. Really, I swear.

Now I'll be back with new space as it gets done and tidy up the pyramids thread real soon like, but I gotta hellofa political debate I'm winning going on right now, with all the bells and whistles...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/21084-iran-caught-red-handed-shipping-arms-taliban.html

And don't stand there with those looks on your faces, I've allready told them that you guys are just swell, and linked to here and everything.

But you know sites are kinda clanish and folks afraid to go outside, what with me creeping around and all. So don't hold your breath of folks joining.

Afdter all, they get they can stand of me there.

No, wait, that's not what I meant...






Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/15/07 09:58 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
"Physicists at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in California have succeeded in producing particles of matter from very energetic collisions of light."



Isn't a real big LA supposed to be done about right now over in Europe? Cern? Lecern or sumpin?
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/16/07 12:25 AM

Marchimedes
First of all, Hydrogen consists of one proton and one electron. Hydrogen with a proton and a neutron is deuterium, which makes heavy water when combined with Oxygen. It undergoes neutron radioactive decay to Hydrogen.

Secondly, I still am getting only part of your picture in my window, the right edge is cut off. This makes what you say difficult to completely comprehend.

If you're as smart as you say you are you could find a way to post within the limits of the SAGG screen window.

Amaranth
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/16/07 04:54 AM

Amaranth Rose wrote:

"If you're as smart as you say you are you could find a way to post within the limits of the SAGG screen window."

Exactly.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/16/07 06:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Isn't a real big LA supposed to be done about right now over in Europe? Cern? Lecern or sumpin?

That's right. LHC. http://www.lhc.ac.uk/about-the-lhc.html

Interesting trivia:

"This accelerator will generate vast quantities of computer data, which CERN will stream to laboratories around the world for distributed processing (the GRID technology). In April 2005, a trial successfully streamed 600MB per second to seven different sites across the world. If all the data generated by the LHC is to be analysed, then scientists must achieve 1,800MB per second before 2007."

That's what you call broadband!
___

There are some great hi-res mpg downloads here:

"Supercomputer simulations probe the formation of galaxies and quasars in the universe" http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/press/
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/17/07 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
Marchimedes
First of all, Hydrogen consists of one proton and one electron. Hydrogen with a proton and a neutron is deuterium, which makes heavy water when combined with Oxygen. It undergoes neutron radioactive decay to Hydrogen.

Secondly, I still am getting only part of your picture in my window, the right edge is cut off. This makes what you say difficult to completely comprehend.

If you're as smart as you say you are you could find a way to post within the limits of the SAGG screen window.

Amaranth



Now you want me to hold your hand and walk you through the sttings of YOUR PC?

I see the whole picture, and I'm at a public library generic PC setup.

Nice try though.

Nothing new to see here, move along. I'm taking the weekend off to beat some faces in on the political front, my first love.

Any one see where I'm going with this theory yet?
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/17/07 10:41 PM

"Now you want me to hold your hand and walk you through the sttings of YOUR PC?"

I asked a civil question. I am not a geek, I don't know how to reset my screen when I encounter anomalies. I just use this thing. I'm pretty much at the mercy of the machine. I do know better than to piss off the moderator, however.

Amaranth
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/18/07 12:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
I asked a civil question.


Originally Posted By: asker of so-called civil questions
If you're as smart as you say you are you could find a way to post within the limits of the SAGG screen window.


First of all, there ain't no stinkin question there.

Second of all, what with the "If you're as smart" and what not doesn't fall within the realm of civility. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for the insult and abuse game, and I do believe I ask ya'll to "bring it", but for the love of God don't get all whiney on me if you step into my world by choice and then get your teeth kicked in.

Quote:
I am not a geek, I don't know how to reset my screen when I encounter anomalies. I just use this thing. I'm pretty much at the mercy of the machine. I do know better than to piss off the moderator, however.


Right click on your desktop, click properties, goto settings and change the screen area.

Or in the same properties window, click appearence and play in there.

Save a desktop theme before you do any of this cause if you are not a geek it's trial and error.

I'm no geek, just that I'm as smart as I say I am.

Quote:
Amaranth


Redundent
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/19/07 05:37 AM

You must have Aspberger's Syndrome.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/19/07 07:29 AM

Marchimedes: "all they could say is that there is no outward force in rotation."

- what do you think of the hypothesis of Ernst Mach, as interpreted by Einstein, who called it Mach's Principle, with reference to his Special Theory of Relativity? Does it fit in with your theory of rotation?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/20/07 01:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
You must have Aspberger's Syndrome.


Yea, I'm pretty used to people trying to find a way to explain away my intelligence.

Generaly it comes from their lack of self esteem. A problem I don't seem to have.

Of course with your little suggeston there is that those who are afflicted thusly tend to do the opposite of me, namely seek out social contact.

I've been doing this little show for a while now, and haven't run into anything new in quite some time.

You are just another in the group of those who lash out cause you can't stand my attitude yet can't find any mistakes in my theory so you go to the "mental" well.

My favorite group are those that acknoweledge that I've managed to make learning fun, that I present science in a unique fashion.

Then there are all sorts of other groups.

I enjoy the ones who first try to tell me my stuff doesn't work and no one cares. So I challenge them to actually point out a flaw and direct them to the quickly growing views and replies, at which point if they are admin or moderators they close the thread and/or ban me so the numbers don't prove them wrong. What it must be like to fool yourself about the truth facinates me.

Oh so many other traits I've come across in "teacher's pyramid crusade and travelling menagerie". See, I have wrote down in my home site, buried in a place for members only, my plan, my predictions, because right away I realized that with my charming personality and humble disposition, coupled with an amazing theory that solves a 4500 year old mystery, topped of with a undescribable sence-o-humor, that I could do sumpin never seen before. And document it as I go.

You, Amaranth, simply go under the category "petulant", probably the largest group.

I also enjoy the folks who realize I know my stuff and ask me questions.

See, my prefered screenname is teacher.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/20/07 01:26 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
Marchimedes: "all they could say is that there is no outward force in rotation."

- what do you think of the hypothesis of Ernst Mach, as interpreted by Einstein, who called it Mach's Principle, with reference to his Special Theory of Relativity? Does it fit in with your theory of rotation?



That's not my quote.

Is someone editing my posts here and putting words in my mouth?

I've had that a few times before when they realize my stuff is solid and I outsmack them all.

Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/20/07 05:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Marchimedes: "all they could say is that there is no outward force in rotation."

- what do you think of the hypothesis of Ernst Mach, as interpreted by Einstein, who called it Mach's Principle, with reference to his Special Theory of Relativity? Does it fit in with your theory of rotation?

That's not my quote.

Is someone editing my posts here and putting words in my mouth?

I've had that a few times before when they realize my stuff is solid and I outsmack them all.


My apologies, Marchimedes, Paul said that, not you. So, I'll ask him him if and when he reappears.

Incidentally, did you get around to checking out this?: -

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/press/
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/20/07 06:35 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur

My apologies, Marchimedes, Paul said that, not you. So, I'll ask him him if and when he reappears.

Incidentally, did you get around to checking out this?: -

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/press/


I wasn't accusing you of doing that. You're one of the cool group I run into. Shame it's so seldom.

I'm at a bud's PC now and copying stuff from drive to drive so I don't wanna open a movie, but I just had a eureka moment looking at that site, you know how galaxies are "clustered"? Or they call them super clusters, right?

My theory can kinda explain that haphazard arrangment. I haven't drawn or explained it yet, but it's in here, (points to skull).

Yea red, I really think I've got this pegged, and it's so simple.

Gonna be hell to explain though. And got some guys giving me a hardtime about Stonehenge and that ALWAYS distracts me when someone thinks they know how to move heavy stuff with primative tools better than me. They think about it, I did it for a living.

I just got banned again at my main site. That's the fifth time. So I'm planning some revenge.

Nuttin going on here much yet, but this is my site...

http://nocapsspaces.3.forumer.com/

And please don't ever apologize to me. Makes me appear weak and needy. I dish it out far to much for that.



Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/20/07 07:24 AM

"I just got banned again at my main site. That's the fifth time. So I'm planning some revenge"

Fortunes of war, eh?

Don't get banned from SAGG. There are some very good, friendly people here, but your unconventional approach may be construed as offensive.

Looking forward to your thoughts on that foamy universe structure...
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/20/07 04:31 PM

"""""""""""
- what do you think of the hypothesis of Ernst Mach, as interpreted by Einstein, who called it Mach's Principle, with reference to his Special Theory of Relativity? Does it fit in with your theory of rotation?

My apologies, Marchimedes, Paul said that, not you. So, I'll ask him him if and when he reappears.
""""""""""""

I dont know !

never was very interested in einstein , its mostly theories
from what I have read ( watched on tv ) about him.

Im more of a practice type of person than a theory type.

arent a lot of his theories being found to be not correct?

I guess I lost interest when he started with time travel.

I do agree that light can travel forward and backward in time
and that light can be used to send construction data to a device that could reassemble matter in the future or the past.

but time itself cannot be manipulated because it has no physical properties.

a camera could be recording the future and sending that data to the past.

a great early warning system , huh !!!

we have to construct it now so that those who are reading this in the future can know where we want the camera to be placed and at which frequency they should use and where to point the data that is sent to the bounce device that bounces the data back to the earth , its that simple.

radio waves and tv signals from the 40's are just now reaching deep into space.

these signals could be returned via light.

get it?

President Bush got it when he saw the plane strike the twin tower at that school in florida before it was televised.

how else could he have seen it?

































Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/20/07 07:12 PM

Paul

"never was very interested in einstein, its mostly theories
from what I have read ( watched on tv ) about him.

Im more of a practice type of person than a theory type.

arent a lot of his theories being found to be not correct?"

No...not yet anyway...

http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/experiments.html
"the huge experimental support for this theory [special relativity] is sometimes not well known.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/General_relativity.html
"Today [general relativity] plays a role in many areas, cosmology, the big bang theory etc. and now has been checked by experiment to a high degree of accuracy."
___________

I like the camera idea, but you need to do some work on the theory...oops, sorry, forgot you don't do theories grin

Still..."its that simple."

- great, so go for it! I'll be your first customer.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/21/07 12:59 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
"""""""""""
- what do you think of the hypothesis of Ernst Mach, as interpreted by Einstein, who called it Mach's Principle, with reference to his Special Theory of Relativity? Does it fit in with your theory of rotation?

My apologies, Marchimedes, Paul said that, not you. So, I'll ask him him if and when he reappears.
""""""""""""

I dont know !

never was very interested in einstein , its mostly theories
from what I have read ( watched on tv ) about him.

Im more of a practice type of person than a theory type.

arent a lot of his theories being found to be not correct?

I guess I lost interest when he started with time travel.

I do agree that light can travel forward and backward in time
and that light can be used to send construction data to a device that could reassemble matter in the future or the past.

but time itself cannot be manipulated because it has no physical properties.

a camera could be recording the future and sending that data to the past.

a great early warning system , huh !!!

we have to construct it now so that those who are reading this in the future can know where we want the camera to be placed and at which frequency they should use and where to point the data that is sent to the bounce device that bounces the data back to the earth , its that simple.

radio waves and tv signals from the 40's are just now reaching deep into space.

these signals could be returned via light.

get it?

President Bush got it when he saw the plane strike the twin tower at that school in florida before it was televised.

how else could he have seen it?


Einstien was a hack. Common sense folks. Time travel my ass. The paradox alone eliminates the posibility unless you allow for multiple timelines and then, ah [censored], sorry, very busy with multiple stuff.

The gravity of all the microverses surounding us are what's causing the expansion acceleration of our "visible universe" and the randomness of stuff flying hither and yon creates parts of space where this microverse or that microverse influence this or that area more or less accounting for the so-called "foam" structure.

Now I gotta put that into simple drawings.

No magic, no "dark matter" just gravity and matter flying around just the big band say it should.

how can I be the first to come up with this.

oh, I'm very bright.

































Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/21/07 02:20 AM

Marchimedes: "Time travel my ass. The paradox alone eliminates the posibility unless you allow for multiple timelines and then, ah [censored], sorry, very busy with multiple stuff."

Glad to see you entering into a discussion with Paul. That might be interesting - when you're not employing your genius elsewhere grin
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/21/07 05:57 PM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
Marchimedes: "Time travel my ass. The paradox alone eliminates the posibility unless you allow for multiple timelines and then, ah [censored], sorry, very busy with multiple stuff."

Glad to see you entering into a discussion with Paul. That might be interesting - when you're not employing your genius elsewhere grin


And multiple timeline lead to folks messing with time in those other timelines and then, well you pretty much have to assume there are INFINITE timelines, or parallel universes, of which there is zero evidence of no matter how often some LSD tripping physisist claims it so.

Now, infinate is a hellofa word if you look at it's literal meaning.

Infinate universes. Wrap your brain around that for a while and you kinda start to run outta room. Say in the next universe over my good bud Marchimedes didn't go back and add the "u" to the word "outta" left it "otta" and that is the only difference between that universe and this universe ever. EVER. What's the point?

Time travel my ass.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/21/07 07:10 PM

Marchimedes: "Infinite universes. Wrap your brain around that for a while and you kinda start to run outta room."

Some scientists insist that the 'multiverse' idea is not physics but 'metaphysics' - but then some very smart quantum physisists say there's no better explanation for superposition***. Whichever way you look at it, it's hard to grasp. The popular word is 'counter-intuitive'. What they really mean is, it's impossible to "wrap your brain around", as you say.

*** http://searchsmb.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid44_gci341263,00.html
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/21/07 07:55 PM

""" Time travel my ass. """

I like the way you ( have a steady opinion ) on time travel.

it equates to logic and the here and now.

what we can see and cannot see and thus have not seen however remains open and not contestable.

light that exist outside of our visible range and outside of our methods of detecting these unknown light ranges or waveforms cannot be canceled out simply because we cannot see or detect them.

we set the limits of light.
but can we set the limits of what we dont even know exist.

the laser --> cessium experiment told me that time travel is possible , for light.

it also told me that there are lightforms that we cannot detect.
yet.

before the ((( known light ))) entered the cessium it had already exited.
((( the known light )))

repeat this a few times and what would happen?

but what if I decide not to push the button to make the light in the first place?

obviously light travels backwards in time also.

what I think happened is that the laser ( jumped ) a certain distance beyond the container of cessium.

this planet is rotating around the sun at 66,000 mph
this solar system is rotating around our galaxy and our galaxy is flying out into the vastness of this universe.

we may very well be traveling beyond the speed of light at this time.

we just cant tell it.

it may be that at the instance the laser was engaged and the light exited the laser and began to aproach the cessium there were unknown lightforms entering the cessium already that travel faster than the laser and may even plot the entire course of the light.

perhaps the light struck the cessium and the cessium itself emitted a waveform along this plotted course that accelerated the unknown lightform into the future.

if you do jump a camera into the future to see whats going to happen you better hide it very well because like marchimedies says all sorts of unwanted changes could occur by changing one single event.

caution: waveforms can vibrate objects to the point that the molecular structure becomes weak and even transparent.

a moving vibrating object can slow down and blend in with surrounding vibrating objects.
for instance if an aircraft pilot is vibrated along with the aircraft , the pilot would first become transparent and slow down
he would begin to pass through the aircraft until the aircraft became transparent and slowed down.

at this point he may be a part of the aircraft or behind the aircraft and his clothing .

when the vibration is slowing a reversal occurs.
which may return him to his exact position.
maybe not.













Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/21/07 11:30 PM

a few words from others.
the acceleration of light
the natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom (9,192,631,770 Hz)
it may be that the (unknown lightforms or waves ) can travel along the cessium waves and like a surfer riding a wave are pushed or accelerated from wave to wave.

maybe not.
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/22/07 12:20 AM

just short of 300 million metres per second.
By adjusting the frequency of the laser beams to match those of the energy levels

Because of the fast group velocity, the leading edge of the pulse appears to leave the caesium-filled chamber 62 billionths of a second before it arrives.

it would take a lot of bouncing through a container to achieve a lot of time travel^ of the light.

hmmm...a mirrowed container?

a mirrowed spiraled tube...gone where did the light go.

oh wait... there it is...I forgot we had to wait till we caught up with time!!!!








Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/22/07 09:44 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
""" Time travel my ass. """

I like the way you ( have a steady opinion ) on time travel.

it equates to logic and the here and now.

what we can see and cannot see and thus have not seen however remains open and not contestable.

light that exist outside of our visible range and outside of our methods of detecting these unknown light ranges or waveforms cannot be canceled out simply because we cannot see or detect them.

we set the limits of light.
but can we set the limits of what we dont even know exist.


And know way to verify conjecture. But these things are put forth all the time. They are call sci-fi novels.

Quote:
the laser --> cessium experiment told me that time travel is possible , for light.


Not familiar with that.

Does it have anything to do with moving and stacking heavy blocks?

Quote:
it also told me that there are lightforms that we cannot detect.
yet.


I remember my first dubie.

Quote:
before the ((( known light ))) entered the cessium it had already exited.
((( the known light )))

repeat this a few times and what would happen?

but what if I decide not to push the button to make the light in the first place?


i missed sumpin somewhere.

Quote:
obviously light travels backwards in time also.


I bet I know where you are going with this.

A thing I do at times replying to stuff is not read the whole post, answer as I go and see where it ends up. Sometimes it turns out humorous.




Quote:
what I think happened is that the laser ( jumped ) a certain distance beyond the container of cessium.



Dude, "Dune" is just a book. Lay off the spice.
Quote:
this planet is rotating around the sun at 66,000 mph


I love stuff like that. Speaking of Monkeys, can anyone tell me the speed of gravity. On my home site they were going on about this and I shut the thread down with that question after they pretended to klnow and ended up exposing themselves as hacks. (It's a hobby of mine).

Quote:
this solar system is rotating around our galaxy and our galaxy is flying out into the vastness of this universe.



What? No speeds?
Quote:
we may very well be traveling beyond the speed of light at this time.


yep.

Quote:
we just cant tell it.



Simple logic, I'm still with you.
Quote:
if you do jump a camera into the future to see whats going to happen you better hide it very well because like marchimedies says all sorts of unwanted changes could occur by changing one single event.

caution: waveforms can vibrate objects to the point that the molecular structure becomes weak and even transparent.

a moving vibrating object can slow down and blend in with surrounding vibrating objects.
for instance if an aircraft pilot is vibrated along with the aircraft , the pilot would first become transparent and slow down
he would begin to pass through the aircraft until the aircraft became transparent and slowed down.

at this point he may be a part of the aircraft or behind the aircraft and his clothing .

when the vibration is slowing a reversal occurs.
which may return him to his exact position.
maybe not.



And yep, you were going to where I thought.

I think you are cofusing time travel with observing light.

For instance, if we got in my Starship http://nocapsspaces.3.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=4&view=findpost&p=60 and went faster than light with a perfect telescope trained back at Earth you would be watching history go backwards, or rather at, say, a light year from Earth you stop and peek, the photons that then hit you left the Earth a year ago you are seeing what happened last year and go far and fast enough and have a real swell telescope and you could pass the light, the edge of the first light of the big bang and watch it all happen, now, if you take my expanding ball of mass from the big bang, get our superscope and find the exact opposite point on our ball, do the doppler shift measurement thing, divide it in half and you'd know how fast we are travelling though space cause you'd have a reference point and then could extrapolate the speed of our galaxy, solar sytem, Earth and all that right down to the bicycle you are riding to go buy another sack of kyrpy, man.











[/quote]
Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/22/07 10:56 PM

Very interesting posts, you guys. Don't have time to add anything right now. Later.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Quote:
the laser --> cessium experiment told me that time travel is possible , for light.


Not familiar with that.

Does it have anything to do with moving and stacking heavy blocks?


!.. laugh laugh laugh
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/24/07 08:37 PM


Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/24/07 09:04 PM

Nice one Marchimedes. I don't have much time right now, but I noticed a couple of questions.

One was about gravitational attraction over various distances. There's a law of classical physics about that:

It's called Newton's Inverse Square Law. On your drawing it means that at

(2) the gravitational attraction is 1/(2^2) of the gravitional attraction at (1) - that's a quarter
(3) the gravitational attraction is 1/(3^2) of the gravitional attraction at (1) - that's a ninth
(4) the gravitational attraction is 1/(4^2) of the gravitional attraction at (1) - that's a sixteenth

The speed of gravity is c (the speed of light). It's normally referred to as the speed at which gravity propagates, but it still means the same thing smile

So, if by some trick the sun was removed to a parallel universe, the Earth would still continue in its orbit for about 8 minutes, then it would shoot off at a tangent. At the same moment, we would see the sun disappear. Meanwhile, Mars would continue in its orbital path for another 4 minutes. Then it too would shoot off. Jupiter would continue to orbit the non-existent sun for another half hour!
_______

So, the gravitational attraction of an object is proportional to its mass and its distance; if you're standing on a planet with twice the mass of Earth you won't be twice as heavy unless the radius is the same. The effects of the gravity at the surface depend on the distribution of the mass, and in this case the radius of the planet.

Here's is one I made earlier (as they say on the cookery programs):

Acceleration due to gravity:

g = G(M/r^2)

where
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
G = universal gravitational constant (m3/kg/s2) = 6.673*10^-11
M = mass of the body (kg or slug)
r = radius of the body (m or ft)
_____

For Earth:

g =(6.673*10^-11)*((5.98*10^24)/((6.375*10^6)^2))= 9.81
_____

For Gliese 581 c: (a recently discovered Earth-like planet)

If it has 4.83 x Earth mass, and a radius of 1.5 x Earth then:

g =(6.673*10^-11)*(((5.98*10^24)*4.83)/(((6.375*10^6)*1.5)^2)) = 21.1

21.1/9.81 = 2.15 x Earth gravity.

You might have thought that the gravitational attraction at the surface would be 4.83 x as great, but it's only 2.15 x.

This might be useful: http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects...ts-gravity.html

Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/26/07 09:54 PM

Well, between the two of us we gots a brain and a half.

Maybe sumpin can get done.

Originally Posted By: redewenur
Nice one Marchimedes.


Why thankee. I just got yelled at on another forum for posting pictures, and deleted..."this is a forum of words..." so I went and posted my all text pyramid theory.

It's a science forum, without a sence-o-humor. I like this site though.

I'm kinda a travelling troll/spammer.

Though I post solid content, so it's on them really. I post content and they don't like the attitude and proclaim me "troll' and ban me.


Quote:
One was about gravitational attraction over various distances. There's a law of classical physics about that:

It's called Newton's Inverse Square Law. On your drawing it means that at


I heard of that. It's in a sci-fi book I'm reading.

Quote:
(2) the gravitational attraction is 1/(2^2) of the gravitional attraction at (1) - that's a quarter

(3) the gravitational attraction is 1/(3^2) of the gravitional attraction at (1) - that's a ninth

(4) the gravitational attraction is 1/(4^2) of the gravitional attraction at (1) - that's a sixteenth




The pull decreases exponentialy with distance?

Quote:
The speed of gravity is c (the speed of light). It's normally referred to as the speed at which gravity propagates, but it still means the same thing


And how do we know this? See, I been asking the speed of gravity question long time now. Kinda hard to determine with evertthing in place. Perhaps by measuring the orbit of a body as a commet from out there comes close?

Quote:
So, if by some trick the sun was removed to a parallel universe, the Earth would still continue in its orbit for about 8 minutes, then it would shoot off at a tangent. At the same moment, we would see the sun disappear. Meanwhile, Mars would continue in its orbital path for another 4 minutes. Then it too would shoot off. Jupiter would continue to orbit the non-existent sun for another half hour!




So gravity is a wave? A particle? Both? Niether? Voodoo? Hypmotism?





http://nocapsspaces.3.forumer.com

Not really ready yet, but the fun will commence there soon.
Posted by: scpg02

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/26/07 10:04 PM

Quote:
I just got yelled at on another forum for posting pictures, and deleted..."this is a forum of words..."


Isn't a picture worth a thousand words? LOL! Wonder how they would take to my smilies? Got a link?

I've been banned from forum A for what I said on forum B. Then banned from forum B for being a supporter of forum A. Banned from forum C for what I said in private messages. Banned from forum D for the same thing. Banned from forum E for saying something I never said. Oh the stories I could tell about my adventures on web forums. And just wait until you have people posting hanging nooses to you.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/27/07 06:27 AM

Marchimedes, I don't have time to reply yet - got to be out of here ten minutes ago grin Be back in a few days.

This is a boootiful forum. Sensible, tolerant mods. They are, of course, obliged to respond to slanderous content, personal abuse and related flaming etc. That's nothing personal, just an ethical duty.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/27/07 02:13 PM

Originally Posted By: scpg02
Isn't a picture worth a thousand words? LOL! Wonder how they would take to my smilies? Got a link?


Yea, but they've deleted all the good stuff out. Where I make them look like idiots.

This is the ooriginal thread...

http://www.thescienceforum.com/How-to-build-a-pyramid.-6989t.php

At the end skinboy tells me I need to put it in words instead.

Hehe. That's the first thing I did over two years ago with my pyramid theory...

http://www.thescienceforum.com/How-To-Build-A-Pyramid-7556t.php

And then I kicked the snot outta skinboy.

He deleted those.

Quote:
I've been banned from forum A for what I said on forum B. Then banned from forum B for being a supporter of forum A. Banned from forum C for what I said in private messages. Banned from forum D for the same thing. Banned from forum E for saying something I never said. Oh the stories I could tell about my adventures on web forums. And just wait until you have people posting hanging nooses to you.


They don't dare. it really is amazing the efforts some sites go through. It's like little dictatorships, with censorship and propaganda and midnight secret police raids and everything.
Posted by: scpg02

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/27/07 03:16 PM

Quote:
It's like little dictatorships, with censorship and propaganda and midnight secret police raids and everything.


LOL! hadn't thought of it that way but you are correct!
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/02/07 12:15 AM

Tell me this is not the coolest idea ever.

Beside girls with beer.

Lettuce see if you are ready for my next idea.

This is huge.

Know what shooting stars are?

(Sound of Monkeys snoring).

They are meteors that hit the Earth's atmosphere. They going real fast like. So fast that the friction of the air makes them burn up. You make a wish, and next thing you know Kizzume has a toothless gay circus midget knocking on his door with a six pack of warm PBR.

Now the average size of one of those fleeting shooting stars is the size of a grain of sand or salt.

Amazing you can see such a small thing zip from so far away.

Different elements burn different colors.

Your average incandesant light bulb has Tungston I think as the filimant, which burns white. Iron, like in a blacksmith's forge, burns red. I'm hoping Colbolt burns blue, but I'm just guessing.

Imagine how many grains of sand would fit in a 55 gallon drum?



On the 4th of July, say 9 PM pacific time, some guy on the space shuttle or space station kicks that drum out at a time and place so that the grains of Tungston, Iron and Colbolt reenter the Earth's atmosphere all over the Mighty US of A.

What do you got?

Billions and billions of red, white and blue shooting stars at the time and place of your choosing.

Any idea how many of your tax dollars are used for fireworks shows accross the nation?



In the long run this would cost less, looks cooler, and you don't have to pile your brats into the station wagon and drive 50 miles and get rained on.

You get to sit in your back yard while said brats bring you cold ones.

There's a lot more to this idea.
Posted by: scpg02

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/02/07 12:29 AM

Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/02/07 12:41 AM

Originally Posted By: scpg02



Know what's friggin amazing?

I e-mailed this to NASA a couple of years ago.

Told them "take it, it's free".

They wrote me back and said they couldn't do anything with it cause it didn't fit in either of their two submissions catagory.

Basically cause it was free.

I told these retards that if they did this there would be enormous interest in the space program. Joe and Marsha, Marsha, Marsha six pack are always screaming the money is better spent down here, on food stamps and bridges to nowhere I guess. Congess would be urged by the voters to give money to the space program cause, well, folks like getting drunk and watching pretty lights.

This would make them look so cool, and I bet I could get laid a lot more.

"Hey, how you doin? I'm Marchimedes, the man made shooting stars guy".

"Oh, really? I'm Barbie, this is my friend Candy".

"Giddyup".



Posted by: scpg02

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/02/07 12:56 AM

Quote:
and I bet I could get laid a lot more.


LOL! having trouble with that huh? So what's the problem now?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/02/07 01:14 AM

Originally Posted By: scpg02
Quote:
and I bet I could get laid a lot more.


LOL! having trouble with that huh? So what's the problem now?


Women say they want a smart guy.

Just not smarter than them.

I suppose I could act stupid.
Posted by: scpg02

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/02/07 01:52 AM

Quote:
Women say they want a smart guy.


Mmm that's what I want. Talking brainy to me just turns me on. Why do you think I post on science forums?
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/02/07 05:42 AM

Brains turn me on. Overgrown ego turns me off. too often, the two go together. A little modesty about one's own achievements goes a long way where I'm concerned. So what if you're the greatest brain since Einstein, you don't have to beat me over the head with it. True intellect needs no advertisement. It is those who are insecure who have to trumpet it to the world.
Posted by: scpg02

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/02/07 06:46 AM

Oh I so agree with that. This is why I don't go for the Hollywood good looks either. They are good looking and they know it with egos to match. No thanks, I'll pass.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/03/07 09:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Lord and Master of all I survey
Women say they want a smart guy.


Originally Posted By: scpg02

Why do you think I post on science forums?


Before I read this post I would've said cause you like science.

Now?

How you doing?

Chicks call me cute.

Better "handsome" or "rugged".

That's what I used to say.

Now, at 43, cute is smoking.

Tells me I'm aging well.



Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/03/07 09:55 AM

Boys, that was friggin smooth.

Don't try that at home.

Posted by: scpg02

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/03/07 05:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes

Tells me I'm aging well.


You are completely sexy!
Posted by: Wolfman

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/05/07 01:38 AM

People are so quick to jump to conclusions. When I was a kid (say 18-21) I used a ploy to get rednecks to pick fights with me. I'd talk like a guy with a hare lip. You know, "Nyuh-nyu-nyuh", and all nasal. It didn't always work, I'm too big for most guys to want to fight. But a lot of "tough guys" fell for it, assuming anybody who talked like that must be feeble.

Don't always assume that anybody who "talks smart" IS smart.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/05/07 06:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Wolfman
People are so quick to jump to conclusions. When I was a kid (say 18-21) I used a ploy to get rednecks to pick fights with me. I'd talk like a guy with a hare lip. You know, "Nyuh-nyu-nyuh", and all nasal. It didn't always work, I'm too big for most guys to want to fight. But a lot of "tough guys" fell for it, assuming anybody who talked like that must be feeble.

Don't always assume that anybody who "talks smart" IS smart.


Man, is this gonna be easy.


Hey, Neanderthal boy.

Notice you not chiming in when the discusion WAS all smart like.

So, one post talking to who you think is your girl and you come outta the cave with some weak?

You "used a ploy" to "get rednecks" to fight with you?

Tells us all we need to know.

Big guys have the advantage from the word go.

Well, except against me...but,

the very fact that you would use your size to...I dunno...tells me you got some serious issues, son.

Not to mention the fact you ain't said a damn thing about science, on a science forum that is, where I am literaly oozing fresh theory, with logic and humor and the highest fine art and oh my, your dumb azz is gonna come into MY THREAD and go "derr, I can change your flat tire"?

Hope that works out well for you.

In the mean time...



I kicked the [censored] outta a guy that had 60lbs. on me not two weaks ago.

Cause he lied and stole and swung first.

Fighting is a science first.

Mass times speed equals force.

I only weigh so much.

The only way I can hit harder is to move faster.

I've spent the last two decades training for speed.

What did you do yesterday tough guy?






Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/05/07 06:43 AM

Originally Posted By: scpg02
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes

Tells me I'm aging well.


You are completely sexy!


So, that being done with.


What gets you better?

The smarts or the humor?


I've pretty much got my mind made up on this front.

But, like you gals say, who knows which head is doing the thinking for me at the moment.

Be a dear and tell me true.

Ah, my bad, this site was from before my image hoster going all dead like.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=21749&page=3#Post21749

So you got no pictures of ol' Marchimedes now, do you?

Lettuce kill several birds with one stone.

spag02, my dear, please to tell me the equal of the following anywhere on God's green Earth...











So I had me a lil' thread rolling around here called "How to build a pyramid", which is my first love, sides chicks and all, but the image hoster died, and so now I get to look all smart again.

Pyramids is why I'm here.

So, sweetheart, wanna know more about your man first?

Check this page.

I'm teacher there.

It gets ugly.

Yea, that's me.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-technology/

Gotta know what you are in for first.

Don't say I didn't warn ya.


Yep, me, in the foil hat.

Your turn.







Posted by: scpg02

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/05/07 04:21 PM

You don't know hwo to flirt with a woman do you?
Posted by: scpg02

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/05/07 04:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Wolfman
People are so quick to jump to conclusions. When I was a kid (say 18-21) I used a ploy to get rednecks to pick fights with me. I'd talk like a guy with a hare lip. You know, "Nyuh-nyu-nyuh", and all nasal. It didn't always work, I'm too big for most guys to want to fight. But a lot of "tough guys" fell for it, assuming anybody who talked like that must be feeble.

Don't always assume that anybody who "talks smart" IS smart.


You can say that again.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/05/07 04:39 PM

Originally Posted By: scpg02
You don't know hwo to flirt with a woman do you?


Who's flirting?

This is stalking.

Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/07/07 05:14 PM

1506



Hey, the principle behind it is solid and better than the present ideas.

It'll get worse before it gets better.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 08/07/07 09:51 AM

Ya'll keep reading, but not replying.

How bout sumpin compleatly different?

http://www.hardcorepolitics.com/history-civilization/3311-son-how-raise-obelisk.html

Don't worry, you can peek without joining.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 08/07/07 01:14 PM

"Mass times speed equals force."
Not exactly. Mass times acceleration equals force.
Mass times speed is the magnitude of the momentum.
Mass times velocity is the momentum.

F=ma
ms=m|v|=|p|
p=mv

Not that actual physics has any relation to this thread.

Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 08/10/07 04:22 AM

Yea, whatever, big weight goes fast means lotta hurt.

Quote:
Not that actual physics has any relation to this thread.


Easy to say, now, sport, how about you list EXACTLY what I got wrong. And no, not spelling errors or ending sentences with prepositions.





Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 11/03/07 08:24 PM

Miss me?



Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 11/03/07 09:18 PM

From this site...

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=24099#Post24099

Could this be cause they were looking towards the center of my little theorectical universe?
Posted by: Marchimedes

gosh... - 01/09/08 05:30 PM

here's what it used to look like...



No biggie, I still got my stuff.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 03/18/08 06:29 PM







Take a wild guess on my political affiliation...

Did a little drawing too. For one reason as I'm gettin tired of morons givin me a hard time about my "third grade" drawing skills. Here's a little sumpin I knocked out in about two hours with a construction pencil on cheap copy paper when I was bored recently. Don't mind that hair that got on the scanner.

look familiar?



Don't worry kids, I ain't forgot about you. I'll be starting the science stuff back up again soon.



Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 11/15/08 08:33 PM




Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 11/15/08 08:43 PM


Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 11/15/08 08:50 PM




Sorry, at a library today and the PC is having some trouble keeping up with me and my files.

We'll get there.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 11/15/08 09:40 PM

And now this crap library PC is toast.

Not reading my CD. All good, it's all on my little electronic device also.

But I grow bored watching those little green squares not add up to the right any more.

I gots better stuff to do, being as I'm a busy and impotent man.

I have another dozen or so images for pyramids, probably more.

Here's what I want...

As this goes foward, don't ask me about this or that guy's theory, I can destroy them ALL. I'm never gonna spend any time on that, cause mine is better. As you will see. Tell me where I'm wrong, or where you THINK I'm wrong. Have it solid before you do so. Intelligent questions? Ask away. I'll answer. That hasn't happened yet, as I'm gettin real good at splainin this thing Lucy.

Here's how it came to be.

I used to move safes for a company so cheap we didn't even have a forklift. Turns out I was moving tons with the same thing the Egyptians had, rollers and levers baby. Did it for a decade. Any thing I say i can do with a weight, I've allready done, don't make the mistake of telling me it can't be done. it was my job for a long time. All I've done is take every day methods and apply them to the pyramids.

Little thing I came up with long ago...

Who is better at building a log cabin?

A bifocaled, accredited, tenured, tweed jacketed with leather elbow patches, pipe smoking, Oxford professor...

or...

a guy in the woods with an axe that needs a place to live for the coming winter?

Blue collar stand up now.

Folks, this deal is done.

I've been on this deal for over 5 years now. I've wrote everyone. i get PHD's write me back and they get all snarky. Then I destroy them.

I am not very fond of acedamia. They are protecting their cash cow and I ain't friggin one of them.

You'll see.

And, nerds, for the love of God, look around would ya, 30k views and so far no one has presented a hole in my universe theory, yet it is still gettin read. This is gonna be buku more of the same, more so even. Have some fun, would ya. I am. Learning CAN be fun, maybe it takes a nut to make it so. I SO got that covered.

When we done with this, I'm gonna show you how to raise an obelisk. Maybe you should get up to speed at the PBS site on the three times they have tried. But then they didn't actually have a guy that had moved heavy stuff around there.

This is gonna be ugly, it's gonna be irreverent, it's gonna be spelled badly.

No matter, tell me where my heavy stuff moving methods are wrong.

You can't, cause I've done them, and I'm not flat.

And one more thing, the guy that is me, with the "t" on the chest, that stands for my normal screen name, teacher, which was taken here, call me teacher instead of Marchimedes, or call me late for diner, really don't matter, cause I'm correct.

See ya soon.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 11/19/08 11:16 PM

















Yea, I gots more, and, gimme a break, a lot of this stuff is from sites where I really don't care who I insult. No, you guys are different, really. The nice thing is that you know how I work, so I'm not banned, yet.

Not sure how this works, as I refuse to read the rules, but I'm a moderator at a political forum, and there I link to places like this for bragging porposes, but the catch is that there only I get to link to competing sites, per an agreement, cause I bring it, and if there is one thing I know about forum owners, besides that they all are gay and are fond of barnyard animals, is that they like huge numbers, you know, numbers like mine, so I gets me some leeway.

So, in a sec here will be a link to a horrible political thread, numbers like this...




link to "...and the horse you rode in on"

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?showtopic=22244

Now, mods, admin and owners, this little deal is better for you than them, many more views and play there than here. In a sec I'll be linking to here.

It's how I go about doing bidness.

Anyone understand the 6" step method yet?






Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 01/15/09 05:20 PM

[url="http://imageshack.us"][/url]
[url="http://g.imageshack.us/img502/spacecrunch11jm0.jpg/1/"][/url]
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 01/17/09 01:06 AM

it makes more sense than the other !

and it is more easily explained.

excelent.

but are they all flying away or into the center at the same angle?

if some are moving 90 degree to the center , yet moving faster and faster then this could not be correct , unless there is a gravitational body attracting and causing it to do so.

but your explanation would hold up in todays physics , without the need to re-write the books.

.

Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 01/29/09 11:00 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
it makes more sense than the other !

and it is more easily explained.

excelent.

but are they all flying away or into the center at the same angle?

if some are moving 90 degree to the center , yet moving faster and faster then this could not be correct , unless there is a gravitational body attracting and causing it to do so.

but your explanation would hold up in todays physics , without the need to re-write the books.

.



To center, we are in the big crunch.

Ah, today's physics, that's what I'm looking for.

We don't need no stinkin dark energy.

No need to make up magic voodoo.

By default then that alone makes this today's best theory on the matter, right?






Posted by: Marchimedes

lanes... - 03/21/09 12:52 AM

Okay, in this first image you need to become familiar with the concept I call "lanes". That is lanes of blocks travelling to and up the pyraimd. This is so more Egpytians with blocks can come.

[url="http://imageshack.us"][/url]

Then comes the process of setting more than one block at a time...

[url="http://imageshack.us"][/url]
Posted by: Marchimedes

Om, second page... - 04/04/09 11:34 PM

this will not do.

Actually a lot in this one folks.

My bad if I've posted thin one before, but I think I haven't, I ain't gonna take the time to check cause I'm a busy and impotent man.

The top left image, the one with the different colored levels and all, well, I say if I'm building a pyramid using this method I can build this thing in two years. Assuming the blocks are quarried and staged at the ready.

Yea, I said that.



I do gotta thank you kids though, the views climb, and I've got this thing about the replies to views ratio. I say the greater the number of views to replies just friggin means that no one can find a flaw, but still this thread is worth reading. This here most glorious tread of mine at sceince a gog has the best ratio of all, and that makes this place my second favorite place. My favotire is a political forum, right here...

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?showtopic=22244

I'm sure you ain't interested in the world's foremost authority on pyramid construction's take on politics, but suffice it to say I rule there also. Better yet, now and again I come outta my shell there and say what I think.

But back to the moving and stacking of heavy blocks.

I haven't gone Obelisks here, have I? The raising of them that is.

That will be next, then some thoughts on Stonehenge.

I'm not done with you.

Not by a long shot.

PS. I link to here at other sites so don't think I'm just pimping for that site.

It's a two way street.


Posted by: Marchimedes

Where of where did myu little thread go? - 05/12/09 12:43 AM

Oh where oh where can it be?

I'll just post this and see if it pops up.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: Where of where did myu little thread go? - 05/12/09 12:45 AM

What's the deal here?

Did sumpin change?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 05/18/09 02:38 PM

Where's my thread man?
Posted by: Gravimotion

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 05/26/09 01:42 PM

I totally agree with Marchimedes post #29161 above dated 01/15/09.

I call it the implosion of the universe (rather than contraction), because the so called “acceleration” of the universe, in that new interpretation (implosion) now makes one with the accelerated motion of the gravitation phenomenon.

Physicists alleged expansion of the universe is based on Hubble’s Doppler red shift discovery.
Yet and most importantly in the late 1990’s astronomers discovered that that expansion was actually accelerating, and that’s that accelerated motion that threw physics theories out of whack!

The explanation I give (in my website) is with the emergency vehicle:
So here is physics interpretation:
After Hubble's observations of red Doppler shifts, physicists assert that distant galaxies move away from us and that the universe is expanding.
And here is this innovative idea I share with Marchimedes:
Yet these shifts do not mandate such expansion.
In gravimotion's interpretation we move away from the distant galaxies while these are hardly moving.

Here is an analogy; just as Hubble's red shift, the high pitch of an emergency vehicle siren is getting lower when the vehicle is receding from you. But ask the driver of that vehicle to stop while keeping its siren on; then climb in your own car, and drive by the siren. Now while you are receding from it, the pitch is slowing all the same.
Hubble's shift can be interpreted as us receding faster from far away galaxies than close by galaxies!
An imploding universe is far more elegant, than physicists expanding one
Because an imploding yet accelerating universe works hand in hand with gravitation's own accelerated motion!

I came myself to that conclusion in a different way.
I came to that conclusion through my own understanding of the force of gravity or my own understanding of Einstein Space-time-curvature.

For that innovative idea too visit:
http://gravimotion.info
Posted by: AyeZeuss

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 05/30/09 09:42 AM

Most humble pardons teacher. cool Since you are most super-brainy pyramid expert in whole world. wink
Why do you keep saying great pyramids of giza are 4500yr old mystery? Surely you are aware that the assertion they were built by Khufu was most embarrassing and petulant fraud by british archeologist in 1800's who after dynamiting his way in and finding no inscriptions. In a frustrated huff. Painted "khufu" in misspelled heiroglyphs, mixing picts from two seperate periods 1 and 2 thousand years later, in red paint in the entry chamber.
They are without a doubt not comparible to any of the mud brick and sandstone clumsey affairs of the post menes eras.

More likely their builders were simular to the summerian chap who had the use of this skull 9000 years ago, and the 2x our brain size greymatter it contained then:

[img]http://yfrog.com/159000bpskulleogasafidiraj[/img]

If you can tell us how they moved the up to 2000ton (4.4 million pound) pink granite blocks at Baalbek you'd be real smart. Maybe then you can demonstrate the use of bronze tools in cutting and drilling granite too. For example the holes 8ft deep through some of the blocks in this pic. They have spiral grooves from the drill bit that show cut rates of 2.5mm per bit revolution. We only manage 1/200th of that per bit revolution from diamond drills with 50ton pressure feeding them.

[img]http://yfrog.com/59baalbek7j[/img]

This picture of the darkmatter halos around galaxies with the dark matter filaments, that connect them is intriguing.
Nice comparison with neural structure in a mouse brain.
Those intragalactic filaments are heated to up to 100 million kelvin by some sort of energy passing through them.
While imploding universe is a theory I myself have pondered on, and see some degree of validity in...I do have no doubt about the existance of extradimensions and their involvement in consciousness in complex ways personally. And like the thought that increasing rate of universe expansion might be a function of increasing intergalactic information exchange via dark energy through these nerve like filaments. Patterns repeating at different scale is a common thing to see in this universe.
I have a feeling those REALLY ancient egyptians may have known quite a bit about such things. grin

Posted by: AyeZeuss

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 05/30/09 10:54 PM

lets try that again.

9000years old skull from the region:


Baalbek with its up to 1600ton granite blocks that were quarried and delivered as 2000ton roughs before finishing on site.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/01/09 01:41 AM

Originally Posted By: AyeZeuss
Most humble pardons teacher. cool Since you are most super-brainy pyramid expert in whole world. wink


Yes...

Quote:
If you can tell us how they moved the up to 2000ton (4.4 million pound) pink granite blocks at Baalbek you'd be real smart.


Yep, that and the others, got most of it darwn up allready. Don't have my file gizmo with me tonight though. And besides, I've jus started on the pramid stuff here, buku allready done I haven't posted here yet. Obelisks and Stonehenge stuff too boot. All very simple.

I'll be back.

Caught me a litle off gaurd with somebody actually repling here.

Now, I do have all this stuff all ready posted in my thread titled "...and the horse you rode in on", but it's at a political site and it's scattered hither and yon in that thread, I think that thread is over 3000 replies so you'd have to do quite a bit of digging to find the moving and stacking of heavy stuff stuff. If you are a flaming liberal you might want to stay away cause I crush socialists almost daily. But, I do pimp this thread there so it's only fair to do the same here.

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?showtopic=22244
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/01/09 01:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Gravimotion
I totally agree with Marchimedes post #29161 above dated 01/15/09.

I call it the implosion of the universe (rather than contraction), because the so called “acceleration” of the universe, in that new interpretation (implosion) now makes one with the accelerated motion of the gravitation phenomenon.

Physicists alleged expansion of the universe is based on Hubble’s Doppler red shift discovery.
Yet and most importantly in the late 1990’s astronomers discovered that that expansion was actually accelerating, and that’s that accelerated motion that threw physics theories out of whack!

The explanation I give (in my website) is with the emergency vehicle:
So here is physics interpretation:
After Hubble's observations of red Doppler shifts, physicists assert that distant galaxies move away from us and that the universe is expanding.
And here is this innovative idea I share with Marchimedes:
Yet these shifts do not mandate such expansion.
In gravimotion's interpretation we move away from the distant galaxies while these are hardly moving.

Here is an analogy; just as Hubble's red shift, the high pitch of an emergency vehicle siren is getting lower when the vehicle is receding from you. But ask the driver of that vehicle to stop while keeping its siren on; then climb in your own car, and drive by the siren. Now while you are receding from it, the pitch is slowing all the same.
Hubble's shift can be interpreted as us receding faster from far away galaxies than close by galaxies!
An imploding universe is far more elegant, than physicists expanding one
Because an imploding yet accelerating universe works hand in hand with gravitation's own accelerated motion!

I came myself to that conclusion in a different way.
I came to that conclusion through my own understanding of the force of gravity or my own understanding of Einstein Space-time-curvature.

For that innovative idea too visit:
http://gravimotion.info


Nuttin but net.

You and me against the world bud.

I'll be reading your site.
Posted by: Gravimotion

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/01/09 12:45 PM

May be you and I are not against the whole world ...
May be the whole science of physics started on the wrong foot!
Posted by: AyeZeuss

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/03/09 08:27 AM

Its a funny world. Me? I'm not putting my bets for or against said world anytime soon. Astrophysicists say this mysterious stuff called dark energy can overcome gravity, pushing galaxies apart. Ancient egyptians say (along with the stories from sth, central america, easter island, polynesia New Zealand, Micronesia, indonesia, far east, mid east, africa, europe) that theres this black magic energy that can overcome gravity and thats what was used in local megalith constructions.
Not forming conclusions too soon could be useful.
Perhaps a little subtle, but beautiful how this thread brings these together. :-)
Now teach...
While you have your mallet out...
How did they get those pyramid blocks to all fit so tight together to 1/50 inch tolerances when the granite bedrock it sits on is bent 2ft down in the middle by the weight of the finished job?
I hope their stories about "techniques for making a boulder weigh as much as a mountain", and "making a mountain as light as a feather" don't end up upsetting your applecart. Lolz ;-)
Posted by: AyeZeuss

mysterious magic dark energy/ dark magic energy - 06/10/09 05:44 AM

seeeems like theres a disturbingly common cultural theme here. Spose some of these might be tending towards the up to 5%dark matter, rather than the up to 75% dark energy component of the universe at current estimates.
What if this transcultural idiom has some relevance to reality? Seems like "science" is converging on mysticism in this area? wink

10 min of googling brings me these names for this "dark" magic (defn(as i've been advised)/ interaction between the seen and unseen worlds):

dark energy, zero point or vacuum energy,
vril ,chi,qi,ki, Ti, lifesteam, jing
sei ,shou, kundalini, shakti, Kriya, Itcha, Para, Jnana, Mantrika
Mulaprakriti, Prahkti
Geburah, Gedulah, Tiphereth
Ain Soph Aur
holy spirit, spiritu, Spiritus
Cosmic Mother , Urania-Venus, Superior Water, Universal Substance
vibes, aeth, aether, aither, Ether
Aura, lesser light, astral light, life force, Bioplasma
Akasic field, Akarsha, Akasa, Akasa-bhuta, Akasa-sakti, Akasa-tattva, Akasha, Akasha Spirit, Akashic Records, Akasic, Akasic Magnetism, Akasic Records, Akasic Samadhi,
Baraka, Benzar
Animal Magnetism, Vital Life Force Energy
Cosmic Fire, Serpent Fire, Earth Dragon
Od, Odem, Odic Force, Orgone
Tattva, Muladhara (Tattwa of the earth), Svadishana (Tattwa of the water), Manipura (Tattwa of the fire), Anahat (Tattwa of the air), Visuddha ( Tattwa akasa, of the Ether ), Ajna (Adhi Tattwa, of the mind), Sahasrara (Samadhi Tattwa, of the light)
Prana, Brahma, Mana
VIVRR
Vibhu, vibhavan
Bioplasma, Telesma
Dorje, Bajrang, vajra.
Lingam, Shivalingam
the Force, void stuff, wu fu,
Posted by: AyeZeuss

Re: mysterious magic dark energy/ dark magic energy - 06/15/09 11:39 AM

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/cdunn-1.php

I'm a machine milling expert. This guys right. They had large very accurate: 3 axis milling machines, saws, drills and lathes capable of machining the hardest stone faster and more accurately than we can do today.

And by my calcs if you levered up the end of one of those 65ft Baalbek granites it would break in the middle. And hardwood rollers would need 120 of them each compressed to a half inch contact strip to get enough compressive strength from your rollers to last one trip under the stone if you are lucky. So maybe 15000 hardwood rollers per stone delivered.
Still It was probably over 20000 years ago, and they might have used Ice roads and mammoths to tow them there. Or those helicopters etc in reliefs in Abydos.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 06/26/09 05:32 PM

If you build your own telescope within, it is clear that the energy that started the big bang and thus the universe was when God spoke ......... Genesis 1:1
Posted by: Marchimedes

Outstanding! - 10/08/09 08:23 PM

70k views, you kids make me so proud.

Little sumpin I posted elsewhere today...


Another little thought experiment on the speed of light. You know how they say that as you approach the speed of light time is relative? That is if I got into my spaceship the HMS Blowme and went close to the speed of light for a while that when I came back to earth more time would have passes for you than for me? They say they proven this by putting clocks on spaceships and stuff. I wonder. As you know from my wonderful universe expansion acceleration posts the matter of the visible universe is bolting away form all other matter. That would mean that we on earth's time is different from other places in the universe. I guess if you were to plant yourself down in the spot of the big bang then that should be the place where time goes by more slowly than if you where on any of the matter that exists.

Or how about this...?

The Earth is 93 million miles away from the sun, one astronomical unit. AU. Light (a photon?) that escapes the surface of our star and heads our way takes 8 minutes to get here. So that light is traveling at, well, the speed of light, we view that photon when it gets here as taking 8 minutes to have made that journey. How long did it take from the photons point of view? I don't know, still mulling this one over. Like I always say, I have problems wrapping my mind around Einstein's theory of relativity.

Posted by: paul

Re: Outstanding! - 10/09/09 02:41 AM

if I shoot a bullet out of a rifle at 3000 fps

does the bullet understand that it cannot travel faster than the speed that light travels?

suppose I was inside a spaceship that was traveling 2999 fps slower than the speed at which light travels , and then I shoot the rifle in the direction that the spaceship is traveling!

will the bullet only travel at 2999 fps because it understands it is not allowed to travel faster?

or will it travel at 3000 fps

does a gas turbine engine have an efficiency of 90% vs a piston engines efficiency of 15%.

so if a piston engine powered car could travel 30 miles on a gallon of gas , then it stands to reason that a gas turbine powered car should travel 180 miles on a gallon of gas.

the reason we think we cant travel faster that the speed at which light travels is most likely because we have been taught that we cant , and we have no real proof , or any real gas turbine electric cars.

even if we did we cant use gasoline to travel that fast.

the reason we dont use gas turbine engines is that they are too efficient and because we dont have any real proof.
because there isnt anyone that will supply any research money to find out.

when obama said that there needs to be research funding made available to the individual inventor that is working on inventions in his garage or workshop he most likely was reffering to the impossibility of those individuals to get any funding for any thing that would save any energy.

yet as far as I can see it is still the large industries that recieve funding and / or inventions that only save a tiny non economicaly impacting amount of energy.

so there you have it , nothing can travel faster than the speed of light and you cant get 180 mpg from a gallon of greed.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: Outstanding! - 12/19/09 06:45 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
you cant get 180 mpg from a gallon of greed.


Sweet.



They who are called they often say light is a partical or a wave.

They who are called they often say that any mass approaching the speed of light approaches infinate mass.

If light is a partical then these things according so some theys should weigh an aweful lot. Kinda makes gettin a tan rather painful.

They need to get together and hammer this one out.

Somebody, somewhere, is not correct.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Outstanding! - 12/19/09 09:47 AM

What we are given to try to get our heads around is the idea that a photon is a 'packet' of energy that can behave like a particle yet has no mass. Consider also that, as yet, no one knows what it is that gives other 'particles' their mass.

They are getting together at LHC to try to hammer that one out.

Somebody somewhere is not correct?

That's for sure. Physics may be due for an upheaval when some bright spark reconciles quantum theory and general relativity.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: Outstanding! - 12/19/09 10:06 PM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
What we are given to try to get our heads around is the idea that a photon is a 'packet' of energy that can behave like a particle yet has no mass. Consider also that, as yet, no one knows what it is that gives other 'particles' their mass.


I saw that photon deal on TV recently and that's what got me started in on the mass of light. And then you make me think about the mass of particles. If particles have any mass, and they are travelling at the speed of light, then wouldn't that negate the theory that as mass approaches the speed of light it approaches infinate mass? Just like that, right?


Quote:
They are getting together at LHC to try to hammer that one out.

Somebody somewhere is not correct?

That's for sure. Physics may be due for an upheaval when some bright spark reconciles quantum theory and general relativity.


I'm no physisist, heck, can't even spell it but I like to think I have some game when I comes to thinking and I've got buku problems with both theories.

And then there is the speed of gravity...


And, of course, my theories of the universes expansion acceleration. Have you noticed even with 80k views no one has poked a hole in my theories yet?

Just thought I'd pat myself on the back there but really I think that means sumpin. Like my pyramid threory, which I haven't finished posting here yet, but so far over the years I've easily a quarter million views on that and still no flaws found with that yet.

I'm not hlding my breath waiting on the Nobel commitie calling me though.

They should call. I mean if they gonna give Algore a Nobel and he thinks the Earth is several million degrees just a few kilometers down...well, they should call.

Look at it like this, I'd give a heck of a acceptence speech...


Posted by: Marchimedes

Filling in some blanks... - 12/20/09 03:51 AM

I notice a few little red x's and some missing drawings. Here's some pyramid stuff that may help...

This one is fairly impotent as it splains my little leveling invention and the leveling the pyramid base/foundation won't make much cents without it...



This belongs in there somewhere. One of these days I may go get it all in order...




Fun with air shafts...



A more betterer drawing on the step idea...



And I think that's about all I have so far for pyramids. Put it all together and think a little and you'll know more than most Egyptologists.

Oh my, how embarrassing, the orign of the whole theory, how to get a block up a 6" step.



NOW, stuff might make some cents and some of your questions should be answered.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Outstanding! - 12/20/09 05:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
If particles have any mass, and they are travelling at the speed of light, then wouldn't that negate the theory that as mass approaches the speed of light it approaches infinate mass? Just like that, right?

Yes it would. But there's no longer any "If" about it. Decades of particle collider experiments consistently and precisely confirm the predictions of special relativity theory. So will the electricity bills LHC receives for accelerating protons to 99.9999991% of the speed of light.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 12/21/09 01:04 AM

My bad, went through the thread and I see that a few images have went away.

Why didn't someone tell me?









So far so good I think. Bear with me.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 12/21/09 01:16 AM



And I think that is all of theory #1.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Space #3 - 12/29/09 08:31 PM

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Space #3 - 12/30/09 01:36 AM

I find myself oddly grateful for this.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Not sure.... - 12/30/09 04:05 AM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
I find myself oddly grateful for this.


but I'll roll anyway.

Kinda like you are caught looking at a train wreck, a quilty pleasure, forbidden love.

Lemme better space #3, it's like the universe is at that point with the paddle ball



like where the ball is ALMOST at it's outermost point and is gettin ready to come back.

Yea, the universe like that. As per space #3.

And hey, FF? You might not want to reply to my crap, folks around these here parts are probably lookin at you all funny like now.

"Ah, yea, that's the guy that answered Marchimedes, we gots to keep an eye on that dude, any second now he might go South".

Trust me FF, I know my way around these forums.

Don't worry about me, I'm looking at 80k+ views, hardly any replies, I'm good bro, just the way I like it.

Means folks are reading but yet can't find a real problem with my stuff.

In the world of scientific theory, does it get any better than that?

Giddyup.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Not sure.... - 12/30/09 06:15 AM

How does it feel to be on a forum where your efforts are appreciated? No, really. You do have some fascinating ideas - even if they're often short on fact and long on fancy. And you don't take yourself too seriously, so you obviously don't expect anyone to take you seriously. You present a humorous and welcome parody of the ridiculous/pathetic cranks who pollute the net with bunk in the guise of science. Thank you, Marchimedes.
Posted by: Marchimedes

No really... - 12/30/09 07:19 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
How does it feel to be on a forum where your efforts are appreciated? No, really.


I friggin love it. Why else am I still here? Besides the fact that I'm not yet banned. I believe I say "thank you for reading" now and again.

Quote:
You do have some fascinating ideas - even if they're often short on fact and long on fancy.


Why thank you-

I like to think I'm short on facts cause the facts are short. I deal with the facts as I know them.

Your term "fancy" would be my term "theory".

Quote:
And you don't take yourself too seriously, so you obviously don't expect anyone to take you seriously.


Please to not mistake my way of posting my theories as meaning that I haven't spent buku time and thought on them.

I ask over and over and over again for you kids to say exactly way my crap don't fly.

You present a humorous and welcome parody of the ridiculous/pathetic cranks who pollute the net with bunk in the guise of science. Thank you, Marchimedes.

Well, I do try.

Over the years I've found I get read way more if I throw some little humor in.

After all, if I post and it don't get read then all I'm doing is practicing typing.

Nah, I've moved too many safes in the matter described for any one to tell me it can't be done exactly as how I describe it. Space? Well, I don't have a friggin clue. But the only difference between me and htey who are called that in the know is that I have found a way to explain why mass is accelerating away from other mass without making crap up.

I'm here cause I 'm looking for folks to tell me why my ideas don't work.

I've been at this for years and I'm still waiting for post #1 on why my theories won't work.

It really is that simple.

If I can tell a few jokes along with it all in my small world still doesn't mean I can't build a pyramid.

or...

as I say so often...

just cause I can't spell pyramid don't mean I can't build the friggin thing.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Careful with them there words... - 01/03/10 12:34 AM

Bt now you (explicative deleted as I first posted this at a liberal web site where they love me dearly, as you can imagine) know I can't stands scientists that say "is" or "isn't" before they should be saying these things. "Might" or "might not" I can deal with. And no, this post an't about the 'global warming is %100 mad made' idiots. They're too easy. It's about the precambrian extinction. About 600 million years or so ago a lot of life died. Lotsa theories. A solar event is a good one, gamma ray burster maybe, and the usual giant meteor strike deal. Seen some few shows about blokes looking for the impact crater, we gots stuff in space now that makes this pretty easy, and so far a real good candidate for the crater ain't been found causing some few so-called scientists to get their dander up and 'proclaim' that as there is no giant crater from back then then that 'absolutely' rules out a meteor strike. But I thought of sumpin. Know what a subduction zone is? Here ya go...

http://images.google.com/images?q=subduction+zones&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=r-A_S8bsOsyutgfm4bCGCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQsAQwAw

the first one from that page...



So if the crater where at the plate that is going under another plate the evidence would by now be magma. No evidence.

Not saying that this is what caused the precambrian extintion, or that it didn't, just pointing out that these PhDs on TV are wrong when they say "can't", that's all. They must be giving these doctorate degrees away.
Posted by: Marchimedes

6 images, 1 post, copy and hand out and email - 02/12/10 04:42 AM











Posted by: Marchimedes

How to raise an obelisk, 3 images, 1 post - 02/13/10 12:25 AM

I have replaced the lost obelisk post, here ya go, same deal, copy and email and hand out to anyone you know, people you don't like get two copies.





Posted by: Marchimedes

So far... - 02/13/10 12:28 AM

the sum total of Marchimedes's moving and stacking Egyptian stuff.

Posted by: Marchimedes

The universes expansion acceleration, 3 images, 1 - 02/13/10 01:30 AM





Posted by: Marchimedes

This time in imageville... - 02/20/10 09:08 AM

Posted by: Marchimedes

Excuse me... - 02/22/10 01:09 AM



If you are joking with me, it's pretty funny.

If not, well, then, you have really hurt my feelings and it's to my weeping closet for me, and then you gotta call Ma, she brings Ice Cream and the usual platitudes then it's off to therapy but what that means for you is no images for a while.

So there...
Posted by: Marchimedes

It's all good... - 02/22/10 02:00 AM

so how do you have it set up, I post and all goes back to normal?

it's funny, good job.

"This time in imageville..."

Classic.

You know, I'm a lead moderator on you know what site and I do stuff too. I especially like telling some moron I've banned him but it takes 24 hours to take effect so they had better post like their life depended on it.

Never let it be said that ol' March can't take that which he doles out.

I screen shotted it though.

I HAVE PROOF.


I'm liking this site more and morte as the years go by.

And the cold water freezes first, damn it.

So there.

Gimme 100k.

I have plans...
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 02/22/10 07:38 AM

My bad...
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 02/22/10 09:22 AM

Perhaps it's time this thread went a little closer to its initial topic. Things seem to have gone far afield.

Amaranth
Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 02/22/10 04:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
Things seem to have gone far afield
Ah, so the universe is expanding grin

Marchi

You've been over this at least once before, Marchi, and you continue to insist that the Big Bang was a conventional kind of explosion in which matter was expelled into a pre-existing space. That is not the way of it (according to "they"). The Big Bang was the origin of all our universe including space. That space expanded, carrying the contents with it. Which helps to account for the fact that, on the large scale (strings of galaxy superclusters), the universe looks to be much the same everywhere - taking into account the fact that we look into the past.

"They who are called they" also tell that the age of the universe is estimated to be about 13.7b yrs, not the 14.5b that you keep insisting on. You might as well get it right - heaven knows what will happen to your theories if you don't grin On the other hand, what's a billion yrs between friends?

You may have discovered by now that quasars have been identified as young galaxies. They appear young because we see them as they were billions of years ago. Those quasars might now be galaxies like the Milky Way. And in those galaxies may be astronomers observing the Milky Way as it was 10 billion yrs ago - possibly as a quasar.

What lies beyond the visible universe is, obviously, unknown; but as far as I know there's no reason to believe that it's different to the visible part. If it is the same, then it seems that 'at this moment' there would be no quasars.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 02/24/10 12:28 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
Things seem to have gone far afield
Ah, so the universe is expanding grin


OMG you should be ashamed of yourself.

Quote:
Marchi

You've been over this at least once before, Marchi, and you continue to insist that the Big Bang was a conventional kind of explosion in which matter was expelled into a pre-existing space. That is not the way of it (according to "they"). The Big Bang was the origin of all our universe including space.


I am never going to say that the big bang created existance itself.

Quote:
That space expanded, carrying the contents with it.


I say space is infinate, and probably was allready there. Cause space is really nothing. I can live with nothing being there already.

Quote:
Which helps to account for the fact that, on the large scale (strings of galaxy superclusters), the universe looks to be much the same everywhere - taking into account the fact that we look into the past.

"They who are called they" also tell that the age of the universe is estimated to be about 13.7b yrs, not the 14.5b that you keep insisting on.


At the time I wrote the first space theory is was 14.5 or this or that. Not until recentlyhas it been nailed down to 13.7. Do you really think I'm going to go back and edit drawings?

Quote:
You might as well get it right - heaven knows what will happen to your theories if you don't grin On the other hand, what's a billion yrs between friends?


Bah, numbers, math, don't amount to a hill of beans with my space theories. Don't need all that for my explanation.

Quote:
You may have discovered by now that quasars have been identified as young galaxies. They appear young because we see them as they were billions of years ago. Those quasars might now be galaxies like the Milky Way. And in those galaxies may be astronomers observing the Milky Way as it was 10 billion yrs ago - possibly as a quasar.


I'm fine with all that, notice I am on theory #3 right now.

Quote:
What lies beyond the visible universe is, obviously, unknown; but as far as I know there's no reason to believe that it's different to the visible part. If it is the same, then it seems that 'at this moment' there would be no quasars.


I'm fine with that also. Beyond visible space maybe be more stuff, buteventually there is just nothing, or what I call space.


Really, I'm going with at this point that the expansion is actually stopping, the interior of the matter buble is slowing down faster than the exterior becasue of te gravitaional pull of the matter on the opposite side of the buble. Our visible universe is being strectched, or the lung of the universe has finished filing and is jkust starting to exhale.

Expl;ain to me how thi idea does not mesh with all present gravitaional and physics laws and exlains all that we see withoutsome stinkin voodoo like dark energy.

See? No math.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 02/24/10 12:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
Perhaps it's time this thread went a little closer to its initial topic. Things seem to have gone far afield.

Amaranth


Then change the title to "I, Marchimedes, and what I think".

Or...

"Marchimedes, a man for all the ages".

Or...

"Stuff Marchimedes writes down".

Or...

"This time in imageville..." Yes, I saved that, I have a file of that, you can't deny that, I still want an explanation, matter of fact, you gonna scold me while in the same breath having fun at my expence? For shame.

Or...

"Marchimedes, the train wreck that keeps making all the stops".

See what I'm gettin at here? Maybe we should have a poll. A contest to name my thread.

Why does this even bother you?

Friggin almost at 90k views, you should be giving me awards and naming wings of this place after me.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 02/24/10 05:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
I am never going to say that the big bang created existance itself.

Likewise.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Cause space is really nothing.

You find it difficult to conceive of a 'nothing' that doesn't include space? Physicists don't yet know what space is, so you call it nothing. But I suspect that its structure will be discovered.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Really, I'm going with at this point that the expansion is actually stopping

Why? Observations show the expansion of space to be accelerating.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Do you really think I'm going to go back and edit drawings?

No, but why post junk?

Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 03/01/10 05:49 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted By: redewenur
[quote=Marchimedes]I am never going to say that the big bang created existance itself.

Likewise.


So we are good there, I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Cause space is really nothing.

You find it difficult to conceive of a 'nothing' that doesn't include space? Physicists don't yet know what space is, so you call it nothing. But I suspect that its structure will be discovered.


Well, gives you sumpin to get outta bed for.

I have trouble imagining that it has ANY structure. I say it's infinate nothing with matter in it here and that is us.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Really, I'm going with at this point that the expansion is actually stopping

Why? Observations show the expansion of space to be accelerating.


From our point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Do you really think I'm going to go back and edit drawings?

No, but why post junk?


Junk? Damn, that's little harsh. Plenty of good stuff in there to make folks think. So 14.5 bilions years is still there, it affects the theory not at all. beside if I change the image, then I have to repost the image. New files, image downloads, and while I'm in there I'm bound to think of sumpin else, it will never end.

Or...

Your little site here has 90,ooo views of people reading junk.

That's a lot of stupid people.

And I'm the leader.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 03/01/10 07:29 AM

I wouldn't be that harsh. Not everything you post is junk. But if you're out to inform, then you'd do better not to knowingly misinform - and if your choice of presentation format prevents that, then you'd do better not to use it.

Your apparent assumption that the number of views of a thread is a measure of the quality of posts therein (and the I.Q of the viewers) is baseless. A person may be attracted by a topic title, yet may consider the posts to be garbage. Whatever their opinion, they become a statistic as soon as they open the thread.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Really, I'm going with at this point that the expansion is actually stopping

Originally Posted By: redewenur
Why? Observations show the expansion of space to be accelerating.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
From our point of view

- Whose point of view did you have in mind?
- On what basis do you think their view would be different?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 03/02/10 04:21 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
I wouldn't be that harsh. Not everything you post is junk. But if you're out to inform, then you'd do better not to knowingly misinform - and if your choice of presentation format prevents that, then you'd do better not to use it.


Everybody always givin Ol' Marchimedes advise.

Quote:
Your apparent assumption that the number of views of a thread is a measure of the quality of posts therein (and the I.Q of the viewers) is baseless. A person may be attracted by a topic title, yet may consider the posts to be garbage. Whatever their opinion, they become a statistic as soon as they open the thread.


Fine.

Then.

I'm the greatest topic titler that has ever lived. To wit, my politics thread...



Yea, I don't know what I'm doing, maybe I should listen to YOUR advice.

Quote:
- Whose point of view did you have in mind?
- On what basis do you think their view would be different?


Why don't you just tell me what you think is wrong with my theory and why.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 03/02/10 09:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Everybody always givin Ol' Marchimedes advise...Yea, I don't know what I'm doing, maybe I should listen to YOUR advice...Why don't you just tell me what you think is wrong with my theory and why...Yea, I don't know what I'm doing, maybe I should listen to YOUR advice

Hey, no offense, Marchi.

The point is, we're both in the same boat of relative ignorance. The difference is that I don't presume to form my own theories about stuff I know too little about, including cosmology. Speculate, perhaps. Quote the experts, certainly. What you present is, needless to say, greatly at variance with what we can all learn from expert sources. On the balance of probabilities, since you don't have a scientific leg to stand on, that makes your purported 'theories' null and void.

You have my opinion. That's all it is. Whether or not you construe it as advice is up to you.
Posted by: Momos

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 03/02/10 10:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes

Bah, numbers, math, don't amount to a hill of beans with my space theories. Don't need all that for my explanation.


Uh. Trying to overthrow physics, without math.
Great, lets see how this works out laugh

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Really, I'm going with at this point that the expansion is actually stopping, the interior of the matter buble is slowing down faster than the exterior becasue of te gravitaional pull of the matter on the opposite side of the buble.


I maybe mistaken, but wasn't there something about: no gravitational pull inside a sphere?
Assuming your "bubble" is more or less spherical, the "pull of the matter on the opposite side of the bubble" would be of the same strength as the matter on this side of the bubble. Of course on the other side of the bubble is more matter, but this side of the bubble is not so far away. I guess Newton calculated that inside a spherical body the gravitational pull of the surrounding walls are canceling each other out, not only in the center of the sphere but also on every other point!
But that's done with numbers....
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 03/03/10 06:10 AM

I guess you may have to zoom your screen some to read this.

I see I need to splain space #3 in simpler terms so the slower witted among you can comprehend it.

Posted by: Momos

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 03/03/10 11:17 AM

1) Why should the stars on the inside of your postulated shell be deceleration? It can't be gravitational pull.

2) The speed of galaxies is measured by their redshift.
As far as I know the redshift of distant galaxies shows a velocity of much more then lightspeed (several times of c).
Conventional this ist explained as not beeing the real velocity.
Instead it is theorized the expansion of space itself is stretching any lightwave on its way. So a lightwave emitted 7 billion years ago (at a time the universe was half ist current size) will be "stretched" by a factor of 2, so the apparent velocity will doubled.
The redshift by expanding space is exceeding the redshift by doppler-effect for distant objects.


Your hypothesis arises the following questions:
a) some objects are still decelerating, for unknown reasons.
b) some objects are still accelerating, for unknown reasons.
c) objects (including ourself) are capable of velocities much higher then lightspeed. (Since we measure distant objects moving away faster then lightspeed in any direction we have to conclude, in your hypothesis. that in fact we are moving away from the "inside shell" with several times c, the "outside shell" is faster yet.
d) Apparently there has to be some mismatch between "local physic" (objects can't move faster then light in our vicinity) and "large scale physics" (our galaxy is moving faster then light)
e) Postulating the possibility of higher velocities then c, also means changing the interactions of other forces - and yet distant galaxies seem to consist of the same elements as our.


3) The Big-Bang-Theory postulates an expansion of space. At the beginning there was almost no space (so to speak), the big bang happend not in some distant point of the universe, but *everywhere* at once.
Expanding space will lead to the same observation *in every place* in the universe: all distant objects are moving away, the more distant they are the faster they move away.
This explains why it seems like we are the center of universal expansion and yet we don't have to assume we have any special position in the universe.

Your theory at least requires a careful arrangement of acceleration/deceleration and positioning of our place (roughly in the middle of the shell)?

4) The microwave background radiation is thought of beeing emitted 400.000 years after the big bang, when the temperature decreased to ~3000K and electrons and protons recombined.
This radiation was emitted *everywhere* in the universe and expansion of space has stretched the wave length of this 3000K-light to the current temperature of 3K.
This radiation is isotrop.

In you hypothesis this radiation should be non-existing (moving faster then any other object it would surround the matter-sphere in an expanding light shell moving through the empty pre-existing-space), or it should be anisotrop, coming from the direction of the "Big-Bang-Point"?

Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 03/03/10 04:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Momos
1) Why should the stars on the inside of your postulated shell be deceleration? It can't be gravitational pull.


I don't have any stars inside the shell, the stars are the shell. [/quote]

Quote:
2) The speed of galaxies is measured by their redshift.
As far as I know the redshift of distant galaxies shows a velocity of much more then lightspeed (several times of c).
Conventional this ist explained as not beeing the real velocity.


It doesn't show light speed as far as I know.

Quote:
Instead it is theorized the expansion of space itself is stretching any lightwave on its way. So a lightwave emitted 7 billion years ago (at a time the universe was half ist current size) will be "stretched" by a factor of 2, so the apparent velocity will doubled.
The redshift by expanding space is exceeding the redshift by doppler-effect for distant objects.


Actually in my space #3 theory matter has been decellerating from the moment of the big bang, so at halfway through the age of the universe the size of my univese is far more than half it's eventual size. And when I say "size of the universe" I mean the area of the mass that has been dispersed in said universe.

Quote:
Your hypothesis arises the following questions:
a) some objects are still decelerating, for unknown reasons.
b) some objects are still accelerating, for unknown reasons.


All objects in my universe are presently decellerating, at a point they will all be accellerating, but the visible evidence at this point does not support that.

Quote:
c) objects (including ourself) are capable of velocities much higher then lightspeed. (Since we measure distant objects moving away faster then lightspeed in any direction we have to conclude, in your hypothesis. that in fact we are moving away from the "inside shell" with several times c, the "outside shell" is faster yet.


No where in my theory do I geive any measure of speed besides decelerating.

Quote:
d) Apparently there has to be some mismatch between "local physic" (objects can't move faster then light in our vicinity) and "large scale physics" (our galaxy is moving faster then light)
e) Postulating the possibility of higher velocities then c, also means changing the interactions of other forces - and yet distant galaxies seem to consist of the same elements as our.


You are alone in your universe now, keep that crap outta my universe.


Quote:
3) The Big-Bang-Theory postulates an expansion of space. At the beginning there was almost no space (so to speak), the big bang happend not in some distant point of the universe, but *everywhere* at once.


I say space was allready there, infinate, matter dispersed around space does not make up space in my universe.

Quote:
Expanding space will lead to the same observation *in every place* in the universe: all distant objects are moving away, the more distant they are the faster they move away.


The farter away they are the bigger the rate of decelleration is, do not confuse that with acceleration, it is only apparent acceleration, and I only say that so you guys can visulaize this.


Quote:
This explains why it seems like we are the center of universal expansion and yet we don't have to assume we have any special position in the universe.

Your theory at least requires a careful arrangement of acceleration/deceleration and positioning of our place (roughly in the middle of the shell)?


Actually I would say we are closer to the inside or outside edge of the shell as eveidensed byt eh "hole in the universe" measurement that was taken. It's around here somewhere.

Quote:
4) The microwave background radiation is thought of beeing emitted 400.000 years after the big bang, when the temperature decreased to ~3000K and electrons and protons recombined.
This radiation was emitted *everywhere* in the universe and expansion of space has stretched the wave length of this 3000K-light to the current temperature of 3K.
This radiation is isotrop.

In you hypothesis this radiation should be non-existing (moving faster then any other object it would surround the matter-sphere in an expanding light shell moving through the empty pre-existing-space), or it should be anisotrop, coming from the direction of the "Big-Bang-Point"?


400,000 years after the big band my universe shell would have been still expanding. I guess the radiationhad to come from somewhere so it stands to reason that it came from all matter so it could be coming from the opposite side of my universes shell which would be 800,000 years worth of travel away from us at the time of it's beginning to radiate.
Posted by: Momos

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 03/03/10 10:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
1) Why should the stars on the inside of your postulated shell be deceleration? It can't be gravitational pull.


I don't have any stars inside the shell, the stars are the shell.


I know, but in your example with the cars, you explain the apparent expansion of the visible universe by galaxies on the "inner surface" of the shell decelerating and stars on the "outward parts" of the shell still accelerating.
The point is: there has to be some force which is causing this velocity difference.
Why are some stars, NOW (Billion of years after the Big Bang) decelerating faster then others?

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
2) The speed of galaxies is measured by their redshift.
As far as I know the redshift of distant galaxies shows a velocity of much more then lightspeed (several times of c).
Conventional this ist explained as not beeing the real velocity.


It doesn't show light speed as far as I know.



http://books.google.com/books?id=_2GeJxVvyFMC&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q=&f=false , Page 36:

"However, they are often also described in terms of a redshift velocity, which is the recessional velocity whose linear Doppler effect z would give the same value z=Z, as the measured spectral redshift. The confusing aspect of all this is that the redshift velocity can easily become greater than the speed of light."

But I have to admit my lack of knowledge in this area.
The redshift caluclator
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~elenc/Calculators/redshift.php?Ho=71&v1=1000&z1=0.001&v2=1000&z2=10 calculates for any value of z a velocity below c.
So I guess you are right.


Nevertheless aren't we measuring distant objects moving away from us with velocities at least up to 1/2 c?

According to your idea we are living in the middle of the shell of an expanding sphere.

Since we can observe distant object in every direction moving away from us with 0.5 c, this leads me to the conclusion the inner part of your shell is standing still, the middle part (including ourselves) is moving with 0.5c, the outer part is faster yet, moving with 1c.
Otherwise you can't explain the difference in velocities.


Furthermore in your hypothesis we should observe a universe with different velocity distributions to each side. Objects at the same distance to the "point of the BigBang" as us should be moving with the same velocity?
So we shouldn't see any movement of them at all?
(apart from movement due to stretching of the "shell" over a larger amount of space).

In any case, I think your idea is scientific, in the sense that your idea is falsifiable. Your hypothesis makes some observable predictions which don't fit the actual observations.


Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
Expanding space will lead to the same observation *in every place* in the universe: all distant objects are moving away, the more distant they are the faster they move away.This explains why it seems like we are the center of universal expansion and yet we don't have to assume we have any special position in the universe.

Your theory at least requires a careful arrangement of acceleration/deceleration and positioning of our place (roughly in the middle of the shell)?


Actually I would say we are closer to the inside or outside edge of the shell as eveidensed byt eh "hole in the universe" measurement that was taken. It's around here somewhere.


I would guess the size of this "hole" is wrong.



Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
4)
In you hypothesis this [background] radiation should be non-existing (moving faster then any other object it would surround the matter-sphere in an expanding light shell moving through the empty pre-existing-space), or it should be anisotrop, coming from the direction of the "Big-Bang-Point"?


400,000 years after the big band my universe shell would have been still expanding. I guess the radiationhad to come from somewhere so it stands to reason that it came from all matter so it could be coming from the opposite side of my universes shell which would be 800,000 years worth of travel away from us at the time of it's beginning to radiate.



A shell of matter sending out radiation, would be clearly visible. We should have a clear anisotropy with most of the background radiation coming from one side of the universe.
Actually at any point X in time (years after the explosion) we should see only the radiation emitted by the parts of your shell in exactly X - light years distance. I would assume we would measure a circle of background radiation (The intersection of your universe-shell and a sphere with a radius of X light years.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 03/03/10 11:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Momos
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
[quote=Momos]1) Why should the stars on the inside of your postulated shell be deceleration? It can't be gravitational pull.


I don't have any stars inside the shell, the stars are the shell.


Quote:
I know, but in your example with the cars, you explain the apparent expansion of the visible universe by galaxies on the "inner surface" of the shell decelerating and stars on the "outward parts" of the shell still accelerating.


No. No no no no no.

There is no acceleration, the only acceleration was the initial big bang blast.

Quote:
The point is: there has to be some force which is causing this velocity difference.


(sighs) Yes, the fact that the matter closer to the outside edge of the universes shell is farther away from the mass of the universe than the matter on the inside of the shell.

Quote:
Why are some stars, NOW (Billion of years after the Big Bang) decelerating faster then others?


Because they are closer to the rest of the matter in the universe and therefor that matter has a greater pull on them.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
2) The speed of galaxies is measured by their redshift.
As far as I know the redshift of distant galaxies shows a velocity of much more then lightspeed (several times of c).
Conventional this ist explained as not beeing the real velocity.


It doesn't show light speed as far as I know.


Quote:
So I guess you are right.


Yea me.

Quote:
Nevertheless aren't we measuring distant objects moving away from us with velocities at least up to 1/2 c?


I don't have a clue. Don't matter.

According to your idea we are living in the middle of the shell of an expanding sphere.

Quote:
Since we can observe distant object in every direction moving away from us with 0.5 c, this leads me to the conclusion the inner part of your shell is standing still, the middle part (including ourselves) is moving with 0.5c, the outer part is faster yet, moving with 1c.
Otherwise you can't explain the difference in velocities.


No, go back to the car anology. The inner part is decellerating faster than the outer.

Quote:
Furthermore in your hypothesis we should observe a universe with different velocity distributions to each side. Objects at the same distance to the "point of the BigBang" as us should be moving with the same velocity?
So we shouldn't see any movement of them at all?
(apart from movement due to stretching of the "shell" over a larger amount of space).


Yes.

Quote:
In any case, I think your idea is scientific, in the sense that your idea is falsifiable. Your hypothesis makes some observable predictions which don't fit the actual observations.




Quote:
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
Expanding space will lead to the same observation *in every place* in the universe: all distant objects are moving away, the more distant they are the faster they move away.This explains why it seems like we are the center of universal expansion and yet we don't have to assume we have any special position in the universe.

Your theory at least requires a careful arrangement of acceleration/deceleration and positioning of our place (roughly in the middle of the shell)?


Actually I would say we are closer to the inside or outside edge of the shell as evidensed by eh "hole in the universe" measurement that was taken. It's around here somewhere.


I would guess the size of this "hole" is wrong.


Depends on how far we are form the inner or outer limit.


Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
4)
In you hypothesis this [background] radiation should be non-existing (moving faster then any other object it would surround the matter-sphere in an expanding light shell moving through the empty pre-existing-space), or it should be anisotrop, coming from the direction of the "Big-Bang-Point"?


400,000 years after the big bang my universe shell would have been still expanding. I guess the radiationhad to come from somewhere so it stands to reason that it came from all matter so it could be coming from the opposite side of my universes shell which would be 800,000 years worth of travel away from us at the time of it's beginning to radiate.



Quote:
A shell of matter sending out radiation, would be clearly visible. We should have a clear anisotropy with most of the background radiation coming from one side of the universe.
Actually at any point X in time (years after the explosion) we should see only the radiation emitted by the parts of your shell in exactly X - light years distance. I would assume we would measure a circle of background radiation (The intersection of your universe-shell and a sphere with a radius of X light years.


it all depends on how thick the shell is, doesn't it? At this point I can guess that it is at least 27.4 billion light years think.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Swing blocks. - 03/26/10 05:26 PM

Posted by: Marchimedes

Yea me! - 04/13/10 05:10 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr46x7bTa-Y

Posted by: Marchimedes

More... - 04/13/10 05:14 AM

Just look at the general science discussion page.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Jeez... - 04/14/10 02:12 AM

What? No "way to go Marchimedes, nice job gettin 100,000 views there" or nuttin?

Man, what a bunch of stiffs. you'd think this site gets a 100,000 view thread everyday, is it any wonder I had to throw my own party? And you know how shy I am and all. Does this site have many 100,000 viewss threads?

Does this site have 100,000 views on any page?

It tell ya, a guy friggin busts his hump day and night and this is the thanks I get? I mean would buying me a beer friggin kill ya? Maybe a nice card or sumpin? A plaque? A PM telling me I don't suck? Have you been to other science sites? Seen what they have? I tell ya what they don't have...Marchimedes. (So they always ban me, doesn't count)You could go there and taunt them, "na na na na na, you don't have any 100,000 view threee-eads, we do and you don't". And then link to here.

This is an advertising dream. Or as I like to call it "smackvertising".

I think you should make me an honorary moderator or sumpin. You know, put "hero moderator" under my name. Don't actually give me mod powers or anything, but let me say I'm a mod, chicks dig that.

You know, this is the perfect opportunity to throw off the yoke of "geeks" and "nerds". I could be the sites Bluto, we'll have Toga parties and I'll get you guys laid, finally.

I'm gonna go home now and pout.
Posted by: Marchimedes

A favour... - 05/05/10 01:42 AM

My baby sister of 8 years, Stacy June, Mother of Mckenzi and Nick, suffered a stroke today on her right side. They got her to the ER quick, don't know much right now, but those of you that do would you do that? Pray?



Please.
Posted by: samwik

Re: A favour... - 05/05/10 02:44 AM

Granted; best intentions and prayers are coming your way. Good luck to you and all. Eighteen hours/day of rehab. is a goal to work towards. Hope you have that opportunity! Good going on the 100k too. Keep on.... ~SA
Posted by: redewenur

Re: A favour... - 05/05/10 04:23 AM

Thoughts are with you all, Marchi. May your sis recover quickly. All the best to you and yours.
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: A favour... - 05/05/10 04:39 PM

I hope your sister recovers. She will be in my thoughts. May the best outcome prevail.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: A favour... - 05/05/10 05:24 PM

Sorry to hear it. I hope things get better for you all.
Posted by: paul

Re: A favour... - 05/05/10 07:53 PM

Marchimedes

I think your sister should get well soon because you had
the faith to ask for others to pray.

believing that prayer will help.

and I hope she does have a speedy recovery.
Posted by: kallog

Re: A favour... - 05/06/10 04:27 AM

It helps is his sister knows about all that praying, and believes in it too!
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: A favour... - 06/14/10 06:17 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
Marchimedes

I think your sister should get well soon because you had
the faith to ask for others to pray.



Can't prove that, but I'll take it any day, the kid is doing fine, full recovery so far.

Originally Posted By: samwik
Granted; best intentions and prayers are coming your way. Good luck to you and all. Eighteen hours/day of rehab. is a goal to work towards. Hope you have that opportunity! Good going on the 100k too. Keep on.... ~SA


Thank you everyone for your thoughts and prayers.

(observes minimum necessary time before reverting back to usual humble polite self)

Well lookie there, actual mention of my wonderful accomplishments, the 100k view mark. Why thank you samwik.

See, it won't crash the server to come out and tell me good job.

Ah, a problem perhaps with the theory of relativity as I understand it.

So as you approach the speed of light time slows down for the traveler. The way I've read it any object or person at speed has time pass slower than a stationary object of person.

For instance, two men born at the exact same time, slated to live for the same amount of time exactly...

One is a Concord pilot of many years, the other a snail herder, the snail herder is gonna die first.

Now I understand that this phenomena has been so-called proven, with clocks on space ships and what not. I still don't get it.

Say I get in my spaceship, The USS Blowme, and take off at c, the speed of light, and travel for 1 year. I should have traveled one light year. For you here on Earth the theory of relativity states that a greater amount of time has passed, lettuce call it 10 years.

From your perspective I should have traveled 10 light years.

But in the USS Blowme I've only went 1 light year.

Or does your time apply to me and I've traveled 10 light years? In one year, which would make my speed 10c? Which means I've passed the universal speed limit of c.

See what I'm getting at here?

Has this paradox been addressed by the the so-called scientists?

The way I look at this there is a major flaw in the theory of relativity.

What gives?
Posted by: paul

Re: A favour... - 06/15/10 04:41 AM

Marchimedes

Quote:
the kid is doing fine


congratulations on everything.!!
Posted by: ImagingGeek

Re: A favour... - 06/15/10 04:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes

Ah, a problem perhaps with the theory of relativity as I understand it.

So as you approach the speed of light time slows down for the traveler. The way I've read it any object or person at speed has time pass slower than a stationary object of person.

...

Say I get in my spaceship, The USS Blowme, and take off at c, the speed of light, and travel for 1 year. I should have traveled one light year. For you here on Earth the theory of relativity states that a greater amount of time has passed, lettuce call it 10 years.

From your perspective I should have traveled 10 light years.

But in the USS Blowme I've only went 1 light year.


What you're referring to is commonly called the twins paradox.

Relativity is not exactly a intuitive thing. The point you are missing is in relativity, not all observers are created equal. Its explained far better in the twins paradox page I've linked to then I could possibly hope to explain myself. It all has to do with who is under acceleration - acceleration puts you into an "inferior" reference frame.

Long story short, for the person on the space ship traveling near C it will seem to take less than a year to travel 1 light-year, while for an outside observer it will appear that the ship takes a year to go one light year.

Bryan
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: A favour... - 06/15/10 06:10 PM

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
[quote=Marchimedes]
What you're referring to is commonly called the twins paradox.


Ah, wikipedia, what a virus laden Hell hole that place is, might as well link me to barnyard porn sites with down loadable "games" and "click here for a free prize" icons.

But I searched the twin paradox and I see it's just the name of what I've seen all these years.

Quote:
Relativity is not exactly a intuitive thing.


You're telling me, but what I'm striving for here is to understand it intuitively and then splain it in simple terms.

Quote:

The point you are missing is in relativity, not all observers are created equal. Its explained far better in the twins paradox page I've linked to then I could possibly hope to explain myself. It all has to do with who is under acceleration - acceleration puts you into an "inferior" reference frame.


Ah, derrrrrrrr...
Quote:

Long story short, for the person on the space ship traveling near C it will seem to take less than a year to travel 1 light-year, while for an outside observer it will appear that the ship takes a year to go one light year.

Bryan


Right. My problem is me in my ship going balls and "seems".

If the clock in the good USS Blowme says I've been on board for, say, 1/2 a year and I've traveled light year that would seem to me that I've been going at 2c.

Which would to me invalidate the concept of c being the universal speed limit.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that either there is a problem with relativity or the idea that c is a speed limit. I can't see both holding true.
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: A favour... - 06/16/10 02:45 AM

ImagingGeek,
When I click on your link to wikipedia I get a "server not found" error. Do you have another link?
Posted by: redewenur

Re: A favour... - 06/16/10 03:26 AM

Amaranth, ImagingGeek's link fixed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: A favour... - 06/16/10 08:26 AM

Thanks, rede. I appreciate that.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Outstanding... - 08/20/10 07:38 PM

125k+ views.

I do believe I'm starting to warm up to you kids.

Listen, I need a 360 degree dispersal map of all these super novas that we use to determine that the universe (visible universe I say, visible) is expanding. You know, which directions they are and how much they are red shifted.

I figured maybe I go go to a big science type site with lots of interesting, intelligent folks who know their bidness.

But I came here instead.

Does anyone know where to find a map such as this?
Posted by: Marchimedes

To ponder... - 09/18/10 06:02 PM


I was wondering...

Dark matter is uncounted for mass in the universe. We are pretty sure it's there because of gravitational lensing. That is, look at a distant galaxy and the light from stuff behind said galaxy gets bent around it by the gravitational mass of the galaxy and the amount estimated mass in the galaxy is insufficient to account for the stuff that we see. There should be more mass. We call this dark matter, not to be confused with dark energy, which I am not fond of as shown in my space theories. Now, I've read that even in the deep vacuum of space there is on average 1 atom per cubic centimeter. Add up all the space between stars in said galaxy and you've got a good bit of mass. Knowing scientist as I seem do and their propensity to overlook the obvious I wonder if all these little atoms in the vacuum of space could be the mysterious dark matter.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: To ponder... - 09/18/10 11:03 PM

Marchi, it's been found that the distribution of galaxies coincides with the distribution of Dark Matter, according to a study published in Nature journal a few years ago. The supposed reason is the gravitational attraction of 'ordinary' matter toward dark matter. That doesn't mean there's no Dark Matter in the cosmic cavities that you mention. I imagine there is. But the view at the moment is that most of it's in the same regions as most of the ordinary matter.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: To ponder... - 10/02/10 03:15 PM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
Marchi, it's been found that the distribution of galaxies coincides with the distribution of Dark Matter, according to a study published in Nature journal a few years ago. The supposed reason is the gravitational attraction of 'ordinary' matter toward dark matter.


Stands to reason.

Quote:
That doesn't mean there's no Dark Matter in the cosmic cavities that you mention. I imagine there is. But the view at the moment is that most of it's in the same regions as most of the ordinary matter.


Also stands to reason.

But what I was looking for is has the so-called scientists accounted for the normal interstellar matter I referred to as normal mass of galaxies?


And another question...

I'm looking for information of how long it would take to get to light speed from a dead stop at various accelerations. For instance, at 2 G's how long would it take to get to c?
Posted by: redewenur

Re: To ponder... - 10/02/10 06:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
But what I was looking for is has the so-called scientists accounted for the normal interstellar matter I referred to as normal mass of galaxies?

Regarding interstellar - as opposed to intergalactic - distribution of Dark Matter, I don't know what the current data is purported to suggest. A few years ago, I asked an astronomer if dark matter might affect the orbits of planets in our Solar System. His answer was no, because the Dark Matter seems to occupy the space around the Milky Way, and if there is some local interstellar Dark Matter, it's an insufficient amount to have a measurable effect. So, in other words, all (as far as anyone can tell) of the stuff within the visible galaxy is reckoned to be normal matter, with Dark Matter surrounding it and affecting the characteristics of its rotation. Since no one yet knows what DM is, it's not a good time in history to be making bold assertions about it. The research is ongoing.

http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/darkhalo.htm

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
And another question...

I'm looking for information of how long it would take to get to light speed from a dead stop at various accelerations. For instance, at 2 G's how long would it take to get to c?

Thanks to RickB, who did the work for us...

At 1g:

99%............6.8 years
99.9%..........21.66 years
99.99%.........68.5 years
99.999%........216.76 years

You can cut those times in half by going at "2g" instead of "1g"...but you still have the same problem of the times stretching out to infinity.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090425080114AAIsYZx

I find it difficult to grasp, Marchi, since it's all about frames of reference (with more than a bit of maths to understand). For example:

"So in theory you can travel across the galaxy in just 12 years of your own time"

So the times above are as witnessed by the guys at mission control, not to anyone aboard the spacecraft.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html


Posted by: Bill S.

Re: To ponder... - 10/02/10 06:16 PM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
His answer was no, because the Dark Matter seems to occupy the space around the Milky Way, and if there is some local interstellar Dark Matter, it's an insufficient amount to have a measurable effect.


Go out into an open space on a slightly misty day, you will observe little or no mist close to you. In the distance, however, you will see a lot more mist, even though the mist might be evenly and widely distributed. Could it be the same with dark matter? Could it be evenly distributed throughout the galaxy, but detectable only with distance.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: To ponder... - 10/02/10 08:21 PM

Nice analogy, Bill, but unsupported by the data, which continues to be consistent with a halo configuration, as supported by this recent research:

http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/darkhalo.htm
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: To ponder... - 10/04/10 04:26 PM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
Since no one yet knows what DM is, it's not a good time in history to be making bold assertions about it.


Nuttin but net.

Thanks to RickB, who did the work for us...
Quote:

At 1g:

99%............6.8 years
99.9%..........21.66 years
99.99%.........68.5 years
99.999%........216.76 years

You can cut those times in half by going at "2g" instead of "1g"...but you still have the same problem of the times stretching out to infinity.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090425080114AAIsYZx


Ah, thank you. Not that long actually.

Quote:
I find it difficult to grasp, Marchi, since it's all about frames of reference (with more than a bit of maths to understand). For example:

"So in theory you can travel across the galaxy in just 12 years of your own time"

So the times above are as witnessed by the guys at mission control, not to anyone aboard the spacecraft.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html


Yea, I get the observer point of view deal.

Ties in with my speed of light limit too.

Thanks, now I've got yet more pondering to do...
Posted by: Marchimedes

Blatent self promotion... - 10/14/10 08:23 PM

Okay kids, it's election time and I'm terribly busy at my political forum, where I am, by the way, a lead moderator, go figure huh? Especially at a place that is named liberalforum. See, the joke is I'm not very liberal.

Anyway, it's time to pimp that site, or my thread there actually...

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/

It's a 120k+ view thread, lagging just a little behind this thread, which is odd, but there ya go.

And don't worry, I pimp this thread/site over there...

[quote name='teacher' timestamp='1286209627' post='1832441']
And some speed of light stuff...

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=36414&#Post36414
[/quote]

See? All's fair.

Anyway, it's election time and if you are a liberal you need to be abused and that is just the thread for that to get done at.

It's a public service/humanitarian kind of thing.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 12/02/10 04:22 PM

Now the so-called scientists are saying that there are triple the stars that they thought there was.

So much for dark matter.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Outstanding... - 12/05/10 09:41 AM

There is no acceleration, the only acceleration was the initial big bang blast.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: Outstanding... - 12/10/10 07:33 PM

Originally Posted By: stela
There is no acceleration, the only acceleration was the initial big bang blast.


Classic case.

The so-called scientists tell us that using the light from distant super novas in other galaxies being red Doppler shifted that the universe, hang on, as I say it, appears to be accelerating away from us.

New here?

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Now the so-called scientists are saying that there are triple the stars that they thought there was.

So much for dark matter.


I guess I should, expand (hehe) on that.

But first, I would like to say I had beer for lunch.

Anyway, again, the so-called scientists have been telling us that by using gravitational lensing that there is a large amount of mass missing from the universe.

These gents, in their genius, and in their propensity to telling us a bunch of crap to explain the half of crap that they don't know, as opposed to the other half that they make up, to get grants, you know, have accounted for the missing matter by making up "dark matter", that is, a mysterious, apparently invisible, bunch of matter we can't see.

Well, now that they have come out and said that there are, apparently, triple the amount of stars than they first thought, then that would account for all the missing mass now, wouldn't it?

See?

Like I been saying all along, these guys are making it up as they go along.

Like the "dark energy".

But then I gots that one covered.

Giddyup.

Really, stela, you should read.

-

I see you folks are ready to give me the 150k view mark.

I am well pleased with this.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Outstanding... - 12/11/10 07:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
I usually go by the screen name teacher.


Would that be physics or astronomy that you teach?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: Outstanding... - 12/13/10 04:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
I usually go by the screen name teacher.


Would that be physics or astronomy that you teach?


Ha, good one.

Nah, I don't teach Jack. If fix, install and destroy stuff for a living.

I sure wing this science gig pretty well though, eh?
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Outstanding... - 12/13/10 05:58 PM

Quote:
I sure wing this science gig pretty well though, eh?


Especially after a few beers. smile
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: Outstanding... - 12/15/10 07:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
I sure wing this science gig pretty well though, eh?


Especially after a few beers.


Nuttin like knocking back a dozen or two cold ones to help one think out of the box.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Oh no no no no... - 02/26/11 04:52 PM

can't have my thread here going second page.

I'm a busy and impotent man in the world of internet political debate and while I have an image or two to make about pyramid leveling and a nice rant about astro physicists lemme, for now, leave you with a joke I wrote that I so very much enjoy...


The protesters. Cairo, Egypt.

What's wrong with this picture?



Where the women at?

At home, furiously sewing emergency burkas.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Oh no no no no... - 03/05/11 01:34 PM

There must be some way in which emergency burkas contribute to the expansion of the Universe. smile
Posted by: katesisco

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 03/31/11 07:19 PM

Expansion/Contraction is a viable choice against the big bang. It does seems to explain the small cosmological constant. Is receiving second look due to our 25% dark mass maybe in Feynmann's 'ghost of a vortex.' And appears the 70% dark energy is the ether.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: Oh no no no no... - 04/02/11 03:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
There must be some way in which emergency burkas contribute to the expansion of the Universe. smile


It's posts like that that make this train wreck late.

Originally Posted By: katesisco
Expansion/Contraction is a viable choice against the big bang.


Why does it have to be against? Couldn't the contraction end up with a black hole like something that does a big bang kinda deal?

Quote:
It does seems to explain the small cosmological constant. Is receiving second look due to our 25% dark mass maybe in Feynmann's 'ghost of a vortex.' And appears the 70% dark energy is the ether.


I'm gonna need that in English please.

Maybe some pictures, that always helps.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 05/01/11 07:35 PM










Posted by: Revlgking

Re: To ponder... - 05/02/11 10:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes

I was wondering...

Dark matter is uncounted for mass in the universe. We are pretty sure it's there because of gravitational lensing. That is, look at a distant galaxy and the light from stuff behind said galaxy gets bent around it by the gravitational mass of the galaxy and the amount estimated mass in the galaxy is insufficient to account for the stuff that we see. There should be more mass....
When I read what modern astrophysicists say to each other I ask myself: Who are these people? They sound like theologians.

Don't get me wrong, I find what they say very interesting.
Posted by: Garminforerunner

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 05/30/11 06:20 PM

That doesn't mean there's no Dark Matter in the cosmic cavities that you mention. I imagine there is. But the view at the moment is that most of it's in the same regions as most of the ordinary matter.
Posted by: Bill 6

Re: To ponder... - 05/31/11 06:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Dark matter is uncounted for mass in the universe. We are pretty sure it's there because of gravitational lensing. That is, look at a distant galaxy and the light from stuff behind said galaxy gets bent around it by the gravitational mass of the galaxy and the amount estimated mass in the galaxy is insufficient to account for the stuff that we see.

When I first became interested in relativity it was scientifically accepted that the mass of distant galaxies was insufficient to cause the amount of redshift observed.

Part of my initial submission to academia suggested that we may be underestimating the mass of those galaxies.

My submission was ignored however seven years later I was delighted to read an article in New Scientist to the effect that astrophysicists had determined that the galaxies were 500 to a thousand times more massive than had previously been estimated.

Perhaps even that prediction may need to be revised.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: To ponder... - 05/31/11 02:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill 6
...it was scientifically accepted that the mass of distant galaxies was insufficient to cause the amount of redshift observed.

That's interesting, Bill. How is the mass of a galaxy related to it's redshift?
Posted by: Bill

Re: To ponder... - 05/31/11 10:37 PM

I haven't seen anything about that discussion, but an extremely massive galaxy would show a gravitational red shift. Actually any size galaxy would have one, but normally it would be so small it would be indetectible.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Bill 6

Re: To ponder... - 06/01/11 12:47 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
How is the mass of a galaxy related to it's redshift?

I shall assume that you are happy with the answer provided.
Posted by: Orac

Re: To ponder... - 06/01/11 02:32 AM

So you may have the satisfaction of saying see my analysis was right if thats the case.

The problem really became there are many galaxies which should be flying apart.

The redshift they can live with as a one day we will get around to working it out when there galaxies should be flying apart they have to act.

Bit like a small oil leak in your car versus the engine blowing up both are signs of a problem one is much more compelling to act :-)
Posted by: Bill 6

Re: To ponder... - 06/01/11 03:50 AM

Orac,

Other than the fact that my posting related to gravitational lensing, not the structural nature of galaxies, your message left me baffled.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: To ponder... - 06/01/11 07:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill
I haven't seen anything about that discussion, but an extremely massive galaxy would show a gravitational red shift. Actually any size galaxy would have one, but normally it would be so small it would be indetectible.

Bill Gill

Yes, I can see that. It's very surprising to me that such small gravitational redshifts can be confidently differentiated from redshift due to recessional velocity.

I should think it involves redshift measurement of Cepheid variables and Type 1a supernovae, but there's still the problem of differentiating the causes of the shift.

If anyone knows of a source of further relevant info, I'd be glad of it.
Posted by: Orac

Re: To ponder... - 06/02/11 02:00 AM

Sorry Bill.S that english thing again was making an analagy to a car and why they ignored your theory back then. Ignore it wasn't important.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Oh my... - 08/09/11 07:47 PM

Lookie there, over 200,000 views on this most glorious of threads.

I'm thinking some sort of prize is in order.

I'll wait...
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Oh my... - 08/10/11 03:09 AM

I suppose you realize, Marchi, that more could be worse rather than better. After all, 200,000 views yet so few participants might mean that the vast majority find it not even worthy of comment. Nevermind, they probably love you anyway grin
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 08/11/11 07:54 PM

Hi
I think a lot of scifi films and TV programmes have infused the idea of space travel in that science fiction has become science fact. Shows such as Star Trek, Space 1999 and Unicorn Four have explained ideas regarding space travel in both the imaginary plane and the theoretical plane. If you take the TV series Unicorn Four for example there were some far out ideas there and a lot of which could be possible as soon as energy sources have been created and stabilised so that they can be used for their intergalactical functions. One example is here at the start of the first episode of Unicorn Four.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpqahotyI0M
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: Oh my... - 08/31/11 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
I suppose you realize, Marchi, that more could be worse rather than better. After all, 200,000 views yet so few participants might mean that the vast majority find it not even worthy of comment. Nevermind, they probably love you anyway grin


So...no prize?

Fine.

Then.

I'll go pout somewhere, nah, you know what always makes me feel more betterer?

Abusing liberals.

Nowz when youse guys seriously consider a prize.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Oh my... - 08/31/11 08:28 PM

Marchi, I think you do deserve a prize.

You don't pretend to be a scientist, you just offer some ideas in a good-natured way, and you don't object to being told when you're wrong.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Oh my... - 09/01/11 07:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
Sorry Bill.S ....


Just spent lots of time looking back through the thread to see why you were apologising to me; then I realised you were offering your regrets to Bill 6!
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Oh my... - 09/12/11 01:49 PM

Here’s a point disinterred from page one.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
"All the mass gets hurled out at the same velocity"


Originally Posted By: redewenur
- No, it doesn't.


Is the relative recession rate of all receding objects the same? E.g. Given that the distance between any two objects is the same; would they recede from each other at the same speed?
Posted by: paul

Re: Oh my... - 09/12/11 05:05 PM

I guess your talking about the big bang.

as in any explosion there would be differences in the magnatude of the force that caused all the stuff to move outward , so no everything would not move at the same speed.'

I would think that the first stuff moved slower because there was more for the explosion to push.

the middle would have moved faster.

the last stuff would move even faster.

sort of an inverted ball.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Oh my... - 09/12/11 09:35 PM

Quote:
I would think that the first stuff moved slower because there was more for the explosion to push.


Could you not also argue that stuff would be moving faster at the beginning because the force driving it would more concentrated. The trouble is, this begins to sound like an explosion in space, which we are assured the BB was not.

Then again, if your reasoning is right, perhaps you have found an explanation for accelerating expansion.

Perhaps you and Finiter are both heading for Nobel Prizes. smile
Posted by: paul

Re: Oh my... - 09/13/11 12:13 AM

Quote:
Then again, if your reasoning is right, perhaps you have found an explanation for accelerating expansion


I was just thinking about the cause of the big bang a few years back and my conclusion was that as everything came together the pressures caused the energy of matter to escape
this way atoms could get closer and closer to each other as they are compacted in towards the center.

then at some point there is an explosion as the energy returns.

perhaps all the energy of all the atoms is striped away through the compression and once the energy is gone then
the compression itself through the heat causes the explosion.

and the explosion would occur at the center where compression and heat is greatest.

this would mean that there would need to be a tremendous explosion to push all the matter away because energy really doesnt weigh anything.


anyway its a thought I had.
Im sure somebody needs to trim it up and change a few things.









Posted by: Orac

Re: Oh my... - 09/13/11 12:54 PM

I have been discussing QM and the big bang in a number of threads.

I am not a great believer of this but it is worth throwing it out there.

There is the possibility under QM that the universe was the largest bosenova explosion ever seen. The interesting part about such a QM explosion is the initial universe would have been absolute zero and infact the univrese would never have got much warmer than that sort of what we see today.

The real question now is can we make any predictions that could be checked if this were so.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1011.0001v1.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1011.0002v1.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1011.0003v1.pdf
Posted by: paul

Re: Oh my... - 09/13/11 07:08 PM

there seems to be 1 huge problem , everything would need to reverse direction in order to head back to the center.

however there isnt anything that could accomplish that.

unless the universe is inside a area that has a pressure and the big bang pushed against it.

then perhaps that pressurized area could eventually push everything back.

or a huge vacuum was created when the big bang occurred and eventually the vacuum would pull everything back.

Im really not concerned with it , I was just trying to see if there was a way that it could happen , thats all.

and I'll leave that type of thing up to you guys.

theres another huge problem also.

a rock cannot create another rock.
atoms dont create atoms.
gasses dont multiply.

all the scientist on earth cannot create a grain of sand.

or a simple hydrogen atom.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Oh my... - 09/13/11 08:32 PM

Good links, as usual, Orac. As you can imagine I ran into a problem early in the first one.

Quote:
infinite and (almost) eternal.


How can something be "almost" eternal?

How can something be infinite without being eternal?
Posted by: Orac

Re: Oh my... - 09/14/11 01:45 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
there seems to be 1 huge problem , everything would need to reverse direction in order to head back to the center.

however there isnt anything that could accomplish that.

unless the universe is inside a area that has a pressure and the big bang pushed against it.

then perhaps that pressurized area could eventually push everything back.

or a huge vacuum was created when the big bang occurred and eventually the vacuum would pull everything back.

Im really not concerned with it , I was just trying to see if there was a way that it could happen , thats all.

and I'll leave that type of thing up to you guys.

theres another huge problem also.

a rock cannot create another rock.
atoms dont create atoms.
gasses dont multiply.

all the scientist on earth cannot create a grain of sand.

or a simple hydrogen atom.



This a QM effect you need to look at the background of a bosenova explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosenova)(http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35556)

They first collapse inwards the explode outwards

Quote:

Bosenovas were first created about 10 years ago by adjusting the magnetic-field strength between the atoms in a BEC so that the short-range "van der Waals" forces between the atoms are attractive, rather than repulsive. This causes the BEC to collapse in on itself much like a dying star. It then explodes like a tiny supernova and throws off many of its constituent atoms.


That part I have no trouble with it's the size and scale I have trouble with.

Posted by: paul

Re: Oh my... - 09/15/11 02:05 AM

Quote:
That part I have no trouble with it's the size and scale I have trouble with.


I was thinking that as the compression increases the electrons would be pushed inward causing them to spin faster and faster until they could not hold orbit.

then they are released and cannot find any atom that will accept them.

so they burst outwards in the form of energy. (light?)

this allows the matter to fit into a smaller area.

this continues until the atoms really dont have any electrons as a shell.

there is an enormous space between the nucleus of an atom and its orbiting electrons.

this allows for a awesome amount of matter to fit into a softball sized area.

our moon perhaps !

the way I like to think of it is our solar system is an atom.



the distance from pluto ( was a planet in my day ) and our sun would be removed and only our sun would remain as a part of the compressed mass.

of course our suns mass would also release its energy and become extremely small.







Posted by: Orac

Re: Oh my... - 09/15/11 02:40 AM

In QM there really is no orbiting of an electron like the old school physical representation you have above it's just a weird waveform thats what they are doing in bosenova explosions.

There really is no physical "spinning" per say in a classic physics world sense ... spin is a property of the waveform behaviour.

Here is there view of a hydrogen atom
http://www.hydrogenlab.de/


This does a nice presentation
http://www.physikdidaktik.uni-karlsruhe....ptseite_uk.html

If you walk through the slides it will show you the current sort of topology

Oh wow wikipedia have updated there entry as well ... not bad now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom

The waveform representation is second image down on the right.


Like any waveforms they are subject to interference and resonances and thats what they are doing in bosenova explosions.


Thats how they rip the atoms apart the waveforms seem to destructively interfer and get ejected to somewhere else in the space or phased in a way we can't see them there are a number of views on that.

Thats why in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosenova they talk about -> "The 'missing' atoms are almost certainly still around in some form, but just not in a form that we can detect them in our current experiment,"

We have very strong evidence you can't destroy the waves it's a fundemental of QM theory ... Quantum information can not be created nor destroyed. We have attempted in experiments to erase QM information and what we find is it jumps ignoring normal physical rules (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html)

So we say the Qunatum information wave is around somewhere the trick is to find it :-)

In QM the collapse of the universe inwards would represent a state we call degenerate matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter) which is a rather weird thing

Quote:

Imagine that a plasma is cooled and compressed repeatedly. Eventually, we will not be able to compress the plasma any further, because the exclusion principle states that two fermions cannot share the same quantum state. When in this state, since there is no extra space for any particles, we can also say that a particle's location is extremely defined. Therefore, since (according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) then we must say that their momentum is extremely uncertain since the particles are located in a very confined space. Therefore, even though the plasma is cold, the particles must be moving very fast on average. This leads to the conclusion that if you want to compress an object into a very small space, you must use tremendous force to control its particles' momentum.


And thats where the weird part comes from in QM :-)



Posted by: finiter

Re: Oh my... - 09/16/11 12:34 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
I guess your talking about the big bang.

as in any explosion there would be differences in the magnatude of the force that caused all the stuff to move outward , so no everything would not move at the same speed.'

I would think that the first stuff moved slower because there was more for the explosion to push.

the middle would have moved faster.

the last stuff would move even faster.

sort of an inverted ball.

A good model, provided you remove the concept of explosion. You see, if the speeds were like that you mentioned, then the universe would always be uniform, only that there should be a correlation between the speed and the distance from the centre of the universe (in this model the universe would be spherical, and so will have a centre). If the internal energies of the bodies are proportional to their speeds, ie, the speed-internal energy is same for all at any given time, then the expansion can be regarded as a thermodynamic change involving speed and internal energy. that is there is no need of an explosion.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Oh my... - 09/16/11 01:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Finiter
If the internal energies of the bodies are proportional to their speeds, ie, the speed-internal energy is same for all at any given time, then the expansion can be regarded as a thermodynamic change involving speed and internal energy. that is there is no need of an explosion.


It is not uncommon for physicists to argue that we should not regard the BB as an explosion, because it is an expansion of everything, rather than a situation in which the Universe is being forced out into pre-existing space. Although I appreciate this line of reasoning, I feel that, in terms of the physical scenario, it is little more than an exercise in semantics. Your distinction appears to be similar. Is an explosion not an expansion brought about by thermodynamic change?
Posted by: finiter

Re: Oh my... - 09/16/11 02:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Although I appreciate this line of reasoning, I feel that, in terms of the physical scenario, it is little more than an exercise in semantics. Your distinction appears to be similar. Is an explosion not an expansion brought about by thermodynamic change?

Yes, an explosion is also an expansion brought about by thermodynamic changes. However, there is a difference. Consider a nuclear bomb explosion and a nuclear reactor; both are similar in thermodynamic changes. But in a reactor, the change is controlled one (here, it is controlled by us). Similarly, the model of expansion 'with an explosion' and 'without an explosion' are different.

The thermodynamic change not involving an explosion will be very slow, and the system will be in equilibrium at every instant. Such changes are reversible changes. (A perfectly reversible change is defined as a change that happens infinitely slowly, and where the system is always in equilibrium).In the case of the universe, which is an isolated system, the expansion continues for billions of years (an observed fact), and after that the reverse process or contraction takes place (in my opinion).
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Oh my... - 09/16/11 08:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Finiter
in a reactor, the change is controlled one (here, it is controlled by us). Similarly, the model of expansion 'with an explosion' and 'without an explosion' are different.


Does this mean you disagree with the idea that the Universe might have expanded by several orders of magnitude in a very small fraction of a second?

Quote:
(A perfectly reversible change is defined as a change that happens infinitely slowly, and where the system is always in equilibrium).


So, a perfectly reversable change is one that is never completed?
Posted by: finiter

Re: Oh my... - 09/17/11 11:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Does this mean you disagree with the idea that the Universe might have expanded by several orders of magnitude in a very small fraction of a second?

I think that such an expansion is not possible. The expansion starts with maximum acceleration, eventually, the acceleration reaches zero and after that there is negative acceleration. The speed of expansion will be maximum when acceleration is zero.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
So, a perfectly reversable change is one that is never completed?

That is, the system will always be in equilibrium, and so the change cannot go in any direction, unless there is some potential state which favours a change in a particular direction. As the process continues in that direction, the potential state decreases, and another potential state exactly opposite to the initial state is created. As a result the process stops, and the reverse process starts (like a pendulum oscillating).
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Oh my... - 09/17/11 11:50 AM

Finiter, how do you define "infinitely slowly"?
Posted by: finiter

Re: Oh my... - 09/18/11 10:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Finiter, how do you define "infinitely slowly"?

Infinitely slowly indicates that the system is in a static state of equilibrium. Either the changes in both directions happen at the same rate or no changes happen. Anyway, the system can change in both the directions, but is in a static state if taken as a whole.

Instead of a static state, there can be a dynamic state of equilibrium. Here,the system oscillates between two symmetrically opposite states; here the changes are not infinitely slow, but are smooth as far as the system as a whole is considered. That is, the changes are similar to controlled processes, and not like an explosion.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Oh my... - 09/18/11 08:40 PM

Finiter, I have no problem with either of your definitions, except that neither involves infinity; except for the state in which "no changes happen". In that case, nothing could be said to be happening, either slowly or quickly.
Posted by: Marchimedes

It's not like I died or anything. - 10/31/12 10:18 AM

[quote name='teacher' timestamp='1351375591' post='2847510']
Hypothetical space.

That is, nothing. Nothing but a vacuum. Materialize a mass in our space and blow it up. The matter will disperse omni directionally. Almost immediately the area occupied by the mass will become empty, the matter moving outward in all directions. Immediately after explosion the matter will slow it's outward expansion. The matter dispersed like the skin of a ball that is constantly expanding will expand until the gravity of the matter overcomes it's it inertia and begins to shrink back again into a single mass at the original point of materialization.

This post is not concerned with the time that the matter shrinks but the time at which the matter is expanding.

The matter can be seen at this time as being dispersed in such a manner as the green area in this image...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

image from http://www.teber.biz/materials/images/boyut7.jpg

from site http://www.teber.biz

The x,y,z coordinates 0,0,0 being the point at which our matter materialized.

The current accepted theory of how our universe came to be is big bang theory (no, not the TV show with Sheldon who I'm waiting for someone to kick the snot out of). If this is true then the green area of that 3d sphere is the distribution of the matter of our universe. Our telescopes are presently theorized as being able to see 13-14 billion light years away. I call this our visible universe. As within our ability to see there is not empty space one assumes that our visible universe must be within the skin of our 3d ball as detonated by the red outline...



A cross section of our 3d sphere on the x,y axis yields fig. 1 (yes I moved the red section some.) As the farthest we can see is 13-14 billion light years, (I'm gonna go with 14 billion), that would yield us a visible universe that is 28 billion light years in diameter.



As the explosion of matter in a vacuum throws matter in all directions the section in blue directly opposite the red section must also be 28 billion light years across. This means that the diameter of our sphere must be at least 56 billion years.

The current accepted theoretical universal speed limit is 186,000 miles/second. "c", proposed by Einstein.

The current accepted theoretical age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.

As the fastest that matter can move is c, and the universe is 13.7 billion years old then then the theoretical limit of our sphere's diameter is 13.7 x 2, or 27.4 billion light years.

The math doesn't add up, sumpin is wrong. One of these is incorrect...

1. The big bang theory.
The Deuce. How we determine the furthest we can see.
Craps. The age of the universe.
IV. c being the speed limit of matter.

That's all I'm saying in this post, that at least one of those is incorrect.
[/quote]
Posted by: redewenur

Re: It's not like I died or anything. - 10/31/12 11:27 AM

Marchi, that was answered in your earlier threads.

A reminder: There's no known limit, such as c, on velocity of objects relative to each other, only relative to the spacetime through which they move.

If you'd like to see how the galaxies are arranged, try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0xd0PrYaY8&feature=player_detailpage

...particularly from about 20 minutes into the video.

There's a wealth of such info available. You're not obliged to believe it, of course. You won't be placed under house arrest or anything.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 10/31/12 09:28 PM

First posted, Sun May 27 2007 08:25 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
redewenur
==========================
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=45905&page=1
==========================================
The following sounds more like philosophy and theology than science
Quote:
...The Big Bang started without any matter - it was too hot, so there was only energy. The matter could form only after expansion had begun.

"Now they say we might just barely be able to see the edge of our universe"
Now this is the realm of science.
Quote:
- The universe has no edge, but the observable universe does. That's not a limitation of observation technology. We can observe only that part of the universe from which light has had time to travel, i.e., within a distance of about 13.7 billion lt.yrs.
In my opinion, G~O~D is not a being with edges.
Quote:
"I say our visible universe is just one spot on our ball"

- Yes, so do the experts. It's estimated that the actual size of the universe is at least 156 billion lightyears.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

"The outside edge of our universe would have to be travelling faster than the inside edge."
Travelling in More philosophy and theology? G~O~D is Being, not a being with edges, eh?
Quote:
- The Big Bang started from an infinitely small point, in an infinitely dense state. So, the Big Bang happened everywhere. So, there is no centre, i.e., no one place where the Big Bang happened - it happened everywhere; and there is no edge. On large scales, matter is mutually receding a rate proportional to the separation distance.

"All the mass gets hurled out at the same velocity"
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 11/01/12 07:36 PM

Rev, you didn't comment on the last quote!

I thought you were going to tell us what an "infinitely small point" might be; or what constitutes "an infinitely dense state".

"All the mass gets hurled out....." Out where?

Come on, Rev; you can't quote something and just leave it in the air. smile
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 11/01/12 09:31 PM

Are any experts in physics reading this thread? What about those posting here?

Me? Count me among the very curious who studied and enjoyed maths, physics and chemistry, at the high school level, in the late 1940's. I still love to read physics--and I make no claim that I understand everything the experts say. smile
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: It's not like I died or anything. - 11/01/12 10:54 PM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
Marchi, that was answered in your earlier threads.


Posts. I'm sure you mean posts. I have no other threads here. Yea, I've alluded to all this before but in that last post there I like to think I put down my thoughts a tad more betterer this time such that Joe and Marsha, Marsha, Marsha six pack can understand what I'm trying to say.

You should try it.

Quote:
A reminder: There's no known limit, such as c, on velocity of objects relative to each other,


Yea, see, right there. I don't speak like that. God's honest truth, I don't know what that really means, but I'll give it a shot...

Have I mentioned my hypothetical spaceship at this site? The HMS Blowme? Not sure. Anyway, at times when I discuss, and when I say "discuss" I mean "pontificate" about mattters concerning the speed of light and such I use the HMS Blowme for illustrative purposes. So I'm in my ship, the HMS Blowme going balls at 99% c travelling say, up the y axis in my little 3d sphere there and the HMS Blowme's sister ship, Bob, is going 99% c down the y axis. So, relatively, they are moving away from each other at 198% c.

Is that what you are talking about?

Quote:
only relative to the spacetime through which they move.


Do they speak English in your little nerdatorium there?

So now I gots to put on my little space/time hat. This does not come naturally to me, it's all so confusifying. A warm up: I'm in the HMS Blowme going 2c, time is passing slower for me (kinda like when you have to listen to your girl talk about her feelings) than it is on Earth. So what you are saying is... yea, I don't know what you are saying.


Quote:
If you'd like to see how the galaxies are arranged, try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0xd0PrYaY8&feature=player_detailpage


I'll watch it, I always watch these things, though I usually end up screaming obscenities at the TV, especially when dark energy rears it's ugly made up head. But as far as how galaxies are arranged is that about galactic clusters, galactic super-cluster and what not?

Quote:
...particularly from about 20 minutes into the video.

There's a wealth of such info available. You're not obliged to believe it, of course. You won't be placed under house arrest or anything.


Is that a veiled insult?

I'm not sure what all that has to do with my "sumpin wrong" post other than are you saying that c as a speed limit is incorrect?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 11/02/12 01:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Rev, you didn't comment on the last quote!

I thought you were going to tell us what an "infinitely small point" might be; or what constitutes "an infinitely dense state".

"All the mass gets hurled out....." Out where?

Come on, Rev; you can't quote something and just leave it in the air. smile
He just did... comes with copying and pasting whatever he figures can draw attention to himself and his G~O~D, whether it (whatever he copies and pastes) has anything to do with it (His G~O~D) or not.

For something a bit more down to earth, see the imaginative analogy of the HMS "Blowme" slant on physics, (which was hilarious by the way). UGH! Marchimedes no speakum with narcissistic forked tongue.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Yea me! - 11/17/12 01:56 AM

Posted by: paul

Re: Yea me! - 11/17/12 03:46 AM

HAPPY 300,000 th reply !!!!

Posted by: Bill S.

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 11/18/12 06:43 PM

I thought the HMS "Blowme" slant on physics, was interesting, but the political stuff that followed would be better addressed by Paul. “Obamanation” !!??

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/ind.../page__st__3025
Posted by: Marchimedes

Monkeys! - 07/08/13 02:40 AM

Took a quick look around in this here thread and didn't see my Monkey post. (Actually I have many, many Monkey posts but as far as I can remember I've only one Monkey in space post. That one.) Please to forgive me if this is a repost.

In a empty universe we plunk down a Monkey in a spacesuit. Space suit has one of those trap doors on his butt, you know, the kind little kids have...



only on the Monkey spacesuit the trap door is airlocked.

So the Monkey, being a Monkey, is gonna crap in his hand and fling the feces. This is strong Monkey who was once the ace pitcher in the jungle league so he's got quite an arm and can fling feces at near c (speed of light, I know you nerds know this but this gives me an opportunity to call you nerds).

Off goes the feces and the Monkey himself of course will go off in the exact opposite direction of the feces. Monkey and feces are going Hell bent for leather in opposite directions. The instant feces leaves Monkey's hand it is travelling at it's maximum velocity. Instantly gravity will begin slowing down both Monkey and feces as this universe is empty except for the Monkey, and now his feces. Eventually the Monkey and his feces will halt and begin travelling towards each other.

A side question: Will the feces halt and start travelling towards the Monkey before the Monkey halts as the Monkey has greater mass? These are the kinds of things that pester me. Obviously I am a great thinker.

So, that is the Monkey in space post. I went a long way to set up the Monkey universe for you. This philosophy also applies to my "why the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate from our perspctive" theory. I tie things together like that. Any holes in the Monkey in space theory?

I'll take your frightened silence as a no.

Next:

Same universe without the Monkey. Or the feces.

Unless you live in a cave much like the cave where I keep a guy for screaming at you'd know I have some, er, difficulties with c being the universal speed limit so lettuce beat that dead horse some more.

Plunk down a couple of hyper massive black holes (I use black holes cause they are the densest things I know of except for perhaps whatever it was that big banged) buku light years apart. Lettuce say both black holes are travelling at 99.99% c directly towards each other.

They should accelerate towards each other, right?

What is to keep the black holes from exceeding c given there is enough space between them at the onset?

Originally Posted By: redewenur

A reminder: There's no known limit, such as c, on velocity of objects relative to each other, only relative to the spacetime through which they move.


Nuttin relative here. Take each black hole's speed on it's own.
Posted by: Orac

Re: It's not like I died or anything. - 07/08/13 02:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes


Yea, see, right there. I don't speak like that. God's honest truth, I don't know what that really means, but I'll give it a shot...




See there is the truth right there in that statement you are to lazy and arrogant to actual learn the basics but you feel you should be able to comment on something you don't understand and say it's wrong.


That sums you up pretty much in one little sentence Marchimedes.

Perhaps you and Paul should get together and start your own thread you both seem to be cut from the same cloth in that regard, even down to your type and use of pictures smile

So given you can't be bothered understanding what science says what makes you think we care about anything you have to say on the matter ... your just another lazy school dropout all mad at the world they don't understand as life passes them by.

YAWN .... moving on
Posted by: Marchimedes

Hey, it's not like I started it. - 07/08/13 03:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes


Yea, see, right there. I don't speak like that. God's honest truth, I don't know what that really means, but I'll give it a shot...




See there is the truth right there in that statement you are to lazy


At least I'm not too lazy to put the required extra "o" in "too" but then maybe English is not your first language.

Quote:
and arrogant



Originally Posted By: Marchimedes

I don't know what that really means,


So arrogant that I cop to not knowing. Yea, that makes sense.

Quote:
to actual learn the basics but you feel you should be able to comment on something you don't understand and say it's wrong.


Nowz when you provide examples of your contention there otherwise you are just saying crap. In your second language that is.

Quote:
That sums you up pretty much in one little sentence Marchimedes.


Imagine my consternation.

Quote:
Perhaps you and Paul should get together and start your own thread you both seem to be cut from the same cloth in that regard, even down to your type and use of pictures smile




Quote:
So given you can't be bothered understanding what science says what makes you think we care about anything you have to say on the matter.




331,000+ views, that's what.

And this thread ain't even my high roller.

Quote:
YAWN .... moving on


Ah, A malcontent, a neer-do-well, a stick in the mud, a wrench in the works, a, I'm guessing...

Obama voter.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Friggin Monkey hater.. - 07/08/13 03:55 AM

I see lil' Orac junior didn't show his, eh, better say derriere, enough so he had to edit that last post.

New and exciting addition from Jr. worth twice the price!

Originally Posted By: Orac
your just another lazy school dropout all mad at the world they don't understand as life passes them by.


Really? I'm mad at the world?

Seems to me the guy trolling a popular thread with original theories by posting bush league insults is the one with some pent up "I'm so tired of posting one handed in my Ma's basement" anger issues.

Just saying.

Your turn.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Serendipity - 07/08/13 04:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes

Ah, A malcontent, a neer-do-well, a stick in the mud, a wrench in the works, a, I'm guessing...

Obama voter.


Correction: That should read "an, I'm guessing"


Anyway I was just tooling round this site and ran into this...

Originally Posted By: Orac
There is no friction in space


from the second post in this thread...

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=49011#Post49011

Well, I understand that to be




From what I remember there is on average one(1) atom/cubic centimeter in space.


A quick google of "is there matter in the vacuum of space" yielded...

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ms.html

Also I do believe I've mentioned this fact in this most glorious of threads already.

Now, I understand that that is an average, that there will be more matter closer to stars and what not than there is, say, in the area halfway between Sol and Alpha Centuri.

Can you, Orac, definitively say there are zero atoms in the dark, cold recesses of space?

Rhetorical question, I know.

One tiny little atom out there, much like that one tiny little brain cell you may or may not possess, causes friction, genius.

You may have been more betterer served posting...

"there is almost no friction in space."

See how this works, Orac?

Don't start none, won't be none.

Walk away, sport. Last thing you want is me camping out at this site eyeballing your swill.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Serendipity - 07/08/13 06:07 AM

ROFL I am so scared a dipstick lazy school dropout is trying to threaten me over the internet ... ohhhh I am so terrified.


Worldly word of advice you mental genius I survived death squads and political interrogation in my homeland you really think some crazy school dropout punk on the internet is going to scare me.


ROFL .... get a life loser laugh
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Monkeys! - 07/08/13 07:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Took a quick look around in this here thread and didn't see my Monkey post. (Actually I have many, many Monkey posts but as far as I can remember I've only one Monkey in space post. That one.) Please to forgive me if this is a repost.

In a empty universe we plunk down a Monkey in a spacesuit. Space suit has one of those trap doors on his butt, you know, the kind little kids have...

only on the Monkey spacesuit the trap door is airlocked.

So the Monkey, being a Monkey, is gonna crap in his hand and fling the feces. This is strong Monkey who was once the ace pitcher in the jungle league so he's got quite an arm and can fling feces at near c (speed of light, I know you nerds know this but this gives me an opportunity to call you nerds).

Off goes the feces and the Monkey himself of course will go off in the exact opposite direction of the feces. Monkey and feces are going Hell bent for leather in opposite directions. The instant feces leaves Monkey's hand it is travelling at it's maximum velocity. Instantly gravity will begin slowing down both Monkey and feces as this universe is empty except for the Monkey, and now his feces. Eventually the Monkey and his feces will halt and begin travelling towards each other.

A side question: Will the feces halt and start travelling towards the Monkey before the Monkey halts as the Monkey has greater mass? These are the kinds of things that pester me. Obviously I am a great thinker.

So, that is the Monkey in space post. I went a long way to set up the Monkey universe for you. This philosophy also applies to my "why the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate from our perspctive" theory. I tie things together like that. Any holes in the Monkey in space theory?

I'll take your frightened silence as a no.

Next:

Same universe without the Monkey. Or the feces.

Unless you live in a cave much like the cave where I keep a guy for screaming at you'd know I have some, er, difficulties with c being the universal speed limit so lettuce beat that dead horse some more.

Plunk down a couple of hyper massive black holes (I use black holes cause they are the densest things I know of except for perhaps whatever it was that big banged) buku light years apart. Lettuce say both black holes are travelling at 99.99% c directly towards each other.

They should accelerate towards each other, right?

What is to keep the black holes from exceeding c given there is enough space between them at the onset?

Originally Posted By: redewenur

A reminder: There's no known limit, such as c, on velocity of objects relative to each other, only relative to the spacetime through which they move.


Nuttin relative here. Take each black hole's speed on it's own.

Since the monkey and his departed dung are the only objects in Monkey Universe, with no other points of reference, it's meaningless to talk of which stops first. And since your monkey is such an ace pitcher, they would be well beyond mutual escape velocity, and never the twain shall meet.

Next:

The two objects approaching c - from the point of view of a stationary observer - would each gain mass approaching infinity. To accelerate them to c would take energy x time = infinity. In other words, it's not going to happen.

See here (bottom of page):
http://journal.batard.info/post/2008/09/12/lhc-how-fast-do-these-protons-go
"Getting even faster is expensive" and the included chart.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Monkeys! - 07/08/13 08:55 AM

For those interested and not lazy you could actually read a good layman breakdown

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2012/08/17/emc_a_vicious_cycle_of_energy_mass_and_speed.html


You can even do a Willem s’Gravesande and test the square law feature as he did in the 18th century. Yet some of our commentators can't even get there science understanding beyond what we knew in the 18th Century.


All of this stuff is very basic and beyond the ability of nutters and whack jobs to challenge because there is countless ways to falsify any other claim and yet E=MC2 they can not falsify.

So the answer to our monkey idiot Marchimedes is you must falsify E=MC2 in order to make your universe work ... good luck with that.
Posted by: paul

Oracs an idiot - 07/08/13 05:42 PM

Quote:
and yet E=MC^2 they can not falsify.


the equation itself is false.

because C is false.

why would we need to falsify a falsification when it in itself
is false.

C is currently under the fantasy science protection program
and is the reason that fantasy science claims that space is
expanding and carrying the galaxies along with space as space expands.

because the galaxies are actually moving faster than light speed
and the fantasy science protection program is protecting C
even at the cost of science being the focus of ridicule due
to its protection of C .


Posted by: Marchimedes

Paul has it correct. - 07/08/13 07:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
Worldly word of advice you mental genius I survived death squads and political interrogation in my homeland


Ah, so you can take a beating. This is fortunate as I can hand one out.

As you have already seen.

You haven't answered any questions, you haven't disproven anything I've said, pretty much as far as I can see you are nuttin but a snot nosed punk with a keyboard for a penis.



Originally Posted By: Orac
For those interested and not lazy you could actually read a good layman breakdown

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2012/08/17/emc_a_vicious_cycle_of_energy_mass_and_speed.html


Listen, genius, if I wanted to know what someone at some other website thought I'd go to some other website.

I'm here with original thoughts, ideas, theories. I don't post what someone else has already conjectured, that would be dreadfully boring, kinda like you.

You're here cause if you went out into public with your tough man internet persona little girls would kick the crap outta you.

Originally Posted By: redewenur
Since the monkey and his departed dung are the only objects in Monkey Universe, with no other points of reference, it's meaningless to talk of which stops first.


You could have just said you don't know instead of trying to cover up your ignorance with a bunch of crap in attempt to insult me and deflect from the actual side question at hand.

I really don't care what you THINK is meaningless. I wonder what the answer is and as you pack of naysayers don't play well with others I'll go ahead and give my common sense layman shot at it.

Monkey has more mass than the feces so the feces would slow down more quickerer and halt.

Quote:
And since your monkey is such an ace pitcher, they would be well beyond mutual escape velocity, and never the twain shall meet.


Empty universe, remember? Are you telling me that at some certain distance gravity no longer has any affect on objects? I understand the inverse square rule at work here, but to my understanding the amount of affect of gravity on mutual objects in an empty universe will NEVER be zero. It may be trillions of years into the future and trillions of light yeas apart but at some time gravity will overcome velocity. We are not talking about a rocket escaping Earth's orbit. Please to try to read ALL the words.

Quote:
The two objects approaching c - from the point of view of a stationary observer - would each gain mass approaching infinity. To accelerate them to c would take energy x time = infinity. In other words, it's not going to happen.


I never said nuttin about an observer. I gots two hyper massive black holes here, I used them cause they have a fair amount of gravitational pull. The closer they get to each other the greater the effect of their gravitational pull is on each other. There's your friggin energy right there. And time? Not a factor, as before with the Monkey.

What you need to do is show proof that over distance that gravity has no longer any affect.

You didn't do that.


Folks, I'm The friggin Man. I've snatched 330,000+ views with 128 posts. What we have here is mosquitos pestering Hercules cause said mosquitos ain't Hercules.

And a note to the mosquitos: You morons might to be more careful about the swill you spew. See, folks are reading this thread and all you have done is put your idiocy on display to the maximum amount of readers this site has.

But by all means keep at it. I'm barely into my "B" game dealing with you rejects and the more you continue with your benign pestering the more I'll up my game and the more stupider you'll look which though hard to envision I have no doubt you moth breathers can do.

Thanks for playing. Thanks for the views. Thanks for the opportunity to garner more views, glorious views.
Posted by: Marchimedes

I got your Monkey right here. - 07/08/13 07:52 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
and yet E=MC^2 they can not falsify.


the equation itself is false.

because C is false.

why would we need to falsify a falsification when it in itself
is false.

C is currently under the fantasy science protection program
and is the reason that fantasy science claims that space is
expanding and carrying the galaxies along with space as space expands.

because the galaxies are actually moving faster than light speed
and the fantasy science protection program is protecting C
even at the cost of science being the focus of ridicule due
to its protection of C .




But then take some light, it has a certain amount of mass, right? This light is getting close to a black hole so is light, which oddly enough is already travelling at the speed of, wait for it, light, totally unaffected by gravity?

Well, I would say not because of Einstein's experiments on gravitational lensing proved it is during a eclipse so very long ago.

Seems to me then that our light travelling at c is affected, however minutely, will speed up and ANY increase in speed on light automatically breaks the so-called speed of light barrier.


See? No links, no graphs, tables, formulas, charts, nuttin.


Just all me and my colossal brain, baby.

Giddyup.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: I got your Monkey right here. - 07/08/13 10:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Since the monkey and his departed dung are the only objects in Monkey Universe, with no other points of reference, it's meaningless to talk of which stops first.

You could have just said you don't know instead of trying to cover up your ignorance with a bunch of crap in attempt to insult me and deflect from the actual side question at hand.

I really don't care what you THINK is meaningless. I wonder what the answer is and as you pack of naysayers don't play well with others I'll go ahead and give my common sense layman shot at it.

Monkey has more mass than the feces so the feces would slow down more quickerer and halt.

I gather you didn't like that answer.

Fine, so let's say it does have meaning to ask "which object stops first?". Maybe you disagree with this:-

When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body. So each will have the same momentum, whatever their mass. Consider what that means regarding the velocity of each. You might discover that they will come to rest at the same time.

Originally Posted By: redewenur
And since your monkey is such an ace pitcher, they would be well beyond mutual escape velocity, and never the twain shall meet.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Empty universe, remember? Are you telling me that at some certain distance gravity no longer has any affect on objects? I understand the inverse square rule at work here, but to my understanding the amount of affect of gravity on mutual objects in an empty universe will NEVER be zero. It may be trillions of years into the future and trillions of light yeas apart but at some time gravity will overcome velocity. We are not talking about a rocket escaping Earth's orbit. Please to try to read ALL the words.

Yes, even as a layman, I can go with that. Hope that cheers you up.

Originally Posted By: redewenur
The two objects approaching c - from the point of view of a stationary observer - would each gain mass approaching infinity. To accelerate them to c would take energy x time = infinity. In other words, it's not going to happen.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
I never said nuttin about an observer. I gots two hyper massive black holes here, I used them cause they have a fair amount of gravitational pull. The closer they get to each other the greater the effect of their gravitational pull is on each other. There's your friggin energy right there. And time? Not a factor, as before with the Monkey.

Of course time is a factor. Acceleration takes time. But you want to believe they will exceed the speed of light? Ok go ahead and believe it. Alternatively you could study the subject.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: I got your Monkey right here. - 07/09/13 12:50 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
I gather you didn't like that answer.


What gave it away?

Listen, red, I was just busting your chops. All's fair in love and debate. It's not like I hate you like poison like that Ocar stiff. What's his deal anyway? Almost every single post of his is just plain nasty.

Quote:
Fine, so let's say it does have meaning to ask "which object stops first?".


Meaning as in 'this affects my life, good Lord if I don't find this out, quick like, I'm gonna go find a conclave of nerds and go postal?" Nah.

Meaning as in "I was wondering and I just so happen to know of a conclave of nerds that I can banter this about with?" Yes.

Quote:
Maybe you disagree with this:-


Maybe. But if you like I'll try my damnedest to find some slim reason to.

Quote:
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body. So each will have the same momentum, whatever their mass. Consider what that means regarding the velocity of each. You might discover that they will come to rest at the same time.


Well, now that you put it like that, that works for me.

I do believe that originally was a question...

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes

A side question: Will the feces halt and start travelling towards the Monkey before the Monkey halts as the Monkey has greater mass?


Yep, sure was.

See? In this case my little private conclave of nerds gave me that which I was pining for.

Quote:
Yes, even as a layman, I can go with that. Hope that cheers you up.




Quote:
Of course time is a factor. Acceleration takes time. But you want to believe they will exceed the speed of light?


I want to believe?

Don't put words in my mouth.

Quote:
Alternatively you could study the subject.


Why bother? After all, I've a conclave of nerds to run my crap by.

See how this works?
Posted by: Orac

Re: I got your Monkey right here. - 07/09/13 01:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes


the equation itself is false.

because C is false.

why would we need to falsify a falsification when it in itself
is false.

C is currently under the fantasy science protection program
and is the reason that fantasy science claims that space is
expanding and carrying the galaxies along with space as space expands.



Oh right so now the atomic bomb and nuclear reactors don't work and a pile of other things that we know and use.

This is almost as funny as Paul who uses things based on QM and wouldn't even work without it who want's to insist it doesn't exist.

See you and Paul share something in common that any child instantly recognizes that you are lunatics.


Now I can't say what the problem is maybe you priest touched you in bad places or maybe he dropped you on your head while doing your baptism but there is definitely a sanity issue.



Originally Posted By: Marchimedes

Just all me and my colossal brain, baby.

Giddyup.


Oh yeah we can all see your colossal brain .. trust me we are all definitely laughing at your colossal brain.


Sort of why Paul and you just become the butt of all of our jokes and we really just ignore you because even the kiddies laugh at you.

But please do continue to share you colossal brain insight with us it is actually so good.
Posted by: Mike Kremer

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/09/13 01:42 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Paul's Method: - Here's the conclusion. Never mind the facts.

where did you show me a fact?

point to an instance of matter converting to energy or vice versa if you believe me to be wrong.

you say you stand corrected , I did not correct you I injected my personal thoughts about the (matter).

I only dissagree with your shared opinion.




Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer


Paul wants to be pointed to an instance of matter being converted to Energy, or visa versa.

Your question:- Does Energy convert to matter?

Mike Kremer said:-

"Well since E=mc2 ...(I assume you believe that)
So like all Math formuae, theoreticaly it should work both ways"
I dont profess to have to much knowledge in this direction. But one does get enormous amounts of energy from a tiny mass. Therefore it should require an enormous amount of energy to create a tiny mass back again?
I feel sure of that, although I cannot find any direct written
proof of this.
However I can think of one relevant example which might clear your mind a little .....The creation of Anti-matter in the synchroton, which in turn annihilates into pure Energy upon meeting +matter.

Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: I got your Monkey right here. - 07/09/13 04:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Orac
Oh yeah we can all see your colossal brain .. trust me we are all definitely laughing at your colossal brain.


"We?"

Got a mouse in your pocket?

Nowz when you link to/copy paste to here proof of your contention that you all are laughing at me.

I, on the other hand, can simply go back into this thread and link to buku posts of a positive nature about my postings here.

Makes your little assertion kinda hollow, don't you think?

Quote:
Sort of why Paul and you


Paul? My conjoined twin? Oh, you mean the Paul at this site.

Don't know much about him. A little. But then I have a sum total of maybe 131 posts at this site now.

How many you gots? Lettuce go check...

1265, eh? You stud you.

Lil' sumpin just for you...

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=3214636

I'm quite sure everyone at this site pretty much figured out you are a jerk by your second post.

Some of your best work...

Originally Posted By: Orac
The problem with all your whacky stupid physics is you don't really think things thru before typing blatantly stupid answers

Consider this blatant stupidity that a child can see the problem with


Originally Posted By: Orac
So only you would be stupid enough...

Science doesn't make arguments on garbage that ignores all data we leave that to religious nutcases and science whack jobs.


just become the butt of all of our jokes and we really just ignore you because even the kiddies laugh at you.

But please do continue to share you colossal brain insight with us it is actually so good. [/quote]

Originally Posted By: Orac
For those interested and not lazy...

All of this stuff is very basic and beyond the ability of nutters and whack jobs...

So the answer to our monkey idiot Marchimedes...


You're simply just a...

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=3214725

You know, Orac, it's not that you are a troll that bothers me so much, trolls come with the net, it's that right now I could be typing another theory of mine. I've got another "what if" on deck. I always do. Now, I could just ignore you, but that is not in my nature. I don't suffer fools. And I damn sure don't suffer fools in MY threads. There is a price to pay. You paying it right now. All your little talk of "we" and "our" falls flat. I know my worth. I type my worth. My worth is proven in my numbers. My worth is proven by the lack of refutation of my theories. There's mighty fine folks at this site. I've, at this site, asked how to figure acceleration, I got it. I've asked about the effects of gravity over distance. I learned at this site the inverse square rule of gravity. Your, on the other hand, sum total of replies amount to "you suck." hardly worthy of a site such as this. I pinned you perfectly with my initial assessment...

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Ah, A malcontent, a neer-do-well, a stick in the mud, a wrench in the works, an, I'm guessing...

Obama voter.


Pile on:

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
At least I'm not too lazy to put the required extra "o" in "too" but then maybe English is not your first language.


Originally Posted By: Orac
in my homeland


Looks like I might have nailed that one right off the bat, eh?

Oh no, I'm not done.

Originally Posted By: Orac
you are too... arrogant


This thread is chock full of my self-professed arrogance. At the site I've linked you to a guy started a thread, straightedge it was saying he was the most arrogant member there. I provided in his thread a litany of my arrogance. He apologized for stepping on my turf. See, junior, I even have my own flag...



The stars on that flag is the face of my avatar.

Now THAT'S arrogance.

Check long time ago, 2007...

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=464298

The morale of the story...

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=3214765

is that if I proudly call myself arrogant and you come behind me and call me, that's right, arrogant, well, you figure it out.

Ah, crap, I grow bored.
Posted by: paul

Re: I got your Monkey right here. - 07/09/13 04:48 AM

Quote:
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body. So each will have the same momentum, whatever their mass. Consider what that means regarding the velocity of each. You might discover that they will come to rest at the same time.


the feces will come to rest first.

because it is less massive.

they will not come to rest at the same time.

the momentum will be the same even when there are two different sized masses involved.

because P=mv

the force that the monkey provides to accelerate the feces
will not accelerate the monkey as fast as the feces.
because the monkey has more mass than the feces.

because F=ma

the mutual force of gravity that is felt between the two masses
will bring them together at some point in time , the monkey will not stop first however , the feces will stop first then
begin to accelerate towards the monkey.

if the distance is great enough then at some point in time the monkey will stop and then accelerate towards the feces.

that's all basic physics , and I cant speak for orac but I think you already know this.

everybody makes mistakes.


Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/09/13 06:15 AM

Oh Thank The Lord. Not only a fellow senior member, but also a fellow human being.

Originally Posted By: KirbyGillis
Hi Marchimedes


How do?

Quote:
Good to see you drop by. Congrats on the view count.


Between you and I, KirbyG, as so so-called proud as I am about my view count, it's really not so big of a deal to me as it is as a vehicle to agitate those that are easily agitated by such things. Not so much this site but at many others I find the more bizarre, nasty, arrogant, confrontational, controversial, humorous (I laugh at my own jokes so that counts as humorous, right?) insulting and on and on and on I am the more that folks read me. Now, when I first started in on the interweb I experimented at buku various sites with various personas and I found that the more horrible I was the greater the interest. A very dim commentary on the human condition I say but there ya go. In the end I went with me. My honesty, my true feelings. I can be far worse. Back when I was feeling this out I went to making jokes about Nazis making lamp shades out of human skin. Don't get me wrong, the fellow I was making jokes at was a Nazi. I pulled that one off. Somehow I made jokes about that and in the same breath destroyed that monster with text. The jokes were funny and salient but it was too much for most people. Round then I decided where about I need to come down at.

Yes, I have been drinking, currently. I enjoy drinking heavily at least ever two weeks or so.

Hence the truth.

Very hard to slur in text.

I guess what with my Ocar replies and all that the cat is outta the bag.

So, 131 relies into this gig the jig is up.

But then I've repeatedly in this thread linked to my political thread.

But then I'm doing a new thing tonight. I'm crossing sites. I've 131 posts or so at this site, but I've way more than 10,000 posts at the afore linked site. Here I'm about 330,000 views, there about 420,000 views. A vastly different posts/views ratio. I'm insanely interested in why this disparity is. I'm insanely interested in the difference between you people and the people at that internet political debate forum. I'm also interested in when I'm all drunk like I am now why that seems to garner more interest.

No, I'm not a shrink, I'm not a philosopher, I'm not a clergy, I'm not a politician, I'm blue collar. I repair, install and destroy things. I'm a tool user. I'm a low voltage technician, I'm a plumber, a carpenter, an electrician, a mechanic, a craftsman, a honorably discharged Army veteran, a Christian, a Father, I am a Libertarian Yankee W.A.S.P.

This idiot savant ability of mine to reach out into the interweb and get folk of varying disciplines to read my rambling rants bemuses me to no end. I have an audience, I have followers, I have sycophants, I have serial liars and detractors who pester me to no end, I have buku multitudes of morons that tell me "you suck", "you are wrong", all without the ability to tell me exactly where I am wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I am the quintessential example of big fish in a little pond. Or, as I'm wont to say "a shark in a shot glass."

I wonder what is wrong with you people that you read me.

Look at the last 24 hours. I bring a friggin Monkey in a space suit flinging feces in a empty universe and at this little dog and pony show that's worth over 300+ views. Yes, I pay attention to these things. Says more about you than me.

Now, KirbyG, this kinda stuff is standard teacher/Marchimedes fare at that other web site so it's not your fault.

Quote:
Always a good read.


Why thank you, that was very kind of you to say.



Note to self: Do not hit submit, in some way this was supremely embarrassing.

Click.
Posted by: Orac

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/09/13 12:31 PM

Was there something in all that we were supposed to understand and be impressed about?

What we learnt is you are proud of something you think about yourself and how you view yourself .... you lost me on what exactly it was supposed to be?


What we worked out you have very poor logic and deductive powers.

Lets look at a prime example of your logic and reasoning

(Observation A).
You proudly boast they you worked out English was not my first language and I am a foreigner ... check correct

(Conclusion B.)
Yet you conclude I am an Obama voter .... huh

Houston we have a logic failure.

The obvious question a normal logical person would instantly realize is that a person meeting observation A would be highly unlikely to be eligible to do conclusion B.

A highly intelligent and observant person may also note my address listed under my name which sort of implies USA is not my normal residence.


So while I am sure you are proud of yourself and are a legend in your own lunchbox the rest of us just see you as a normal school dropout loser you meet thousands of them on the internet ... so sorry I don't see you as special just a sad normal soul that education passed by ... Victor Hugo would call you Les Misérables.
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/09/13 04:47 PM

Quote:
Was there something in all that we were supposed to understand and be impressed about?


we?

Quote:
What we learnt is you are proud


we?


Quote:
What we worked out you have very poor logic and deductive powers.


we?

Quote:
the rest of us just see you as a normal


us?

Marchimedes , you will have to check with the other 3 or so posters on the forum , but I can assure you that I am not part
of oracs "we" or his "us".

I (meaning myself) noticed that he (meaning orac) did use "I" in his last sentence denoting that "he" was
actually referring to himself ( not everyone on the forum )and perhaps not any of his alternate personalities as evidenced below.

Quote:
So while I am sure you are proud of yourself and are a legend in your own lunchbox the rest of us just see you as a normal school dropout loser you meet thousands of them on the internet ... so sorry I don't see you as special just a sad normal soul that education passed by ... Victor Hugo would call you Les Misérables.


Quote:
education passed by


so you actually paid to become an idiot?

it seems to me that Marchimedes is much smarter that you are
and he can do many more things than you can , and if he didnt go to college to become like you , thats a win not a lose.

but not everyone becomes like you orac , some actually study
while in college , others like yourself bullshit and cheat their way through college.

then they criticize others about their intelligence.

but even if you held a PHD , I know your not really smart.

because your an idiot.


Posted by: Orac

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/10/13 01:08 AM

That really the best insulting and flaming you can manage Paul?

Not really even worth responding to ... have another go and make it worthy of me replying to you .... perhaps ask your goat GOD for some divine inspiration.

You and marchimedes are failing badly so far ... I thought I was supposed to be terrified of your responses laugh

You do see the problem don't you it's a bit of logic ... I know something that you really dislike and you are having a problem finding my weakness.

Your problem is I can stay within the forum guidleines and antagonize you and as I have said I am willing to behave with respect to you and your GOD if you likewise show respect to others including science.
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/10/13 03:43 AM

Quote:
if you likewise show respect to others including science.


respect is something you and science must earn.

and your weakness is logic , logic scares you.

that's why you always revert to ranting about religion.

Posted by: Orac

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/10/13 08:25 AM

That's fine then .. let the flame war games continue laugh
Posted by: paul

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/10/13 02:35 PM

there's no war to be had with you orac.

I picture you as being a tiny piss ant shouting at an ant eater
jumping up and down ranting and raving and making all sorts of
hand gestures to try and get attention.

but dont give up, one day someone will listen to what you have to say.
Posted by: Orac

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 07/11/13 01:09 AM

So what is you reason for posting then ... hmmm lets see ... you are a religious lunatic posting on a science forum wonder what your reason could possibly be?


What your GOD so pathetic you don't think he can defend himself?

Oh I know I might be posting because this is a science forum and I hate religious lunatics because they and their pathetic goat GOD have done enough damage to the world and people.

The only comfort for me is you religious lunatics will continue to fight and kill each other and hopefully if we limit population growth you religious lunatics will cease to exist.
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: I got your Monkey right here. - 07/11/13 02:09 AM

Marchi, your links get me a "not found" error. Your behavior is going to get you banned if you continue to call people names and offer insults instead of insights. Calling people names and insinuating that they have computer hardware in place of body parts is rude, vulgar and obnoxious, and those are its good points. Keep your remarks on topic and leave off with the obscene metaphors. This is a discussion forum not a flame shooting range.
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: I got your Monkey right here. - 07/11/13 02:13 AM

Orac, please refrain from the tit-for-tat exchange of insults. It cheapens you and doesn't do anything for the forum as a whole. Don't poop in your own well.
Posted by: Orac

Re: I got your Monkey right here. - 07/11/13 02:50 AM

ARII the problem is you can't have a reasonable discussion at all on this forum without the religious lunatics derailing the thread.

Now why that situation exists and the religious nuts feel they can somehow defend GOD (because the all powerful GOD is so pathetic it can't defend itself) I don't see any alternative.

If we could get threads which didn't have crazy religious inspired junk thru it we would all be happy. Having to scroll up thru 20 post of absolute rubbish to try and look at the last sensible post is well just annoying.

For my part I am posting under a avatar for a personal reason and thus I can claim no authority of science ... in a post I may claim that but as with anyone on the internet I could well be a janitor for anyone knows ... I actual post as a janitor on another forum .. I am happy to be judged on my science knowledge not a titlesmile

As someone posting under an Avatar I might point out to you people doing so might not worry to much about being "cheapened" ... food for thought.
Posted by: paul

Re: I got your Monkey right here. - 07/11/13 03:39 AM

your still a idiot , no matter what you say, orac.

and a cheap idiot at that!

being a janitor is nothing that anyone should be ashamed of
and I dont know why a idiot such as yourself would even write about janitors as if they are lower than your crappy arse , they are smarter than you are , so why compare them with yourself.

no , let me continue a while longer , you orac are the only one who even mentions religion anymore , you are trolling for a response from those who happen to have a religion , and that is
both none of your business and it has nothing to do with a
science discussion.

yet you cry to Amaranth Rose II about why you post about the
religious nutters , when its you who is the true nutter.

idiot.







Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: I got your Monkey right here. - 07/11/13 04:51 AM

Paul,
Stop with the name calling. If you can't think of something better to do than sling names at others, I suggest you go back to your corner and meditate a while on why we should not call others names. As you say, "it has nothing to do with a science forum."
Posted by: paul

Re: I got your Monkey right here. - 07/11/13 02:25 PM

My Dear Amaranth Rose II

I am so sorry that I have been acting the way that I have recently.
Do I really hate orac?, no, on the contrary ,I feel pitty for him.
I do however find it extremely difficult to not lash out at him
mainly due to his idiocy at times or better 99.9999% of the times he has posted here on SAGG, I dont really know any other true
idiots so my dialog with orac in a way provides me with a means of observing idiocy and at the same time fills a portion of
my day with entertainment.

I must admit that I am losing interest however.

Please try to find it in your heart to forgive me, and if you
can my dear , just look the other way.
Posted by: Marchimedes

I'm back, baby. Miss me? - 07/07/15 03:54 AM

Lemme start back in with an old joke...

I was looking around the net for a site full of sciency, smart nerds that could read and understand simple things and answer complex questions.

I came here instead.

-

So, lemme check to see if I can really submit a post and then the pain and carnage shall continue.
Posted by: Marchimedes

How about that... ? - 07/07/15 04:12 AM

It worked. I'll type a tad longerer this time and check again.

Here's the deal: I forgot my password. Did the request new password about a gazillion times, nuttin. Wrote the contact us thing, twice, politely (hey, I have that capacity) never got a reply. Tried again tonight with the request new password and here I be.

First of all, sorry about all the little black x's that are supposed to be my buku hours of drawings. They all gone, mang. I've been thieved twice, a laptop went poof, a flash drive died and two, count em', two image hosting sites let me down. I guess in this digital age I should have taken pen to paper.

Now the good news...

[img=http://s24.postimg.org/6lwv7fcg5/scienceagogo_1_4.png]

Now that is a ratio of posts/replies ratio I am proud of. This thread is neck and neck with my political thread elsewhere and I'm thousands of posts there. Why, between the two of them I'm almost at a million views for two stinkin threads.

Yea, that's correct, still the same charm and humility.

Some more good news...

I'm more smarter than ever. I'm better at drawing stuff, I'm more polished, I know more words, I can still drink anybody under the table, I can still eat my weight in chicken wings and I'm working very hard tonight at getting drink.

Yet more good news...

I found an old CD at my Dad's house with some drawings on it.

Submit test #The Deuce.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Well, that image didn't work. - 07/07/15 04:16 AM

Works fine at other sites.

Some tests, then...



[img=http://s24.postimg.org/wke9iom2t/scienceagogo_1_4.png]

<a href='http://postimage.org/' target='_blank'><img src='http://s24.postimg.org/wke9iom2t/scienceagogo_1_4.png' border='0' alt="scienceagogo 1 4" /></a><br /><a target='_blank' href='http://postimage.org/'>pic upload</a><br /><br />



[img=http://s24.postimg.org/59syarj5t/scienceagogo_1_4.jpg]

<a href='http://postimg.org/image/59syarj5t/' target='_blank'><img src='http://s24.postimg.org/59syarj5t/scienceagogo_1_4.jpg' border='0' alt="scienceagogo 1 4" /></a>
Posted by: Marchimedes

On to the next hurdle... - 07/07/15 04:24 AM

I'm posting images from postimage.org, if you must know. Bear with me, I have to work this out as I gots stuff on the way if I can. That image was WAY too small so that won't get it.

Ah, another test of a smaller image...

Posted by: Marchimedes

And then... - 07/07/15 04:31 AM

Another test. Ya'll have all this coming, and more....



if only I could find a site full of smart people to help me out.

I'll be over there not holding my breath.
Posted by: Marchimedes

So... - 07/07/15 04:46 AM

this place resizes my images. Shame I'm not sober, I might just be able to figure this out.

I have the day off tomorrow, okay?

Here's what I'm getting after right now...

Long before I got ahold of the universe thing, and, by the way, the title of this thread should now be...

"Why the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerated rate from our perspective."

I figured out how the pyramids could have been built. I worked for a decade moving and installing things like safes, vault doors, safe deposit boxes...

for a company so cheap we didn't even have a fork lift. I got real good at moving heavy, often with only the tools the Ancient Egyptians had at hand. All I've done is take that experience and apply it to building pyramids. Most everything I'm trying to show you now I've done. A friggin lot of times. This is not theory.

Don't worry about any of this right now, I have more beer. We'll get there.

Another test...

Posted by: Marchimedes

You still should be asking about the Monkeys. - 07/07/15 05:51 AM

Unless someone can give me a nice hint about this site resizing stuff I've some work ahead of me busting up my images into smaller images sos that you can read them easily.

And that's fine. I ain't afeared of no stinkin work, after all, I'm a blue collar, all American boy.

I gots to say, I've missed this place. Been two years. I showed up tonight to find this thread page ten and a hundred or so thousand plus views advanced.

Time to get busy and get myself some real views. Pad the lead.

Giddyup.

-

Oh yea, the universe.

I'm still not buying dark energy.

I'm still looking for the speed of gravity.

I'm liking inflation theory more than ever.

I still need the distribution and distances of all the Cepheid variable stars. I am truly thinking in 3d but this data may make or break my thinking.

Little help?

-

Also, I found this tonight by googling "Scienceagogo Marchimedes."

I can't quite seem to get to it while I'm logged on. It's from a long time ago. It's Revlking asking...

"May I ask: Who is Marchimedes? Who is he? And what was his topic?"

To which KirbyGillis answers...

"Hi Rev.

Pleased to meet you. I’ve read a lot of your posts and you are probably my favorite deist.

“May I ask: Who is Marchimedes?”

Marchimedes is a current member who started a thread entitled “The universes expansion acceleration solved”.

“Who is he?”

Like all of us here, he is text on an HTML page. However, his presentation style is unique, entertaining and initially, a ”punch in the face”. But he is much more than the “Don Rickles” of SAGG. In time, most learn that he is clever, resourceful, genuinely curious and a nice guy.

He presented a unique and controversial idea that gravity is the root cause of the universe’s expansion and acceleration.

When the smoke cleared; that thread became the most viewed of all the science related sections. However, as it turns out; it is fifth overall because there are 4 other threads with more views and they are all on NQS.

It is this thread that has the most views and replies."

-

Never saw that one. Better late than never...

Why thank you, Mr. Gillis, how kind of you to say.

-

You have to admit, folks, Mr. Gillis has my number.

-

Smoke ain't cleared quite yet, baby, it's round #2.
Posted by: Marchimedes

One more thing... - 07/07/15 05:53 AM

This site will not allow my log on unless I click on one of the moderators name's and then it asks me to log on, I do...

THEN it works.

How odd.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Size test... - 07/07/15 07:34 AM

If it works then it's not a test. This is basic, real easy like. This is just like me getting a safe up onto a curb with rollers and crow bars as I did a thousand times. This is not magic, this is not voodoo, this is not Elvis calling the shots from the Mother ship.


pic host

To build a pyramid all one needs do is to be able to move and stack blocks. Get that figured and it's just a matter of logistics.

I have the logistics figured. Math is on my side. I can count to 21 in the shower.

Some ladies I've made my acquaintance with would say I can count to 21 and a half.

Move. Stack. Then, do just that a whole friggin bunch of times.

I gots your moving. I gots your stacking. Eh, and a couple other pesky things but then like I said, I'm blue collar.

Lemme ask you sumpin (and I may have said this before at this site, dern sure have said it at other sites)...

You know how Lincoln Logs are notched at the ends sos they fit together and makes it so there is no space between the meat of the logs?

Who was the first to figure that out?

A guy in the woods with an axe with winter coming on or some tweed jacketed, leather elbow patched, bifocaled, Oxford archeologist?

Necessity is the Mother of invention.

So I show up at a job site with a cube that weighs tons. It's got to go from down here to up there. There's no friggin crane, forklift, pallet jacks don't work on dirt.

Know how many times I got that job done?

None of you are more nerd than I am.

I doubt any of you have more calloused hands than I.

I been here cents May 27, 2007. Holy smokes, that's my first born, Sarah Rae's birthday. Not her first one. I been shopping this theory on the net cents 2002. See how I have almost a half a million views here? I have this all over the friggin place. I have an easy full million views on this theory, which I call twiwdi. The way I would do it. Notice I don't claim it was the way it was done.

I've never had anyone tell me this is incorrect. Scratch that. I've never had anyone ever tell me WHY it's incorrect. Saying "nuh-uh" don't count. I can't swing a dead cat without running into someone telling me it's incorrect.

Here's what I fancy is my biggest obstacle. I am not a papered man. I came outta high school and went straight into The Mighty US of A Army. Eh, I'm a patriot, wanted to serve. Served my term and went to work. So I been selling twiwdi nigh on 13 years now, just like I am now. Been told over and over and over again that "well, teacher/Marchimedes, you have to submit this in the proper form to the correct people in such and such a fashion." Screw all that. A good idea is a good idea.

The REAL problem is that I'm not a papered man and I have torn the bull theories away from many a papered man. I have taken away from men that have never moved weight their golden egg laying goose.

Just about every single stinkin documentary I've seen on pyramid construction begins with...

"Knowing what we know about the ancient Egyptians and what they had to work with there is no way they could have built the pyramids."

After I come to from passing out cause of the vehemence of my screaming obscenities at the TV I come type some more.

I'm doing this from grass roots.

The ancient Egyptians had rollers, they had levers, they had cribs, they had fulcrums.

That's all I friggin need. And I'm gonna show you how. And, it's free.

Any one got a problem with my getting a block up a 6" step yet?

Didn't think so.

Very simple, now that I've shown you, ain't it?

This is gonna be long. It's gonna be involved. It's gonna be simple. I've a dozen or so original ideas that after I've shown you you gonna go, "eh, that makes cents."

Then I'm gonna raise an obelisk.

Then we'll get back to the universe.

It's my thread, makes no mater what the title is, this thread is about me and what I think.

-

And then there's human nature.

The more I aggravate ya'll the more you will read me.

I now, it's been a couple of years cents I ben here. Please to allow me to reestablish the animosity.

I find it makes ya'll think more harderer in the attempt to find a flaw with my thinking.

Good luck with that.
Posted by: Marchimedes

And so it goes... - 07/09/15 10:45 PM

Lettuce get right to it:

Man, this is aggravating, busting these drawings up. But I endure this pain for ya'll. It's just the kinda guy I am.











So ya'll gots my first original idea, the step theory, this is the next and plenty more fresh stuff to come. Way I understand it the quarry from which most the pyramid blocks were gotten is only some 500 yards away. I read that. Could be wrong but I've seen TV shows where that looks about correct. Not a big deal. While we at it, a prevalent theory is that the Egyptians used a big ramp to get blocks up on the pyramid. Not fond of that, first of all the ramp would contain more material than the pyramid. Second is that the ramp would extend father than the quarry where the blocks were obtained, this would mean the blocks journey would go away from the pyramid just to get to the beginning of the ramp. Third is most theories say that the blocks were dragged to the pyramid. Like I said, I moved safes for a decade. I would never drag a safe over a smooth concrete floor, let alone over sand and/or a rough surface. So I'm building a road from the quarry to the pyramid made of the blocks from the quarry. Like the drawing shows the first block outta the quarry is the first block in the road. The road is built first. The step method gets the blocks outta the quarry and up onto the rad. The step method will also be used to get the blocks up the pyramid. That is coming in detail, trust me. Really, I'm a trust worthy guy. You could give me $20 to hold, come back a week later and I'll have your $20. Probably not a good idea to do the same with a six pack of beer. Or your sister. Anyway, this leads us to my third great, original idea...

One of the reasons we know so little about how the pyramids were built is cause there's no evidence left. twiwdi makes massive use of this lack of evidence. Say there's a thousand blocks in my road there. Pyramid is almost finished, only a thousand blocks to go. First block in the road is the next block to go up onto the pyramid. Lather, rinse, repeat. Last block in the road is the last block in the pyramid. No road, no evidence of road. Se how that works?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Gonna be like this - 07/10/15 12:22 AM





So we have our road, and then easy enough to set the first level of the pyramid. The meat. Now comes getting them there blocks up there.

This is original idea #IV.

The switch back ramp. Told ya'll a few reasons why I ain't too fond of the big ramp theory. Another theory is the spiral ramp theory.



I gots that image from here...

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-05-16-pyramid-theory_N.htm

That should satisfy the whole copy right/"I ain't stealing nuttin" deal.

I'll get into all the reasons I hate the spiral ramp theory but I'll do that in the day I dog



and Jean-Pierre Houdin.

That's gonna be an ugly day. But that day ain't today. Today we are talkin bout stuff that actually works.

Also, please to forgive me all the skipping around and going hither and yon. I'm a bit of a flake and am easily distracted. I distract myself more than anything and as I have to deal with myself pretty much on a 24/7/365 basis this is to be expected.

Beer, your sister... oh yea, pyramids.

The gray blocks are not part of the final pyramid. They are for construction purposes, as are the brown steps. When the pyramid is finished these shall be removed from top to bottom in the exact opposite order as they were originally placed. Remember the "no evidence" part?

I did the math one day and I can construct the pyramid (not counting the big blocks in the King's chamber and such) with 2020 construction blocks. Now, that leaves very little room to work, it's not near as safe but that was a flight of fancy. Consider that there is said to be some 2.3 million blocks in the pyramid and then 2020 is spit in the ocean. I haven't yet done the math as to how many blocks would be in my construction ramp but even if it is ten times as much it's still spit.

See? I got distracted, again.

This construction ramp is just like the switch back road with hairpin turns that goes up the side of a mountain except instead of digging into the mountain you add on to it from bottom up.

The setting of casing stones is gonna be a day or two in itself. The quarrying of stones another day. Finding level for the foundation, leveling the foundation, finding level in itself, finding north/south and east/west, moving blocks, making blocks turn corners, quarrying and moving of the big blocks, barges, The Mighty Nile, my lane theory, the worst job at the job site, who did the work, when, stuff I forget at this moment, it's all coming and it's all just as simple as it's been so far.

Any questions about was has been are encouraged. Questions about what is to come shall be summarily ignored. Not sure why I always say that, I hardly ever get questions.

And then the bragging. Full court press, provided the blocks don't let up being delivered I can build this is two years. I don't think it was done like that but that math was another flight.

I started coming up with this in 2002. Lots been posted all over the net. Most all is little red/black squares now what with what I explained. So, I'm kinda bored with this all. The draw for me is figuring the mystery in the first place and maybe posting it the first time.

Bonus. When the pyramid is built we gonna raise an obelisk. It's so simple.

Again, folks, I'm just a blue collar Joe with buku experience moving heavy with simple tools that took all that and applied it to pyramid construction.

Doesn't mean that I'm not a genius, though. I am.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Monkeys... - 07/11/15 11:45 PM



(The "t" stands for teacher. See post #1 of this thread.)

Cause this post is about finding level.

All I've ever seen/read about the Egyptians finding level is this...



That just don't cut it. Fine for rough level but I've read that the Great pyramid is only 1" outta level from corner to corner. I struggled with this one for some time back in the day. Know what a water level is? It's a clear tube you put water in, usually dyed. They were all the rage before bubble levels, which was before laser levels. Look like this...



You can run that hose over hill and dale and the water in the two ends will be even. As long as the ends are aligned east/west. I say if they were north/south the southern end would be a tad higher cause of the centrifugal force of the Earth's spin. But not different enough to be able to measure the difference. That's right, I think WAY too much about al this. Anyway I was trying to make a tube outta what the Egyptians had and was failing miserably. I'm trying to glue reeds together but I think the Egyptians were fairly short on flexible glue. Then one day, outta the blue it hit me. Intestines. No, they ain't gonna last forever but men will eat so you are always slaughtering animals so there is always a fresh supply of intestines to make a water level outta.

Think about it.

That's all. Simple, eh? I do believe that is original idea #Fin.

Now for #Sex.

I do so love me a back up plan. The intestines as a water level works just fine, but there is no evidence of this. And why would there be. See? But I gots to thinking anyway. Take that triangle level I posted there and make it more biggerer. The biggerer it is the more accurate it will be. Probably a thing like that would be constructed of wood. Wood can change with humidity, not a big problem in the desert but these folks did good work so I would imagine they would check the accuracy of their levels, often. This could be done with a water level.

Or...

Just flip the triangle end to end and if the plumb bob hits the same mark, we good.

Seeing a pattern of simplicity here?

Also...



What can I say? I believe everything in life can be made more betterer if there are Monkeys involved. Like this thread now. Cept for maybe movies like King Kong. Cause, you know.

So there is a crew on my job site here who do nuttin but keep up with intestines and levels. Lots of crews on my job site, we'll be getting into that. Too.

Anyone figure out what the worst job on this site is yet?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Monkeys: The sequel. - 07/12/15 12:50 AM



See? Monkey. Who can resist that? That will put butts in seats right there. I love this option this site has that you can put in a subject for each post. And it shows up on the big page.

Some times it's about showmanship/sales. After all, if no one reads your thread then pretty much all you doing is practicing typing.

I'm reminded of a site long ago...

It was an alarm forum. A whole forum of folks like me talking about alarms and other low voltage stuff. Burg alarms, fire alarms, access control, CCTV... I was installing alarms in banks in the late 80's, I have game when it comes to these things. I noticed that most of the site was full of guys who couldn't be bothered with reading the installation/programming manual and it was nuttin but "how do I set zone 3 to fast response on this and that panel?" and such. The answer to every question was "read the manual." Pestered me to no end. So I started a thread, titled it "free beer and naked pictures." Got 50 views in 15 minutes. Of course for my OP I went on and on and on about how if folks would just read the manual they would be more betterer and knowledgeable alarm installers/servicers. Even threw in a few of my original tricks to make it more harderer for bad guys to defeat a system.

I was summarily banned.

Why all the inane chatter?

Well...

#1. I had to reintroduce Monkeys to the thread. Used to have lots and lots of Monkeys but ya'll don't see that now what with all the little black x's. They are all gone images. So sad. So many jokes. So much/many scientific theory/Monkeys.

#The Deuce. I'm killing time till the sun goes down. I was on the deck today pounding down nails that were sticking up and all of a sudden I was surrounded by bees. Man, I can move fast. Under the deck is a yellow jacket nest the size of a football. I should point out that one of the joys in my life is killing wasp and hornets when they venture onto my turf. I don't kill honeybees. I've a fresh can of wasp/hornet killer and a plan. I ALWAYS have a plan.

#Craps. Did ya go check post #1? "t" stands for teacher. I do well at getting read...



That's a political debate site.

Thing is if I find sumpin that seems to work I'll teach it. I ain't greedy with such things. If this/that/or the other sites does more betterer then stands to reason I'll do more betterer along with ya'll.

No, no one ever listens to my advice.

Yes, it is self serving.

Monkeys.

The sun is kissing the horizon here in Union County, Ga. It's almost bee killing time.

I'm very excited.

And yes, I got into the beer.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Bee update: - 07/12/15 03:41 AM

They dead.

-

Back to the switch backs...





Yes, I can draw that buku more betterer now. Still gets the job done.

So, what I call external scaffolding, there's really no end to how wide/deep these (lanes) can be made. Given that the things that slows this job site down the most are block production/available (experienced) workers I can make the scaffold more biggerer than the pyramid itself but that will still not speed things up. This pyramid has to be done in Khufu's reign. I've read all kinds of estimates on long it took to be built, but I ain't seeing evidence. Not even logical deduction.

Now would be a good time for me to spend some time on things other than moving and stacking blocks. I gots that part.

My screen name: Marchimedes. I may have wroted this before in this thread, if so, please to forgive me.

"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world." - Archimedes.

My first name is Mark. Get it? Archimedes was correct about the lever, I know this well with my time moving heavy. I'll be posting some very boring examples of this. But then I have to. In my wanderings about the net, what I like to call, when I take this train wreck that keeps making all the stops on the road, "teacher's pyramid crusade and travelling menagerie" (you gots Monkeys so far, more animals are coming) ah screw it, how about another animal right now... ?



...that's correct, that's a Walrus and me on a barca-lounger. I'll get to the explanation of that one day...

I've had folks tell me that a lever won't do what I say a lever can do. It's not like I can get these idiots to go find sumpin that weighs tons with a crowbar in hand to follow my explicit directions so I needs splain these things, Lucy. I'll be doing that, in mind-numbing detail. So bear with me, I have to cover all bases, I've found that if I leave one stinkin thing out I get hammered. I even spelt "pyramid" wrong once and that was evidence that I can't build one. I've mentioned that I have issues. Gettin it correct the first time is one of them. Then there's me gettin distracted, by me.

However, I think I got this one, lanes and all, you know?

I'm quite sure I'm not a 1/4 way through this. Now I have to figure what should be next. Maybe more on level and leveling the pyramid foundation.

Then orientation.

No promises though.

-

Gettin a tad lonely in here. Could someone stop by and say hello?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Sunrise, sunset... - 07/14/15 01:11 AM

I did say no promises. This next is not my original idea, it's boy scout stuff, but I did add on to it and I'm just gonna go ahead and call original idea #7 after the drawings and splain that, Lucy.

Finding near perfect east/west...



Ah, look, it's legible, no busting up images for this post. Easy peasy. And that's why I'm doing this next, hardly any work.

















I don't wanna hear it, okay? I know the drawings are not exactly what one would call high quality. As better are the switch back drawings in the "Gonna be like this" post than are those drawings right there is the same as any drawing I would do now are better than the switch back drawings. And now with the distraction...

Not saying that you folks are like this, but I've gotten some serious guff in the past about my so-called "third grade" drawings. Like that means they don't convey the intent and means I can't build one of these pyramids. But I'm very tender and sensitive like that. My feeling are easily hurt. I'm sure you can tell that about me by now. So next I'm gonna post a drawing made I happen to have handy in my Windows picture library. I was reading "The Davinci Code" and for some reason felt compelled to copy Leonardo right then. I've done this with some few masters in the past and, as an artist, I can really get in touch with them by copying their style. See? Told you I was sensitive. For a Republican. Anyway, the original was about 2" x 6" on cheap copy paper with one of these pencils...



Yes, I know all about quality drawing paper and H-B drawing pencils. Didn't happen that day. Ya'll know what this is...

Nope, won't go. So ten is the limit of images/post? Good to know. Next question is do ya'll have flood control?

To be continued next post...
Posted by: Marchimedes

Its' so lonely for me here... - 07/14/15 01:53 AM

but I'm used to that. And it does tend to keep things on track.

Art:



I can draw just fine, thank you. I can do paragraph after paragraph on the different Master's styles. And then I have my own.

Man, that was a long ways to go to keep folks from making fun of my simple drawings. So be it. Like I said, I've done this at some few sites and people are just friggin horrible. Or... just go back a page or few and find where Orac tried me in this thread. That was just ugly.

And what with the distractions...

I noticed in that Orac deal that the moderator yelled at me first when there I was, minding my own bidness going on and on and on about the universe and comes Orac saying sumpin stupid so he had to be punished. I got yelled at in my own thread for whatever, I ain't gonna go look, it was probably for beating people up that deserve it. That and I called him an Obama voter.

Republican.

There we go, just alienated half of you.

Eh.

So, original idea #7. Finding east/west is not the original idea. Sighting the sun with my sighting block when it the same number of degrees before/past high noon is. More accurate east/west.

As always, if you find someone that came up with the stuff I say is mine before I did lemme know. I'll either give credit where credit is due or claim that I happened to have the same good idea separately.

Didn't that happen with radio?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Please to not ban me... - 07/14/15 06:03 AM

I've read in the rules that we have to stay on topic. Well, my topic is, or should be, "why the universe appears to expanding at an accelerated rate from our perspective."

And now I'm going on and on and on about pyramid construction theory.

Not banned yet.

Lemme push it some, but then I have done so long ago, I been all speed of light, speed of gravity, buku other stuff. Matter of fact, I've done twiwdi here before it all went little black x's. So, really...



But still, I want to push it. I see ya'll have a little climate change deal/forum going on here. This doesn't have to be political.

Said just there a post or two ago that I'm a Republican, actually, I'm more of a Libertarian. Simply put that means on social issues I'm liberal, on fiscal and national security matters conservative.

There, I've now alienated the other half.

Now everybody but the Neil Boortz type Libertarians can hate me. So more expensive therapy.

Trust me, ya'll don't want me in your climate change forum. I'll run amok, get huge views and next thing you know folks will be calling for my banning.

Please to let me be, right here, in my little cloistered enclave with my crazy azz saying my crazy things.

I went a long ways to set this next up there.

I'm gonna give you some links, said links are to a thread of mine at a political debate forum. I do the same thing there that I do here, that is, I have one, single, individual personality driven thread. I'm not much for going hither and yon keeping up with the things I've posted at multiple web sites/threads. I have a life outside of the net. I have endeavored to maximize my impact for the posts I have wroted. Look no further than here for evidence of that. I now have me some 460k views for what this makes my 151st post here. That is far and away my best posts/views ratio. Like I've oft said, I love you nerds. Matter of fact, I consider myself, at the least, a Prince of Nerds. I'm low balling myself, but, before I go on, it's time to test if YouTube's work here. I'm very fond of YouTube's....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z8SpgmF0sA

Bah, it don't show like I'm used to. What am I doing wrong? But you can click on it and get there.

So, YouTubes kinda work here now, some. Hmm. Gonna have to be very careful with that.

So click on that and now I'll just friggin say not so much Prince, I'm going with King.

I know. But there ya go.

Now. there's couple of reasons I'm going through all this:

1. I speak highly of this site at that other site. Matter of fact, I link to this site at that site. This is a big deal. At that site no one is allowed to link to other forums. It is a rule. I didn't make that rule. One day, long ago, I PM'ed the owner of that site and officially requested that I be allowed, just me, to be able to link to other forums. I promised the site owner that if I linked to other sites that at those other sites I would also link to his site. Now we get to hubris. Look at this thread, look at my views, fact of the matter is that I'm drawing readers. It was the same there when I made my request. This is good for bidness, I am good for bidness, plain and simple. The more hits a site gets, the more they can charge for advertisement. Yes, I am taking advantage of this fact. I do many things, I have many tactics/methods, put them all together I simply call it... "The Formula." I stick to the formula, at times I advance the formula, I keep an eye on the views, I try things and act accordingly. This may seem like I'm obsessed, I look at it like I'm optimizing my time spent typing my foolish things on the net.

I say numbers don't lie.

I have almost exactly the same amount of views at the political site but there I am a tad over 15k posts. Maybe some 10k posts in my thread. I do get around and I am moderator there, have been cents day 41, actually, I'm The friggin Warden, with all the powers of admin. I moderate liberals vs. conservatives at a site where we can call each other any name you can think of.

Think you mods have it tuff here? Pfft.

My two beloved sites, man.

The Deuce. I do speak well of this site at this site and I want to prove it. That means a link. I wanted to explain the link and warn ya'll. I ain't done warning ya'll.

Craps. All this would be unnecessary if I didn't have some few question about water and ice. But, all this would rear it's ugly head sooner or later and every now and then I do not procrastinate.

Now, fine ladies, gentlemen and Orac, head my warning. These links shall take you to my thread at a political debate forum. Ya'll think I'm bad here? You ain't seen nuttin if you stray away from the links coming. If you are a democrat, a socialist, a liberal, a commie, a bedwetter, a Marxist, a statist, really, really, do not stray from the linked posts. Matter of fact, I've an old image that I give to other threads at the political site if I'm linking to my thread there. Looks like this...



My thread there is that horrible. If ya'll attempt to bring politics to this thread here I shall not engage. If you try really hard and rub me the wrong way I shall copy your thread here and paste it there and get busy. You do not want that.

And now, water and ice in the horse thread...

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1058939527

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1058939584

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1058939655

See? I spoke nice of us nerds.

Again, this is the question I ask of ya'll for an answer, to...

the Earth's ocean surface covers 141,600,000 square miles.

How do we easily convert .2016 million cubic miles into depth over 141,600,000 square miles?

Long ways to go for that.

-
And while I'm busting rules in anticipation of my banning here's my hydrogen gas idea...

Lots of bad language in here, again...



http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1058941577

Ya'll smart, smart like me. Please to tell me if I err.

I wants be checked by those in the know.

There's gonna be lots more of this before pyramids is over.

If I can't do this here where can I do it? A political site? Look askance of the language and concentrate on the science.

We gettin back to human nature here, folks.

If one of my ideas was curing you of cancer would you still care about the way I told you I was gonna cure you? You know, dropping f-bombs and saying why I think this or that person sucks?

That's correct, a facet of this is about political correctness.

I am not PC. Would you rather not know that there is in fact a way to build a pyramid simply or not hear a good explanation to why the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate from our perspective just because I'm a jerk?

I said I was gonna push it.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Pluto! - 07/15/15 01:26 PM

Posted by: Marchimedes

How to make toast... - 07/19/15 03:53 AM

1622

How to make and enjoy toast. Assuming one has a standard toaster.

Choose your bread wisely, put in toaster, select amount of toastyness, push the lever. Wait. When it pops, remove bread that is now toasty, and for the Love of God, use real butter and spread lots of it. Eat, savor.

There's 500 views. I'm sorry, but I did say in the subject "How to make toast."

Next time if you read "how to make chicken soup", move along.

Next one gonna be good. No idea what it will be, but it shall be fine.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Simple, and then not so... - 07/19/15 04:22 AM

I do desire some few to think so...



What's that for? And yes, hasn't been a hint yet.

That was the not so, now for the simple...



Block is black, rollers are red.

Makes a block turn to the right.
Posted by: Marchimedes

All Hail Marchimedes! - 10/22/15 04:21 AM

I been looking for this number for over a decade.

Half a million, baby. It's my first half a million. Gots another thread right on it's heel fixing to do the same.

I ain't been here for a while but I'm busy at my politics site. It goes well. Posted this the other day...

-

"What is the mass of a photon?

I was watching a YouTube late at night the other night about science. They were going on and on and on about how the edge of the Milky Ways star's speed is the same as inner stars. I'll take them at thier word. They who are called they tell us that the farther away a mass is from a system's center mass is the slower the speed of said mass should be. For instance, Mercury speeds around the sun more fasterer than does Neptune.

This rant is about dark matter, which, if you are up to speed in "...and the horse you rode in on" and "The universes expansion accelleration solved", threads by I, you would know I have some problems with the theory that is dark matter. The scientific community gives us estimates of how much matter there is in any given system. The scientific community then uses these estimates to calculate the gravitational pull of all of said matter, then says there ain't enough matter to account for the behavior of stars and such. So, a while back, after all of the scientific communities calculations of matter and it's gravitation effects on other matter they came out and said they were wrong about how many stars there are out there. They now say there are about three(3) times as many as they originally said there were. That's a bit of a difference when it comes to calculating how much mass there is in, for this rant, the Milky Way.

Before they even came out with this correction I posed a question. I've read that there is, on average, one atom/cubic cm is the viod of space. Cents I mentioned this I've seen all kinds of estimate. One atom/cubic meter, or whatever. Whatever it is, they who are clled they are telling me there are buku atoms in the void of space. My question back then was did thier calulations of the ammount of matter within any given system account for the ammount of atoms in the void of space. I've never gotten an answer nor have I seen this observation begun to be addressed. Eh, such is my world. But then I've covered all that.

What is new is that in my late night viewing it just friggin hit me that there are all these photons flying around in space. We see the light of all these distant starts, they who are called they tell me that that is photons I'm seeing. That's buku photons, folks.

Does these photons weigh anything?

If they do, even if they weigh down into the realm of close to nuttin, they still weigh sumpin.

I dig some lite digging into this querry. At first glance, I'm seeing a lot of photons weigh nuttin.

I have two(2) problems with this.

Welcome to the horse thread.

1. Gravitaional lensing. Shame ya'll ain't up to speed, I've spent time on this in the two(2) threads. Gravitational lensing, by my reading first got proved by Einstein when during an eclipse showed stars behind our star gettin photographed. Light from these stars got bent around the gravity of our sun. Cents then we've shown, lookin at distant galaxies, the light of galaxies behind them. If the gravity of our sun or other galaxies can warp/bend the trajectory of photons does that not mean that photons have mass?

The Deuce. So they that are called they say there is a black hole in the center of every single stinking galaxy. The density of said blacks holes is so great that not even light can escape thier gravity. Light is photons and photons have no mass so how can a gravitational beast even as great as a black hole have any effect on a massless particle/wave such as photons? No matter where you go in, say, our Milky Way, there you are. You see light/photons from all the stars that are old enough to have put out photons long ago enough to make it to your point of view. That's buku photons.

What if they weigh sumpin?

What if there are these buku dispersed atoms throughout our Milky Way/ They too, weigh sumpin.

All I'm asking is has the so-called scientific community accounted for all this mass in their consideration of the theory called dark matter?"

-

I cleaned it up some. I hope I didn't miss anything. My bad if I missed sumpin.

What I am now enjoying is that I penned that post, decided it was worth of this place, came to this place and saw I blasted through the half million view mark.

Marchimedes is well pleased.

So, I have to post this post, get this post up on top where it is easily viewed for my screen capture sos that I can thke that screen shot back to my political site and rub it in.

A nice "what does a photon weigh"? rant, half a million, baby, and a fine excuse to be the usual jerk that is me.

It's a banner day for ol' teach.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Thank you, - 10/22/15 05:06 AM

for your attention, consideration, putting up with my flake azz.

There will be more.

Pyramids, obelisks, the moving and stacking of buku heavy stuff is so terestrial. I've a handle on it all, drawing it up is just so much work.

How do I get paid for this?

How long have I been giving it up for free?

It's boring to me, now.

Still thinking, there is no doubt that I see space as infinate, the dispersial of matter within it, not so much.

So I don't spell so well. Nuttin new there.

Ya'll got the links and stuff, you with me?, the sphere, the visible universe has to be like the skin of an expanding ball, we only get to see a tiny part of it, what is the speed of gravity?

Is the speed of gravity c or now?

Then apply those two speeds to our sphere.

Throw inflation theory in there.

At some point there should be greater than c speeds.

That's a bunch of variables there, eh?

Put em' all in your mind, mix em' up and tell me why the need for dark energy or dark matter?

Welcome to my world.
Posted by: Marchimedes

2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/15/16 04:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
This site will not allow my log on unless I click on one of the moderators name's and then it asks me to log on, I do...

THEN it works.

How odd.


It's still doing that. If I try a normal log on, it takes me but as soon as I change pages or sumpin I'm logged back out. I have to click on a moderator, attempt to contact them and then it asks for a log in, do that and it sticks.

What is up with that?

Any way, when I check this place as a guest this thread is on the second page. That just won't do what with my obsession for attention and all.

-

The status. I was back here in July and then October and laid some down. Racked up about 40k views so thank ya'll very much. Still haven't drawn nuttin new, drawing again that which I've drawn before is so dreadfully boring, but I have to get off this second page fortunately I have some old as dirt obelisk drawings.

I guess there's enough pyramid building drawings here for ya'll to understand the moving and stacking of blocks basics so with that. Eh? What's all this then? Out of character for me I went and went over what I've posted the last go round. never went on and and on about the leveling sytem begun in post #54155. What is up with the numbering system here? Ya'll deleting stuff? Anyway, animal intestines for a water level. I have a drawing...



We all get that?

And now I have to draw sumpin, cents I'm here. Obelisks shall wait. Shame, I've some 40 or so obelisk drawing and I can stretch that out long time and acrue buku views in the process.

Anyway, near perfect leveling system 4000 years ago with a water level made from animal intestines. I guess human intestines would work too but I don't much go in for the Egyptians using throw away slaves to build this thing.

Now, the base of the pyramid must also be leveled before block #1 is placed. I've seen all kinds of theries on how to go about this, I'm not fond of any of them that I've seen. I think I have an original idea tally around here somehwere, lemme go see where I'm at...

I guess this would be original idea #ate.



Any questions? Really, check me on this. Of everything I've read about pyramid construction, and I've read a friggin lot, I've never seen this. Deceptivly simple, I say. I guess it takes a blue collar stupid genius like me to go "der, that works." I used to think I used to think I was incorrect or missed sumpin. I've long cents gotten over that. I guess too many highfalutin PHds thinking too much.

Could it be this simple?

Occam's razor.

-

Why all the silence with the "What is the mass of a photon?" I'm stupid, ain't I? I'm stupid and you are giving me more rope with which to hang myself with. You people are evil.

I had another thing about that, the mass of a photon, what was it?

Beer assistant, come hither!

Ah, the thinking juice gets the job done again.

If solar sails work would it not be the mass of the photons that make them do so?
Posted by: paul

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/16/16 04:12 PM

thought you might be interested in this.

solid blocks of rock , pitch (like tar) , a water well
at the bottom , a fire chamber / chambers.

you light a fire , the oxygen becomes consumed and
you get a vacuum , the vacuum draws water from the
water well and pulls water up into the passageways
of the pyramid and then steam pressure as the fire
is extinguished by the rising water from the well.

seriously have a look.



blocks of rock or aggregate and supplies could be lifted
to higher elevations inside the pyramid as it gets
higher on a small barge , check valves would be needed
and wood swells against solid rock forming a nice
pressure seal really well.

Posted by: Bill

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/17/16 02:51 AM

Nah! If you did that it would leave the inside all wet. That would cause the grain stored in it to spoil.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Orac

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/18/16 04:31 AM

Call me a heretic but I haven't seen evidence of them sneaky Egyptians inventing the first hoses, especially since given the above they need to be at least semi transparent. What were they using intestines all neatly stitched together?

I could buy the reverse process using a channel with water to establish a level and using a stick to measure up off it but hey we all know the aliens built those pyramids smile
Posted by: paul

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/18/16 11:48 PM

why would you need hoses?

I know that many archeologist would have them cutting
the solid stone using birds feathers as saws.

I don't think like they do , I think the Egyptians that
built the pyramids were really smart , I also don't think the Egyptians that resurfaced everything built the pyramids.

but for a water leveler to have been used back then should
have been no problem , wood , reeds , solid gold ...
could have been used to make one.

people just don't give the Egyptians enough credit where
credit is clearly due.
Posted by: Orac

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/19/16 02:34 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
people just don't give the Egyptians enough credit where credit is clearly due.

No people are realistic and although smart for there time the educated Egyptian elite had about the knowledge of a low level school student today.

As simple as some things are that people suggest the Egyptians could have done there is simply no evidence such things ever crossed there minds. Your simple involves centuries of science which was taught to you when you were a child.

There simply is no evidence such a device above ever existed. As simple as it is there is technology behind that is centuries away and the Egyptians show no evidence of having understood it.

Using your romantic idea on how we should view Egyptians. These guys had the wheel so why don't we just say they built big carts to move the blocks. They also have beams, trusses and ropes, so why don't we say they built cranes to lift the blocks. They have glass so in theory they can build a laser. So there you have the answer the Egyptians moved the blocks on big carts, craned them into position using laser positioning technology and that is how they built the pyramids so well .... TO EASY smile

Call me a cynic but history records the Egyptians spent a lot of time positioning some blocks for some mummified dead people and were reasonable farmers. However when they encountered the Roman empire they were completely defeated and annexed as a territory. Whatever technology they had the Romans was better. All anyone now gets to see or remember of the civilization is the positioned blocks, mummies and trinkets ... but the romance lives on.
Posted by: paul

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/23/16 05:22 PM

heres a little evidence that shows that the Egyptians
used high tech tools , and let me add that even your
entire quantum realm and all of the magicians apprentices could not accomplish such exactness today...

.00005 ... 5/100,000 th of an inch.

there is evidence that is there today , its just that
incomps such as yourself tend to shy from it because
of their low level education and inability to see through
the lies that they have implanted into their low level
minds.

http://www.gizapower.com/LoTeAnArticle.htm

like it or not , there it is.

I know that your kind doesn't like or agree with
reality even as it is slapping you in the face because
you fear peer pressure.

even though your currently deeply engulfed in a social
community that is peer pressure driven and controlled
through its use of lies and illusion and parlor tricks
to attract new gullible members into its ranks , I tend
to believe that exposure to the reality of the lies used
in other social communities such as archeology may shed
a little light for future guidance.

I am only including this video as a reference to the
cutting tools used to cut stone with when the pyramids
were built.





















Posted by: Bill

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/23/16 06:02 PM

Quote:
In one of the crypts there is a granite box with a broken corner, and this box is accessible by means of steps down to the lower floor. The outside of the box appears to be roughly finished, but the glint of a high polish on the inside surfaces beckoned me to climb inside. Running my hand along the surface of the granite reminded me of the thousands of times I have run my hand along a granite surface plate when I was working as a machinist and later as a tool and die maker. The feel of the stone was no different, though I was not sure of its flatness or accuracy. To check my impression, I placed the edge of my precision-ground parallel against the surface—and I saw that it was dead flat. There was no light showing through the interface of the steel and the stone, as there would be if the surface was concave, and the steel did not rock back and forth, as it would if the surface was convex. To put it mildly, I was astounded. I did not expect to find such exactitude, because this order of precision is not necessary for the sarcophagus of a bull—or any other animal or human.

There is an old and well established method of making flat surfaces. You take 3 items and start rubbing them against each other with some kind of grinding compound. If you are careful you can achieve a very flat surface. You need 3 because if you use just 2 you will wind up with one concave and one convex surface. By switching the among 3 items you can make sure that the concave/convex surfaces are worn out by working them against each other.

Nothing that is extremely difficult or beyond the Egyptian technology. I suggest you try reading "The Ancient Engineers" by L. Sprague de Camp if you can find a copy. It explains a number of things that some consider "impossible" for the people at that time.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Orac

2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/24/16 01:39 AM

Will add that to me reading list Bill G. I do however agree there really isn't much to most of these great achievements. What I find fascinating is the romance of Egyptian history with certain Western groups and Internet junkies and I guess Paul is in that group.

I guess for me I will never understand why they bother worrying about these old details. If I was allowed to squander the vast proportion of my civilizations wealth on laying blocks accurately then I am pretty sure I could do it better than the Egyptians.

It seems to escape in the romance of the Egyptians, that here was a civilization that spent most of its wealth building bigger and bigger hills so it's leaders could try and become immortal and the most powerful afterlife being.

So I guess my questions to you Paul

1.) Am I supposed to admire Egyptian civilization or just admire it's achievements in being able to place some blocks accurately?

2.) Taking the most extreme claims of what the Egyptians could do, the technology to lay blocks has disappeared and why should I care? I have never needed to lay blocks in any greater accuracy than I can using modern methods.

I guess the underlying issue for me is the Egyptians don't have any qualities I remotely admire, I detest everything about there civilization. In fact they pretty much look like my former masters where everyone suffers so those at the top can do what they like.
Posted by: Marchimedes

And now we plumb. - 01/24/16 02:07 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
thought you might be interested in this.

solid blocks of rock , pitch (like tar) , a water well
at the bottom , a fire chamber / chambers.

you light a fire , the oxygen becomes consumed and
you get a vacuum , the vacuum draws water from the
water well and pulls water up into the passageways
of the pyramid and then steam pressure as the fire
is extinguished by the rising water from the well.

seriously have a look.



Among other things, I are a plumber. I have a problem with this theory.


upload a gif

Swell, what with the small images this site allows me, again. There's a work around. At the political debate forum where I hold sway large images are allowed. So I just posted that image there at a size that can be read. There I'm linking to here and here I'm linking to there so it should all be fair. I've done this here and there many times so this should not be a problem.

Fair warning: That is a political debate forum and I am a Libertarian. If you have delicate sensabilities do not stray from the posted links as I destroy liberals with extream prejudice. It's very ugly, more ugly than you can possibly image. I make Ann Coulter look like a big softie and I am undefeated going back to 2007. The title of my thread there is "... and the horse you rode in on." So, when you see the following image that is warning that the link after said image is taking you to the horse thread...



http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059363100

Sorry, if I could figure out a way to do all this here I would do so. Also, I have requested multiple times of the powers that be here for some help and I am always summarily ignored.

What's a fellow to do?

I've found some more old pyramid construction images so likely later I'll be doing the same thing some more. This site only allows such small images that I just don't see any other way. Like I said, one site is a political forum and the other a science forum so I don't see conflict.
Posted by: Marchimedes

This post contains no Monkeys. - 01/24/16 02:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill
Nah! If you did that it would leave the inside all wet. That would cause the grain stored in it to spoil.

Bill Gill


Ha, funny, I get that one. Yea, when Ben Carson went there that was extreamly stupid. I mean, what with the cubic volume of the chambers in the pyramid how much friggin grain could one store?
Posted by: Marchimedes

This post does contain a Monkey. - 01/24/16 03:04 PM

I'll be honest with you, I don't like this guy, this Orac. I say he's a malcontent, a bomb thrower, a naysayer, what some sites would call a troll. He brings nuttin to my thread, his posts are swill that have not been thought through. Many folks are of the mindset that one should just ignore trolls, don't feed them, but Marchimedes takes on all comers even though dealing with such nonsence sets back my busy and impotent work.

Originally Posted By: Orac
Call me a heretic but I haven't seen evidence of them sneaky Egyptians inventing the first hoses,


One of the things that has stymied mankind for thousands of years concerning how the pyramids may have been constructed is the total lack of evidence as to the construction methods. I say this was intended. Proprietary knowledge. If the Egyptians had told everyone how they were built, then everyone could build one and the pyramids would then lose their uniquness. Why would the use of intestine hoses be any different? Besides, intestines are not would you would call unbiodegraable.

Quote:
especially since given the above they need to be at least semi transparent.




Looks pretty friggin semi transparent to me.

See what I mean by orac not thinking things through?

Quote:
What were they using intestines all neatly stitched together?


Why would they need to be stiched together? To the google cave...



40 meters. Long enough for you? Plenty long for me.

Quote:
I could buy the reverse process using a channel with water to establish a level and using a stick to measure up off it


Then where are all these channels at? Even if they were just using channels for the leveling of the pyramid base then they have to dig buku channels and level the stone down to the water level of the channel or use...



lookie there, a stick. A stick that doesn't require the extra work of digging a channel.

I take it, Orac, that you are not very handy around the house with tools. I bet you have trouble buttering toast.

Quote:
but hey we all know the aliens built those pyramids smile


Oh look, a sence-o-humor. There's hope for you yet.
Posted by: Marchimedes

paul, are you jerking my chain? - 01/24/16 03:17 PM



Clever, eh?

Originally Posted By: paul
why would you need hoses?


Can we please just call them what they were, intestines instead of hoses?

Quote:
I think the Egyptians that
built the pyramids were really smart ,


I'm with you there.

Quote:
I also don't think the Egyptians that resurfaced everything built the pyramids.


Make your case.

Quote:
but for a water leveler to have been used back then should
have been no problem , wood , reeds , solid gold ...
could have been used to make one.


Why go through all that when there were plenty of intestines at hand?

Quote:
people just don't give the Egyptians enough credit where
credit is clearly due.


So I'm not people now?
Posted by: Marchimedes

This guy... - 01/24/16 04:15 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
people just don't give the Egyptians enough credit where credit is clearly due.


Originally Posted By: Orac
No people are realistic and although smart for there time the educated Egyptian elite had about the knowledge of a low level school student today.


I don't see any low level school students building any pyramids or coming up with plausible theories on how to.

Quote:
As simple as some things are that people suggest the Egyptians could have done there is simply no evidence such things ever crossed there minds.


And there's no evidence such things didn't cross their minds.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

One thing does remain though, the pyramids. They were built, question is how. Remember, I don't claim that my theory, twiwdi, (the way I would do it), is how the pyramids were built. I've just come up with a way it could have been done and I ain't seeing anyone tell me where I'm wrong.

Gonna skip a little of Orac's swill as it's redundent and has been already shot down.

Quote:
These guys had the wheel


Really? That's news to me. Got any evidence of this?

Quote:
so why don't we just say they built big carts to move the blocks.


And what sort of materials could said carts have been made of given that some of the blocks used to build the pyramids weighed up to 80 tons?

Quote:
They also have beams, trusses and ropes, so why don't we say they built cranes to lift the blocks.


They could have. It is said they did have the pully, but again what do you make a pully out of that can stand such stresses? Then consider that the pyramid is made from 2.3 million blocks averaging 2 1/2 tons. So you don't have to pick each block up once. There's I think some 209 levels to the pyramid. Do the math.

Quote:
They have glass so in theory they can build a laser.


You start your post saying that the Egyptian elite had the level of a low level school student yet now you have them building lasers?

Quote:
Call me a cynic but history records the Egyptians spent a lot of time positioning some blocks for some mummified dead people


The Pharaohs were a tad more than just some dead people. To the Egyptians they were gods on earth.

Quote:
and were reasonable farmers.


Bought time you got sumpin correct.

Quote:
However when they encountered the Roman empire they were completely defeated and annexed as a territory. Whatever technology they had the Romans was better.


The height of the Egyptian Empire was somewhere around 1,400 BC. The height of the Roman Empire was somewhere around 100 AD. So...



Quote:
All anyone now gets to see or remember of the civilization is the positioned blocks, mummies and trinkets ... but the romance lives on.


Not so much romance to me. More like I'm trying to figure how they worked a well run job site.

-

You know, Orac, if you are looking for a nice intellectual beatdown this is the thread for you. But if you think you have the mental capacity to play in my sandbox you are WAY outta your league.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Please to excuse me, paul and Bill but... - 01/24/16 04:41 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
heres a little evidence that shows that the Egyptians used high tech tools


Originally Posted By: Bill
There is an old and well established method of making flat surfaces.


I'm gonna skip over these posts as I am in the process of coming up with methods to do these things on my own, simple blue collar ways using what we know the Egyptians had at hand. I find when I get to reading these things it's pollutes my simple thought process.

I have ideas on all these things but whenever I start to draw them up I come up with more stuff so I have to mull it all over in my idiot savant skull meat. I'm at the same place concerning the fabrication and placement of the casing stones. Also, I'm very lazy, not too ambitious, easily distracted and I figure I have yet decades to live and finish this up.

It doesn't help none that today is football day.
Posted by: Marchimedes

No accounting for taste... - 01/24/16 05:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
I do however agree there really isn't much to most of these great achievements.


Naysaying malcontent.

Quote:
What I find fascinating is the romance of Egyptian history with certain Western groups and Internet junkies and I guess Paul is in that group.


Wicked sorry our hobbies don't meet your high standard of things that people besides you should do with their own time.

Quote:
I guess for me I will never understand why they bother worrying about these old details.


I guess for me I will never understand why you bother worrying so much about that which you pretend not to care about.

Quote:
If I was allowed to squander the vast proportion of my civilizations wealth on laying blocks accurately then I am pretty sure I could do it better than the Egyptians.


"I could but I choose not to."

Ya'll wouldn't believe how many times I've heard that one.

Quote:
It seems to escape in the romance of the Egyptians, that here was a civilization that spent most of its wealth building bigger and bigger hills so it's leaders could try and become immortal and the most powerful afterlife being.


Sumpin else that doesn't meet your high standards.

Go figure.

What ever the reasons, hubris, intentions of the Egyptians to build these constructs never the less the pyramids are still there.

Quote:
I guess the underlying issue for me is the Egyptians don't have any qualities I remotely admire, I detest everything about there civilization.


I gots to ask: Is English your first language?

and...

is there anything you do admire?

Quote:
In fact they pretty much look like my former masters where everyone suffers so those at the top can do what they like.


So, Bernie or Hillary and what should the income tax rate be for the highest earners?

-

Well, that was a bunch of housekeeping to get behind me. Here's were we at...

291/539,204
Posted by: Bill

Re: This post does contain a Monkey. - 01/24/16 10:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes

Then where are all these channels at? Even if they were just using channels for the leveling of the pyramid base then they have to dig buku channels and level the stone down to the water level of the channel or use...

The simplest water level for this type of work would be a mud gutter filled with water. Build it along side what you want to level and check the level of the construction against the water level. Hauling mud to make the gutters is nothing compared to moving all those stones. And then it is easy to remove the mud to let the construction be seen.

As far as moving big stones. If you get enough people on it you can move just about anything. The Egyptians had a big enough work force to move the stones, and knew how to build ramps to drag them up to the level at which they were being installed.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
I gots to ask: Is English your first language?

No it isn't. He has said that before and it is implied by his comment about his 'former masters'.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Marchimedes

A tube, with water in it, not rocket science. - 01/25/16 01:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Then where are all these channels at? Even if they were just using channels for the leveling of the pyramid base then they have to dig buku channels and level the stone down to the water level of the channel or use...


Originally Posted By: Bill
The simplest water level for this type of work would be a mud gutter filled with water. Build it along side what you want to level and check the level of the construction against the water level. Hauling mud to make the gutters is nothing compared to moving all those stones. And then it is easy to remove the mud to let the construction be seen.


Am I the only Swinging Richard at this site that has ever worked with his hands?

Does no one understand the concept of using animal intestines as a water level?

How can building and tearing down a mud gutter be as easy as taking intestines out of a bucket and holding the ends up to a stone?

Quote:
As far as moving big stones. If you get enough people on it you can move just about anything. The Egyptians had a big enough work force to move the stones,


I gots the moving and stacking of the heavy stones. Just as simple as all the other stuff. It's just that those drawings are long gone so i have to do them over again. I HATE that.

Quote:
and knew how to build ramps to drag them up to the level at which they were being installed.


Why would you drag sumpin when you can pull stones on top of rollers?

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
I gots to ask: Is English your first language?


Quote:
No it isn't. He has said that before and it is implied by his comment about his 'former masters'.


Ah. Why do I get the feeling that his former masters last names rhyme with words like "Astro" or "Spavez" or "Sputin?"

Did you see where a long time ago Orac started in with the nasty on me, I finished it and called him an Obama voter and Amaranth Rose II came in and yelled at me first?
Posted by: paul

Re: And now we plumb. - 01/25/16 02:16 AM

you wouldn't need an air feed as the ground itself that
surrounds the pyramid will feed air down to the surface of
the ground water , and the vacuum is produced by removing
oxygen from the air as the fire burns.

and since there is a water well at the bottom of the pyramid
then the vacuum ( caused by the fire ) would pull water up into the passageways.

the water would not lift with the heat rising from the fire
and its a good thing that I didn't say that it would.

Posted by: paul

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/25/16 02:36 AM

Quote:
Those taken of me inside one of these huge boxes show me inspecting the squareness between a 27 ton lid


Quote:
You take 3 items and start rubbing them against each other


27 tons = 54,000 pounds.

rough cut granite that does not have a smooth surface

...

I would guess that each of the men pulling the lid back
and forth might be capable of applying 100 pounds of pull

that's 540 men for each pull back and forth

that's 1080 men

but you said that the stones would need to be rubbed together
so the rubbing stone would need to be larger than the stone
being rubbed.

and remember the Egyptians would have used rope.

that rope must have been really large to bear a 54,000 pound
stress on it from the stone itself.

I would really love to see this one feat accomplished by
all the archeologist on earth gathered and forced to use
only rope to grind rough cut granite into the same precision
that is found on this 27 ton lid ....

I wonder how long it would take them to do things the
way that they would have us believe that things were done?


oops , we haven't even discussed the inside of the granite box
yet .... how would you maneuver the other 2 stones back and forth inside the granite box?

there is a point where some methods just would not work
and this is one of those points.

and then we haven't even scratched the surface of the
ramses 2 sculpture with mirrored precision on each side
of the face.

how do you rub stones to make perfectly matching sides of
a sculptured face?

300 tons = 600,000 pounds



















Posted by: Orac

Re: A tube, with water in it, not rocket science. - 01/25/16 02:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Ah. Why do I get the feeling that his former masters last names rhyme with words like "Astro" or "Spavez" or "Sputin?"

You would be correct my former masters were Russian, but I am not Russian a concept that sometimes seems to escape some especially in the USA.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Did you see where a long time ago Orac started in with the nasty on me

Nasty ... I just disagree totally with you and that makes me not your friend? Do you know the fable of The Fox and the Crow?

On the other side I am open to changing my opinion on things, something most on here are not. I am can also sometimes be wrong, as opposed to most on the forum who are never wrong. It was dangerous to be too insistent on being "right" in my upbringing.

You might guess my education is what you call may call the "comrade school of learning" and that they didn't paint a good picture of pharaohs. You can probably guess how Egyptian civilization is regarded by communists or socialists.

So maybe I am just brainwashed or maybe I just genuinely can't find a single thing to admire or like about this civilization.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
I finished it and called him an Obama voter and Amaranth Rose II came in and yelled at me first?

You completely lost me. Is there something good or bad about being a Obama voter? The fact AR2 intervened makes it sound like an insult but I can't understand it much less be offended by it. So would it be something like calling me a "commie", which has happened to me. With my life history it was a rather funny and didn't quite get the insult effect intended ... probably like calling a Jew a Nazi sympathizer.

I guess an interesting question to Paul and Marchimedes might be have you ever been to the Cahokia Mounds in Illinois? How was that done? There are similar questions much closer to home.
Posted by: Bill

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/25/16 03:37 AM

For creating the flats the 3 stones need to be the same size. I haven't ever seen anybody make a flat, but I did see my brother make a telescope mirror. He started with 2 flat round pieces of glass. The he put a drop of water and some grinding compound on the bottom glass and started walking around the stand he made for it. He did that for hours and hours, a couple of hours a day for many days. When he finished he had a spherical convex tool and spherical concave mirror. Both of them were extremely smooth, good enough that he silvered the mirror to use in his telescope. As far as moving a big stone, all you have to do is to get it moderately flat. You can do that with a hammer, which can be made of stone. Then you lubricate the surfaces between them. That way you don't need nearly as much force.

As far as the inside of the box is concerned. If you can make a small flat, or straight stick, you can use that to check the flatness of the inside of the box. Then you very carefully start polishing the inside frequently checking to make sure it is flat. Places where it isn't you concentrate on grinding flat. This is called craftsmanship. As I said, I have not seen anybody doing this, but I have sanded things smooth and flat. Actually I have sanded something curved, the rockers on an antique rocking chair. With care you can get extremely good results, just working by hand. There is no need for elaborate equipment.

You asked a few posts back about why the Egyptians would continue to use bronze tools to cut rock for a long time span. Well, there is a simple answer: They worked. In fact other than changing to steel as it became generally available the same techniques were used by stone masons right up into the last century. I expect they are still used in many cases.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Bill

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/25/16 03:41 AM

Whoops I missed one point.
Originally Posted By: Paul
how do you rub stones to make perfectly matching sides of
a sculptured face?

Very carefully. Actually you start with a chisel. After all that was what Michelangelo used when he created his statue of David.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Orac

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/25/16 08:50 AM

We used to make granite surfaces flat in exactly the same way as your optical grinding trick, Bill G.

In science we have precision optical granite benches and any precision machinist will have a granite surface plate and traditionally before the advent of surface grinders they were all built that way. It is now too slow to use the old manufacture technique.

We routinely use these surface plates which can be massive and they are flattened to laser precision and far beyond anything any Egyptian ever dreamed of.

There are millions of youtube videos from machining shops that will show you how and why they are used. You can probably also find the relapping and in situ calibration processes. Just use the search "granite surface plate" or just "surface plate".

Our Egyptian blocks aren't even in the same scale of flat of these sort of modern surface plates, so lets try and keep the claims to a realistic level. There pyramid blocks are pretty good for there time but they are nothing like modern surface plates.

So back to that thing we could easily build the pyramids many magnitudes better with modern science so what does it really matter how it was done aside from as a history footnote. If you look at the tolerances and size of the LHC it would be funny imagining in a few centuries from now people pondering how we built it.
Posted by: Orac

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/25/16 09:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Orac
These guys had the wheel

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Really? That's news to me. Got any evidence of this?

Well if they didn't have the wheel we have a new mystery, how did they get their pottery so round?

That is one of the ways it is usually easy to spot the arrival of the wheels in an ancient civilization.

Hey I am not an Egyptian historian so probably ask them if they had pottery wheels because it certainly looks like it to me, but it is possible I am wrong.

However you might read up on Khnum and find what the children were made on, but I do concede that isn't a science source.

If they had pottery wheels they may not have thought of the simple step to turn it on it's side and make it bear load, side on. Very simple and obvious to us isn't it.
Posted by: paul

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/25/16 02:10 PM

the Egyptians did have the wheel ... duhhh.

[img]https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFw282O38SGC2hbKoRSOoSQ7mv1[/img]

cant even find a postable image anymore and with all the frickin marketing crap and the 500 tcp connections to my computer and my processor running at over 100% its almost impossible to even use the frickin internet at all.
I remember back in the 1980's and using a a 9Kb internet connection the browsing was lightning fast compared to the crappy assed browsing experience that the marketers have given us today.

my current connection speed = 8,000,000 bits/second
my 1980's connection speed = 9,000 bits / second

I had to program my own program in order to watch a
Netflix video because of all the marketing companies
and fartsniffers in general.
and the movies were constantly stalling and stopping from
all the processor and memory usage and data sending from the
thieves.

my 8Mb was maxed out using a regular browser.

now when I watch a Netflix movie using the program I had
to make I have only 10 tcp connections vs the 200 or so
using a regular browser and now a Netflix
movie requires a mere 0.75 Mb bandwidth ...

no more stalling , no more skipping around waiting for
the thieves to back off of the bandwidth so that
more of the movie can download.

not only do I write down the companies that pop up as I
browse so that I can have a reference to which products
I will never buy again but I also intend to start a
class action law suite to recoup my cost for the excess
electricity and bandwidth that these thieves are stealing every time I get on the internet.

in fact I think I will develop a program that detects the
companies involved using the tcp addresses of these thieves
and track the electricity and cpu and bandwidth consumption
that each company is stealing from me , and those desiring to participate in the law suit can download and install the program that reports the theft in real time and monitors
the amounts of monetary loss that each participant is
subjected to.

after all you do need some type of evidence to prove
that a theft has occurred.

Posted by: paul

Re: 2nd page? I don't think so. - 01/25/16 02:32 PM

na na na nana ... frickin assholes.




as for Bill's brothers experience with grinding optics
knowing that they had the wheel and horses and horse drawn
vehicles this tells me that the stones were ground down
using large grinding wheels possibly powered by horses ... not men.

and since Egypt is in the continent of Africa where the largest known work animals reside (elephants) this tells
me that these blocks were lifted and transported and cut
and sculpted by machines built by the Egyptians that were powered by animals , not men.

the cut marks in the stones are solid evidence of technology
way beyond the pounding of a stone against a stone by hand.

they did have grinding mills , for grinding grains ...
and they don't look like oracs , so they did have brains.



hmmm , could we use a grinding mill to grind stone.....

we could replace thousands of workers with a single horse
or elephant.

unless we are a nay sayer like orac or a pig headed modern archeologist who cant see beneath the lies to discover the
truth that is slapping him in the face every day of his useless existence.

I say useless because if all you do is provide support for
the lies you have been taught then your existence is useless.

except to those who first told the lies.



Posted by: Marchimedes

The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/25/16 04:34 PM



http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059364179

This wheel thing is not a big deal to me. Even if they did have the wheel, evidence points them not, the materials of the day couldn't hold up to the sheer weight and ammount of use.

-

303/421,237
Posted by: paul

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/25/16 05:46 PM

what is the difference between a block rolling on several
logs and a block rolling on several wheels?

same materials , you just don't need to have people
picking up the log at the back after the block has
rolled over it and bring it to the front.

they probably figured that one out also...

I don't ride horses, too expensive.

and theres plenty of evidence that the Egyptians
had wheels.

https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp...Search+by+image



could these mysterious artifacts have been used as a form
to build wheels on in ancient Egypt?



maybe they really were sacrificial basins like is
mentioned on the image , that is the type of incomp
intelligence I would expect from a modern up to date by the book by the mainstream expectations archeologist at least.

or were they simply salad bowls?








Posted by: Orac

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/26/16 01:37 AM

Paul, if your image is real then I would say they definitely knew how to build a load bearing wheel.

Which actually begs the question why did they roll the blocks on sticks. I guess it requires knowledge to know that you could use a pile of wheels to distribute any massive load and the ability to load it relatively flat. I love that TV series "monster moves" and the things they move.

The other answer, I guess is people power was a hell of a lot easier to obtain especially if you had slaves. That is just at odds for the romantic notion of the Egyptians. Is it actually settled that the workers were slaves?

Originally Posted By: machemedes
This wheel thing is not a big deal to me. Even if they did have the wheel, evidence points them not, the materials of the day couldn't hold up to the sheer weight and ammount of use.

Machemedes, you probably need to watch the tv series and the concept of distributing a load. I have seen images from my homeland of Alexander the great doing this trick and the Romans and other ancient civilizations have similar images.




I do however agree with you machemedes that there is no evidence of this.

So my question becomes why don't you use that same standard on your other idea of the water level? There is no evidence of that either.

My image above is the same as your image of an intestine a great illustration of how it might of been done but totally not helpful as to whether it was done.

Just the discussion this far, shows the slippery slope of attributing technology to civilizations without actual evidence. We now have our Egyptians using intestines as a levelling device and moving the huge blocks on multiple wheeled dollies. I am telling you we should be able to mount a case they had lasers levels as they have the key component being glass.

These sorts of discussions need the same burden of proof you can't chop and change. Not my thread machemedes but I think you need some consistency on how you approach this stuff.
Posted by: Bill

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/26/16 03:50 AM

The details of just how the Egyptians accomplished the things they did, such as building the pyramids, is still not completely clear. Some people seem to think that just because we would use some kind of modern technology to do it then the Egyptians couldn't have done it without that technology, so they had to have some secret unknown technology available. This of course is wrong. I personally have pointed out several pretty low tech ways to accomplish what they needed to do to build the pyramids. The whole thing about the Egyptians, and other ancient builders, is that they were just as smart as we are. So they just thought up ways to do it without high technology.

As far as the Egyptian work force was concerned we should recall that their farmers couldn't work on their farms for a large part of the year because the Nile flooded every year. During that period almost the whole population would have been available for manual labor. They didn't necessarily use slaves.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Orac

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/26/16 04:17 AM

Ah the voice of reason a rare thing on this forum smile

However from that, I take it there is debate still about whether the workers were slaves or not?

I am being lazy saves me reading thru a whole lot of arguments from very dry boring ancient historians.

That probably says a lot about me and Egyptian civilization, I need to be careful with my bias smile

Mind you I am still recovering from the argument I recently ran into from supporters of my former masters that I am not Homo Erectus. I am descended from a species Homo Georgicus and therefore they are allowed to hate me because I am not human. I am not entirely sure how I feel about not being human there are definitely good and bad parts of the concept. Apparently our brain size was smaller so that probably explains why it's always me that is wrong.
Posted by: Bill

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/26/16 02:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
Mind you I am still recovering from the argument I recently ran into from supporters of my former masters that I am not Homo Erectus. I am descended from a species Homo Georgicus and therefore they are allowed to hate me because I am not human. I am not entirely sure how I feel about not being human there are definitely good and bad parts of the concept. Apparently our brain size was smaller so that probably explains why it's always me that is wrong.

Well, I doubt if you are Homo Erectus. However, if you were Homo Erectus that wouldn't make much difference, because there is a very good chance that H. Erectus is descended from H. Georgicus. Georgia would probably have been a stopping point on the trek from Africa to Asia.

However, I strongly suspect that you are Homo Sapiens. H. Sapiens evolved in Africa, from the species that didn't migrate out earlier. Those earlier migrations were the parents of H. Georgicus, H. Erectus, H. Denisovas, H. Florensiensus, H. Neandertalis, and possibly others. But then that doesn't mean you aren't descended in part from all of those others also. When H. Sapiens started spreading around the world he took in an occasional outsider and still retains some of their genes.

Bill Gill
Posted by: paul

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/26/16 04:03 PM

what I cant understand is why would the invading armies
need to use the battering ram depicted in the below image
its obvious from the size of the door that the peoples
inside the fortified structure were midgets and the invaders
were clearly tall enough to simply step over the walls.

also: everyone should know that the ancient self serving
peoples mostly always carved pictures into stone
of things that never happened way back then because
they had nothing better to do with their time so they
invented these pictures to make it appear that they
did accomplish things at times or at least did try to.

battering rams were usually very heavy and these people
could not possibly have had the technology to cut down
a tree to use as a battering ram and if they did then
they certainly would not have wanted the battering ram
to roll very fast ... what would be the point of that?

and history archeologist have so rightfully
explained to us just how stupid these ancient peoples
were and how the best way to move something is to use
several thousands of people to pull the battering ram with ropes into the door but in my opinion because Im not certain that they were smart enough to make a rope as rope making would have been way above their technological ability
... I believe that instead of using ropes , they simply
held each others hands and pulled on the tree until the
door opened up or the midgets opened the door out of pity.

so the wheels under the battering ram were added through some
misguided inventors imagination as he was thinking of some
way to make it appear that they actually accomplished things
of notability.

I certainly did not fall for this one.




Posted by: paul

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/26/16 04:45 PM

Quote:
Paul, if your image is real then I would say they definitely knew how to build a load bearing wheel.


Im a little curious , does your browser have the ability
to do a search?

do you require empirical evidence?

how about a chariot found inside Tutankhamun's tomb?

Quote:
One of the evidences of chariot are the actual object which was found in the tombs. During the New Kingdom, deceased was buried often with his personal goods for the use in his afterlife.

The famous example of complete chariot comes from the tomb of Tutankhamun which is now displayed in Cairo, Egyptian Museum. Complete Chariot was also found in the non-royal tomb which belongs to Yuya and Thuya and some fragments which belongs to a chariot was found in the tomb of Tuthmose IV.



http://900090724.weebly.com/evidence.html



chariots had been around awhile when the above chariot was
built as the first Egyptian chariots had only four spokes in
the wheel.

Posted by: Orac

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/27/16 01:00 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Im a little curious , does your browser have the ability to do a search?

LOL do you not read stuff, Machemedes has screen shoted and linked what comes up when you do. Let me take the liberty of just pulling the image and not put it on a link



So an internet search will yield the first few links clearly say they didn't have the wheel.

Sometimes you need to bother to read things and not just argue or try to score points because it's me.

Originally Posted By: paul
do you require empirical evidence?

Yes I always require empirical evidence it's what I do and the example above is why smile

Originally Posted By: paul
how about a chariot found inside Tutankhamun's tomb?

That would be empirical evidence which contradicts the search results.

Wikipedia under Ancient Egyptian Technology also disagrees with itself on the main Egyptian page that they didn't have the wheel and says this

Originally Posted By: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_technology
Evidence indicates that Egyptians made use of potter's wheels in the manufacturing of pottery from as early as the 4th Dynasty. Chariots, however, are only believed to have been introduced by the invasion of the Hyksos in the Second Intermediate period; during the New Kingdom era, chariotry became central to Egypt's military.

My suspicion is the pottery wheel dates even earlier based on my peoples history but I guess they have no direct evidence.
Posted by: Orac

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/27/16 01:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill
Well, I doubt if you are Homo Erectus. However, if you were Homo Erectus that wouldn't make much difference, because there is a very good chance that H. Erectus is descended from H. Georgicus. Georgia would probably have been a stopping point on the trek from Africa to Asia.

It was intended as a racist rant against me Bill G a bit like calling me a monkey or ape.

I am Caucasian and that isn't the white American type in a police report but the Caucasian people type (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_of_the_Caucasus). That bit usually confuses many Americans.

Those who consider being ethnically Russian important will have issues with me.
Posted by: Marchimedes

To sober or not to sober. - 01/27/16 03:45 AM

Like I care.

Seen these most recent posts of mine? All sober. I have tomorrow off. Guess what?

I always ask/point this out. I ain't no stinkin drunk, I'm a binge drinker. Last time was Jan 21. I think. What do I know? I was drunk. First indication with me is that I tend to go on and on and on.

And on.

12/21/15 "What is the mass of a photon?" Completely hammered.

12/22? Sober. Drinking two(2) days in a row is death.

Well, I appreciate all the sudden posts in this thread. Bothers me not that it staves off the posting of theory. I am Marchimedes and I take on all comers.

I should take on all posts in the order that they come but one phrase gets my attention...

Originally Posted By: paul
frickin assholes.


This is allowed here? It's not like I'm narcing you out here, paul, it's there for all to see. Thing is, I'm admin at a political debate forum with hardly any rules. I'm a nasty piece of work. Left and right both, they fear me. To those idiots my behavior here would be unrecognizable.

I'm confusified as to the rules. Please to for to clarify these things for me. No, I ain't gonna change my behavior here, at worse I would...



http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059365764

I like this site. I try not to screw my stay here up.

Now, remember back at the beginning of this post me saying sumpin about me going on and on and on when I've gotten to drinkin?

Ya'll savvy yet?

-

So now I have to go deal with the wheel.

-

Not only am I the smartest man alive I am also the world's foremost authority on pyramid construction.

I have the patience of Job.

I am far from done with dealing with pyramids.

Then comes obelisks.

-

Then, the thread title. I took that up long ago. That's correct, expanding univerce.

Anybody see this, my thread, slowing down any time soon?

-

A question I also ask at my political site: Who has more fun with all this than I?

Gotta love what you do, man. This is my hobby. Imagine what I am like with real life and my work?

-

So who is the next victim?
Posted by: Marchimedes

I have... - 01/27/16 04:41 AM

an amazing ablility to swill buku hooch and still get the simple point across.

Spelling? Not so much.

This IS the Marchimedes thread.

It's 11:00 PM and now I have to deal with the permeablility of earth?

I have to draw friggin images?

And I have to do all this to get through the crap to get to the point where I am back on point?

Damn straight I do. If I didn't this wouldn't be no stinkin Marchimedes thread. Patience of Job.

Here's how it works for me, I can get kinda hammered, deal with stuff, then I get kinda bored with it. This is where I am at right now. I know from experience that I can power through this stage and then it's look out time.

Ya'll know I can do it sober. Ya'll know I can do it hammered. It's one thing to be able to do it sober. It's an entirely different thing to be able to get the job done bent.

-

I don't have a clue as to how to post youtubes at this site. I do this thing at my political site. The why of the political youtubes is a given. But often I do youtubes of what the music I'm listening to at the time. It's a state of mind thing. Right now I'm Evanescence Fallen. just that chicks voice puts me in a state of mind that I would enjoy making her an aquantance of mine. I am a straight man.

-

I'm turning the corner on the bored with it part.

-

Now I have to go draw sumpin and get full bore on a dude I don't hate.

-

Also. I don't proof read my posts, nor spell check them. This is consiousness streaming.

Would that ya'll could be so honest.

Now I have to go do work. That is one(1) reason why I dominate.

Might get a tad ugly now.
Posted by: Marchimedes

paul, front and center! - 01/27/16 06:46 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
you wouldn't need an air feed as the ground itself that surrounds the pyramid will feed air down to the surface of
the ground water,


Evanescence Fallen is over. Right now I'm gonna go with Megadeth Peace Sells.

Seems to me I've went over this already, seems to me I've made an image...



paul, if I have to splain that image, if I have to craft new images to splain that image, I Mutha f'ing guarentee you are gonna look like a dumbazz.

This is plumbing. Marchimedes does not splain plumbing.

-

All change, Metallica Load.

-

Poeple, I done proved just how friggin smart I am long time ago, just how far outside of the box I think. This thread long ago went far past how smart I am. When I am not named Marchimedes my prefered screen name is teacher. I'm not here to kick your teeth in or prove how smart I am or how stupid you are. So you are not as smart as I am. Cry me a river. Know what sucks for me? I don't get to find anyone more smarterer than me and follow that guy around asking him questions.

What ya'll unwashed masses should be doing is picking my brain. I only have so much time on this, God's Green Earth. Maybe, just maybe, one of you idiots will come up with sumpin I ain't considered that I deem worthy and will lose sleep over.

I am smarter than the sum lot of you.

My ingelligence is a human resource that I can bank. I can cash out on pyramids or the universe right this friggin second.

Tell me I can't. Tell me I don't have the gift of gab. Tell me I can't dominate whatever site I choose to land on. Tell me I don't have the numbers. I'm a flake, man. I give fresh for free.

No one can asail my intent. I ask or nuttin but views.

For me to fail in my long term plan I'm gonna have to drop dead.

This is a science thread that I started about the universe. I'm presently busy with the moving and stacking of blocks.

I haven't gone large about the universe longtime. I see infinate space in my skull, my minds eye, easy like. The drawing of moving and stacking of heavy blocks, after all the years of thought, is just a well run job site.

-

See what I said about going on and on?
Posted by: paul

Re: paul, front and center! - 01/27/16 03:55 PM

Quote:
paul, if I have to splain that image, if I have to craft new images to splain that image, I Mutha f'ing guarentee you are gonna look like a dumbazz.

This is plumbing. Marchimedes does not splain plumbing.


the image that you posted had a air feed depicted
on it that fed directly to the well casing.

if you do that to a well casing then the pump or vacuum
will suck the air from the air feed and you never will
pump any water.

why would you need a air feed in the first place
when the water source in the well is obviously
ground water that already has a natural air feed
through the ground permeation of rain water and local
sources of permeation from nearby rivers and streams.

I was simply pointing out that a air feed would not be
needed since the water well is already there along with
water in the well.

perhaps you should have drawn another line and labeled it
as the natural water table level vs the line drawn
directly to the well casing.

a well casing is much like a drinking straw.
they don't work very well with holes in them.

if you feel a need to make another drawing to attempt to
make me look like a dumbass then that's fine by me but
many have tried to accomplish that feat and all have failed.
Posted by: paul

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/27/16 04:18 PM



I understand that there are many nay sayers that have
posted their comments on the internet that lead people
to believe that the Egyptians did not have the wheel
and those people are probably serving lip or they are
part of the professional archeological demise of history.

to me though , if chariots are found INSIDE the tombs of
several of the pharaohs that seals my belief that chariots were in common use in Egypt as the pyramids were being constructed if the pyramids were intended as burial places
for those pharaohs ... and that also tells me that the Egyptians had the wheel for quite some time as the wheels found on the chariots inside the tombs had advanced 6 spoke
wheels on them.

connections.

james burke.
Posted by: Bill

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/27/16 07:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Paul
to me though , if chariots are found INSIDE the tombs of
several of the pharaohs that seals my belief that chariots were in common use in Egypt as the pyramids were being constructed if the pyramids were intended as burial places
for those pharaohs ... and that also tells me that the Egyptians had the wheel for quite some time as the wheels found on the chariots inside the tombs had advanced 6 spoke
wheels on them.

The question here is: when did the Egyptians get wheels? If the chariots you mention are from the tombs in the Valley of the Kings they are from the New Kingdom, from the 16th to the 11th century BCE. The Pyramids date from the Old and Middle Kingdoms. The Middle Kingdom ended around 1700 BCE. So having a chariot in one of those tombs does not prove that the Egyptians had the wheel during the construction of the pyramid.

And of course having the wheel would not necessarily indicate that it was used in the construction of the pyramids. It would take an enormous quantity of wheels to build a transporter for stones the size used in the pyramids. The more likely way is to use people pulling on ropes. People were generally available and the technology was well within the capability of the Egyptians of the time. Ramps are easy to construct, given enough manual laborers to carry the dirt. So I will say that, while I might be wrong, I figure it was done by large groups of people with ropes.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Orac

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/28/16 02:59 AM

Bill G your answer opens up another interesting thing, do we know why they stopped building pyramids?

Just strikes me as strange they are still burying people in the same sort of area but stop building the large hills.
Posted by: paul

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/28/16 01:14 PM

something that also has not been covered is the evidence
that the Egyptians used ropes to pull the blocks from the
quarry to the pyramids.

is there any evidence of that?

also Bill there were pyramids build after 1700 bce

Saqqara was the last major pyramid constructed during the
18th century bc

el-kurru another of the major pyramids dated 721 bc

nuri another of the major pyramids dated 664 bc

orac , what I cant understand is why they started off
so good at making pyramids during the 3rd and 4th dynasty
and then its like they lost the ability to build a decent
pyramid ever again.

like the builders left or those who were cutting and placing
the blocks left.

it seems that all of a sudden Egypt didn't have any
skilled workers to build anything that would last , the
pyramids built after the 3rd and 4th dynasty all seem to
have melted away like sticks of butter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Egyptian_pyramids

but seriously concerning the methods of transporting the
massive blocks to the pyramids , we know now that evidence
of wheels have been found ... there should be a massive pile
of ropes found somewhere that were used to pull the blocks.

anyone know of any evidence that shows proof that ropes were
used vs the wheel.

Posted by: paul

Re: The wheel has been around since 9,500 BC - 01/28/16 01:45 PM


The wheel has been around since 9,500 BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel

Quote:

9500–6500 BCE: Aceramic Neolithic
6500–4500 BCE: Ceramic Neolithic (Halafian), earliest wooden wheels (disks with a hole for the axle)
c. 4500 BCE: invention of the potter's wheel, beginning of the Chalcolithic (Ubaid period)
4500–3300 BCE: Chalcolithic, earliest wheeled vehicles, domestication of the horse
3300–2200 BCE: Early Bronze Age
2200–1550 BCE: Middle Bronze Age, invention of the spoked wheel and the chariot





Posted by: paul

Re: egypt had ships --> the great pyramid - 01/28/16 01:57 PM

ancient Egyptian ships

the below pictured ship was not just a raft built from
a few tree trunks , it is called a masterpiece of woodcraft

it was built over 4,500 years ago and it contains evidence
of an axel and the usage of a lever as shown in the
boat oars.

I would highly doubt that the ancient Egyptians did not
also have water wheeled powered grain mills and water irrigation systems in place to bring water to the farm lands
when the niles water level was low , not to mention water
power used to grind and cut stone.

this is a luxury ship that was used to travel up and down
on the nile river by the pharaoh accompanied by many other
ships that carried his armed guards , pharaohs wouldn't travel
without their security forces.

and I doubt that he would have them running along the banks
keeping up with his ship as it sailed up and down the nile.

so the Egyptians being a clever peoples would have also
traded with other peoples using barges or even larger
ships around the mediterranean area and up and down the nile
river.

lifting trade goods from a barge and placing them on a
pier would require ropes and pulleys and a pulley has a
wheel inside it.

I have got to admit that I am amazed how the archeologist
have painted the Egyptians as being really stupid people
when the ancestors of the archeologist were probably trying
to figure out where their next meal was coming from while
the ancient Egyptians already had their next meal stored away
or it was being transported to them in ships.

the ancient Egyptians were highly advanced over the rest
of the world without a doubt.

but still the jealous rest of the world maintains that
the ancient Egyptians were pretty much dumb idiots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_solar_ships

Quote:

The Khufu ship is an intact full-size vessel from Ancient Egypt that was sealed into a pit in the Giza pyramid complex at the foot of the Great Pyramid of Giza around 2500 BC. It was thus identified as the world's oldest intact ship
and has been described as "a masterpiece of woodcraft" that could sail today if put into water.[3] The Khufu ship is one of the oldest, largest, and best-preserved vessels from antiquity.
It measures 43.6 m (143 ft) long and 5.9 m (19.5 ft) wide.




Posted by: Bill

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/28/16 02:32 PM

I suspect that they quit building pyramids because of cultural changes. It may have been because of a change in the dynasty. I'm am a long way from being an expert on Egyptian history, but the periods of dynastic change were frequently turbulent. So later dynasties may have just had different stylistic preferences. After all in the clothing industry styles change yearly. So burial styles can certainly change on a dynastic scale.

Also between 1720 and 1710 bce Egypt was conquered by the Hyksos. They of course would have had completely different customs, so that may have been the reason. Some people think that the reason the Hyksos were successful was because they had chariots while the Egyptians didn't. That is pretty speculative.

And of course there may have been economic reasons. Building a pyramid has to be expensive. If they went through a period where they couldn't afford them that could have caused a change in fashion.

Then of course the basic idea of the pyramid was to preserve the body of the Pharaoh. It didn't work all that well. They were all looted. So they may have been going for more security by burying them in the Valley of the Kings. Of course that didn't work very well either.

Most of those are my undoubtedly garbled ideas. It may be the Hyksos invasion was the main change that drove the change from burial in pyramids.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Bill

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/28/16 02:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Paul
but seriously concerning the methods of transporting the
massive blocks to the pyramids , we know now that evidence
of wheels have been found ... there should be a massive pile
of ropes found somewhere that were used to pull the blocks.

They have found ropes around the pyramids. The Egyptians had many uses for ropes, including pulling things. Rope making was invented long before the pyramids were built.

Bill Gill
Posted by: paul

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/28/16 02:57 PM

Quote:
They have found ropes around the pyramids.


do you have a link to the ropes that were used
to pull the several hundred ton blocks with?

I cant seem to find them...
but you obviously have.
Posted by: Bill

Re: egypt had ships --> the great pyramid - 01/28/16 02:58 PM

Now that ship is impressive. Thanks for the picture.

Originally Posted By: Paul
lifting trade goods from a barge and placing them on a
pier would require ropes and pulleys and a pulley has a
wheel inside it.

Actually you can load and unload a ship by just carrying everything on your back. You can't manage huge objects that way, but at that time most materials were shipped in small containers which could be carried.

The Egyptians did trade around the Eastern Mediterranean.

It isn't clear whether the Egyptians had pulleys. They may have been able to design them, but they may not have had any materials that could take the strain.

Bill Gill
Posted by: paul

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/28/16 03:17 PM

heres a picture of a few capstones.

with nothing but empty air above the pyramid , and no place
for people to stand while pulling on the ropes just how
did they place these granite capstones and the other stones just beneath the capstone?

remember now the only pulling tools they had was man power
and ropes...

I don't know how much the capstones weigh but the 4,000
pound ( 2 ton ) blocks just beneath makes me question
where the men stood that were pulling the blocks up by
ropes , how many men could stand on the 4 blocks at the top
and pull up the capstone?

and where did they stand as the capstone was placed , did
they step up onto the capstone and position in place
from there?

maybe they had helicopters as well.

Posted by: Bill

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/28/16 11:57 PM

Drat! I can see in my mind the answer to how they could have put the capstone on there, I just can't remember what it is called so I can't find it on the internet.

Basically you take a sturdy pole (A) that will be used to lift the block. Then you fasten another pole (B) to it at right angles. You start with the A pole laid over the top of the pyramid. The B pole is sticking straight up. A rope from the end of the A pole to the top end of the B pole provides strength to allow the pole to lift the block without snapping. Then you run a rope from the top of the B pole down the back side of the pyramid. Pulling on that rope brings the B pole down and the A pole up. Not only does it lift the block, it also swings it back into place on the top of the pyramid. Doing it this way you have a pull down one side of the pyramid transformed to a pull up the other side.

I'm not saying that this is the way they did it. But it is a simple way to do it. It was well within the capabilities of the Egyptian engineers to to this. So once again. The Egyptians didn't need some secret technology to accomplish their engineering feats. They just needed to apply simple procedures that had been worked out for centuries in advance of the time they started constructing the pyramids. After all people have been moving rocks for a long time. Ever since the lady of the cave told her good-for-nothing husband that she was tired of the rock in the middle of the cave and he should get rid of it NOW.

Bill Gill
Posted by: paul

Re: The wheel, better than sliced bread? - 01/29/16 12:47 AM

that sounds a little bit too technological for them to
accomplish or have the knowledge to perform.

besides why should they only use technology to set
the last few blocks of the millions of 2 ton blocks !!!

or why should they only decide to use technology after the
blocks have reached the construction site?

why not use levers such as the one you have described to
transport the blocks the entire distance from quarry to
construction site if they did use this technology.

in fact a lever is simply a wheel that only rotates a few
degrees of a circle.

Im going to stick with my thoughts that they did have
the wheel and they did use the wheel to transport the
blocks.

we cant say that wood and rope could not withstand the
stresses that a 2 ton block would place on 2 or 4 or 6
or 8 wheels of a transport vehicle now can we.

that man in the cave might have built an A frame to wrangle
that rock out of the cave with.

and tied a rope to the top of the A frame and then to the rock.

and then pulled the rope , lifted it , and moved it .
because the angle of the rope over the A frame
caused the man to supply 1/2 or less of the force
required to lift the rock straight up.

Posted by: Marchimedes

I have abdicated... - 01/29/16 07:20 AM

my dominance at my political site.

Guess where I'm gonna be spending some time?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Trouble with wheels. - 01/29/16 04:51 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
what is the difference between a block rolling on several
logs and a block rolling on several wheels?


The pyramid blocks were heavy, I don't see these wheels...



holding up to 70 tons like these wheels would...


upload images free

Quote:
same materials , you just don't need to have people
picking up the log at the back after the block has
rolled over it and bring it to the front.

they probably figured that one out also...


I can't say for sure if they had that fugured out. However, I do...



http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059368426

Quote:
I don't ride horses, too expensive.


I don't sail yachts for the same reason.

Quote:
and theres plenty of evidence that the Egyptians
had wheels.

https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp...Search+by+image


Yea, a thousand years after the big pyramids were built. They had pottery wheels but turn them on their side and see how long they hold up to tons of weight.

Quote:
could these mysterious artifacts have been used as a form
to build wheels on in ancient Egypt?




What are they dated at and to me they look more like cogs. What material would they be forms for? Copper?

Quote:
maybe they really were sacrificial basins like is
mentioned on the image , that is the type of incomp
intelligence I would expect from a modern up to date by the book by the mainstream expectations archeologist


Dirt sifters, that's what I call them.

Quote:
or were they simply salad bowls?


More likely that than cereal bowls...

Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: paul, front and center! - 01/29/16 06:27 PM

Hi, Marchy, welcome back. Just stick to the topic and don't stray into the outer realms of believability too far. No personal attacks, keep it polite and respectful of your audience and you'll be fine. I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it as long as you are not being offensive or crude deliberately. Descend into the depths of personal remarks and you will incur my wrath which I'm sure you don't want to do.

Hope you have a good time. Please be considerate.
Posted by: paul

Re: Trouble with wheels. - 01/29/16 06:38 PM

chariots used for war were introduced to the Egyptians
during an invasion , but that doesn't mean that the Egyptians
never used the wheel before that invasion.

and a 70 ton block distributed over 10 wheels is only
7 tons per wheel.

the Egyptians did use copper so with a few years of tinkering
with ways to move large blocks it seems to me that they
could have figured out how to copper clad a stone wheel
and axel to make a bearing that could be oiled.

or make solid copper wheels and axels.

cant say they were afraid of building large things ...

and after the pyramids were constructed they would have
melted them down for other uses.

we cant just say that they couldnt have done it unless
we have proof of how they did it , and we don't have that
proof.

we can only guess how they could have done it by the things
that they had access to and the precision that is seen in
their work and the types of things that they built.

we used the wheel for thousands of years before we started
building army tanks that are basically self propelled cannons
that have no purpose other than for war.

ie ... the first wheeled vehicles were not war machines.



a timeline for first uses of metals is in the below link.
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/trades/metals.htm

Quote:
Wood was at times covered with thin copper plating held in place by copper nails, like the door of the temple of Amen-Re at Karnak
Its great door was of cedar of the royal domain, wrought with [copper; the great name upon it] was of electrum.


so they did have copper 4000 - 3150 BCE
and even the harder bronze 3150 - 2300 BCE to use
to build with.

so your suggestion than the form was used as a copper form
may be correct.

maybe even a bronze form.

but in either case its shape lends itself to a wheel that
could travel easy on sand as the final product wheel would
have a V shape tread.

the V shape would keep the wheel from bogging down into
the sand better.

you would need to assemble 2 of the wheel halves together
to make 1 wheel.

I don't have the date of the forms construction and a cog
was the first thing that I thought of also ... they could
have even been forms for casting a clay mold to make a cog
or wheel.

if this was used to make a clay mold to use in cog making

ie... to use the clay mold to create a sand mold to cast
metal in.

then there is a lot more to their advancements in
technology than I had though of myself.

by the way the Egyptians did use molds to cast metal in.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~toxmetal/toxic-metals/more-metals/copper-history.html

Quote:
Most copper items in Egypt were produced by casting molten copper in molds. The Egyptians appear to have been one of several groups that independently developed the “lost-wax” method of casting, which is still used today. (Put simply, wax is formed into the shape of the end product, then covered in clay. The wax is melted out leaving a clay mold, which is then filled with molten copper. The mold is broken off when the metal is cool.)


Im thinking that the lost wax method wouldn't work so well
in Egypt because of the temperatures for such a large mold
and that is why they used shaped stones to render a clay
mold to use in making a sand cast.

what else could they be used for if not for making molds?


Posted by: Bill

Re: Trouble with wheels. - 01/29/16 11:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Paul
and a 70 ton block distributed over 10 wheels is only
7 tons per wheel.

The famous Conestoga Wagon, widely used in the United States, had a capacity of 6 tons. That's for 4 wheels. That's 1 1/2 tons per wheel. 7 tons per wheel might be a bit of an overload.

I keep saying: There is no reason to postulate some wonderful forgotten technological achievement to explain the building of the pyramids. They could have done it with the technology that we know they did have.

Bill Gill
Posted by: pokey

Re: Trouble with wheels. - 01/30/16 01:22 AM

This is how it was done: "http://www.thepump.org/video-series-2",... perhaps.

There is also as section on "why" it was done.
Posted by: paul

Re: Trouble with wheels. - 01/30/16 02:04 AM

Quote:
I keep saying: There is no reason to postulate some wonderful forgotten technological achievement to explain the building of the pyramids. They could have done it with the technology that we know they did have.


I agree that they could have done it with the technology that
they did have.

the ancient Egyptians had cattle and oxen.

this page says that oxen were used as working animals.

and has pictures of cattle and oxen --> PULLING <--- stuff.

and they had hordes of cattle , so the only way that they
would use man power to pull blocks would be if they didnt
have working animals strong enough to pull the blocks.

Quote:
Some of the desert Neolithic rock art and later Egyptian tomb scenes reveal interesting clues to the development of cattle breeds after their initial introduction. The most ancient rock art depicts cattle with long horns, including a lyri-form and a type with horns pointed forward. However, short horned and polled cattle appear more frequently in later tomb scenes, with the polled being more common than the short-horned cattle. It would seem that the long-horned cattle (ngiw), on the basis of artistic representations, were the oldest domestic cattle bred in Egypt. They were used both in religious sacrifices and for their meat, and long horned castrated (oxen) appear to have been working animals of choice.

Read more: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/cattle.htm#ixzz3ygnStXW5


http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/cattle.htm







knowing that they did have animals to pull ropes or wheeled
vehicles and they were already in use pulling plows and possibly other stuff it is really hard to imagine people
pulling on ropes to move the blocks much like it is hard
to imagine people today walking to work even though they
have a car sitting in their driveway gassed up and
ready to go.

only pure ignorance could deliver that type of thought
on how the blocks were moved.

and they don't look ignorant to me at all judging from
their accomplishments in fact I cant think of any other
ancient civilization that would come close to their intelligence.










Posted by: paul

Re: Trouble with wheels. - 01/30/16 02:52 AM

that's pretty clever , but how did they get all the water
into the locks all the way up to the top?

I already know how but was looking to see how they
were doing it and the videos seem to leave that important
part out.

its called the pyramid pump but wheres the pump?
Posted by: Bill

Re: Trouble with wheels. - 01/30/16 04:02 AM


Here we have a picture of Egyptians moving a large statue of Djehutihotep. He was a noble living around 1900 BCE. Please observe all the cattle pulling the sledge and all of the wheels on it. This picture was found in Djehutihoteps tomb.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Marchimedes

Again... - 01/30/16 06:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
I figured out how the pyramids could have been built. I worked for a decade moving and installing things like safes, vault doors, safe deposit boxes...

for a company so cheap we didn't even have a fork lift. I got real good at moving heavy, often with only the tools the Ancient Egyptians had at hand. All I've done is take that experience and apply it to building pyramids. Most everything I'm trying to show you now I've done. A friggin lot of times. This is not theory.


I wonder how many of you really know what heavy is. I know very well what a ton sitting on the ground takes to pick up and move. I know what 5,000 lbs. feels like. My reord is a 12,000 ol. vault door. Me and another skinny dude, between the two of use we weighed 340 lbs., moved, raised, installed and leveled it.

I've watched 5,000 lb capacity pallet jacks get crushed. I've seen cement floors crack. Grade 8 hardware break. I've bent solid steel levers. I appreciate the discusion in this thread but I question ya'lls understanding on just how heavy this stuff is and what it takes to move it. There is no substitute to gettin your hands dirty, sure, it all looks good on paper but the only time I used paper was to engineer sumpin I built to deal with this heavy stuff. Also, this is dangerous bidness. There are all kinds of procedures to observe, number one is to always assume sumpin is gonna fail and if it does you have nuttin under the weight and it's also a pretty good idea having planned before hand where you are gonna run to or hide.

Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying all this to no end but at times I just have to shake my head. We are still arguing about the wheel. There are axles and bearings to consider.

I also have my own take on beasts of burden...

Posted by: paul

Re: Trouble with wheels. - 01/30/16 08:30 PM

its awesome what can be drawn on a wall by a artist while
he is decorating a tomb.

1) the statue depicted has never been found even though
it is quite large.

2) even the artist shows that oxen and cattle were in use
at the time of the drawing.



find the above image in the below link and click on it to
get a larger view.

http://mdw-ntr.com/blog/articles/127-colossal-statue-of-djehuti-hotep

notice the cattle and oxen ( with yokes ) attached for pulling
at the left bottom of the image.

also the image depicts stones being transported by ships.

my thoughts , if they really did use man power only to move
the 2 ton stones ( possibly millions of them ) and they could
have used animal powered carts or sleds or wagons then they
were either actually a really stupid civilization or the
leaders of the time were much like our leaders are refusing
to use high tech in favor of low tech because of tax income.

even so the Abydos heavy lift helicopter pictured below
would have been the better choice for transporting the
stones and its cargo / lift bay would be perfect to carry
a rectangle 2 ton stone block.



however the helicopter has never been found either , nor the
yatch or the spaceship or hovercraft depicted by the artist
that made the carving.

http://www.booksfact.com/technology/ancient-technology/abydos-helicopter-in-egypt.html










Posted by: Marchimedes

The good news and the bad. - 01/31/16 12:10 AM

The good news is I have tomorrow off and have plenty of beer.

The bad news it that I haven't started in on the beer. Yet.

The good news is that I haven't started in on the beer. I tend to get to the point far quickerer.

The bad news is that when I gets to showing old stuff again I grow easily bored.

Folks, we are far from done with pyramids here. You've seen some, I've lost a lot of drawings over the years, moving truely heavy stuff, casing stones, methods of moving and stacking blocks, logistics, the labor force... more than I care to remember about right now. Here's a bit of what I have already drawn to come...



http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059369744

Consider the possibility that with each of those drawings comes the aspect of a long winded explanation.

Yea, we far from done here.

And then remember that when I get done with pyramids we get right back to "why the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate from our perspective."

Then "Man Made Shooting Stars" and "How To Divert An Earth Killing Asteroid."

And then stuff I've forgotten about at the moment.

-

Now, I could just go ahead and start posting images but I have a fairly solid rule of taking posts at the chronological time they appear. There be a few of those I've yet to get to. Sorry, a man's gots to have some procedures in place.

-

It's about time to crack a brew.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Permeability of stuff. - 01/31/16 01:10 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
you wouldn't need an air feed as the ground itself that
surrounds the pyramid will feed air down to the surface of
the ground water,


I have a massive problem with that.

Quote:
and the vacuum is produced by removing
oxygen from the air as the fire burns.


The vacuum is produced by hot gasses rising.

Quote:
and since there is a water well at the bottom of the pyramid
then the vacuum ( caused by the fire ) would pull water up into the passageways.

the water would not lift with the heat rising from the fire
and its a good thing that I didn't say that it would.




http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059369794

-

That's one post. Imagine how long it took me to do that?
Posted by: paul

Re: Permeability of stuff. - 01/31/16 01:52 AM

Quote:
I have a massive problem with that.


if you have ever installed a septic tank you know that
a water permeability test must be done first to ensure
that the tank can drain the water from the tank to the ground.

its to check the depth of the water table ( ground water )

if the water table is too high then the septic tank cant
drain properly and you cant get a permit.

when it rains the water soaks into the ground , the water
creates tiny water channels in the ground that get larger and larger as it gets deeper below ground.

these water channels are the way that air is fed into
the ground as the water you draw from a water well lowers
the ground water level ( water table ).

Quote:
The vacuum is produced by hot gasses rising.


you have probably seen this little experiment , notice that
the water is lifting in the glass with a vacuum created
as the match burns the oxygen from the inside of the glass.

Posted by: Marchimedes

And then we agree some... - 01/31/16 02:19 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
I know that many archeologist would have them cutting
the solid stone using birds feathers as saws.


I've seen evidence of them using coppers saws with sand as the abrasive. I have a drwaing that I have to recraft showing such. Know that errant cut on the sargophogus? I have a theory why that is.

Quote:
I think the Egyptians that built the pyramids were really smart


Necessity is the mother of invention.

Quote:
I also don't think the Egyptians that resurfaced everything built the pyramids.


Lettuce see some evidence of this theroy, please.

Quote:
people just don't give the Egyptians enough credit where
credit is clearly due.


What? I don't qualify as people?

-

Gentlemen, and I use that term loosely...

Again...

I call my theory of pyramid construction twiwdi (the way I would do it.) There is whole lot of stuff we have no evidence of the Egyptians having or using to effect. For sure there is zero evidence of animal intestines being used as a water level but then how long would animal intestines last if they weren't put into a sealed chamber of a Nobel gas or immersed in formaldihide? What I'm looking for here is any of the methods I come up with being impossible? I say I have this covered beginning to end. Yes, ya'll haven't seen it all, but how about so far? Seems to me we are working this through systematically. Seems to me we have the attention of this site. As this is a site of science what with the submission of plausible evidence we are gettin through this with the minimum level of BS. Lemme tell ya a story...

Remember this drawing... ?




That's a Walrus I chose as my beast of burden. I believe it was at a site titled "Above Top Secret." My thread title was "How to build a pyramid and the carnage that follows." One of my contentions was that the Egytians used Walrus as their beasts of burden cause Walrus work for fish and they were in the middle of a desert. I had people actually dismiss my theory cause I was using Walrus. It was bait. Give people a plausible theory, throw a bit of obvious nonsence in there and they focus on the nonsence. Human nature. Take a well thought out theory, throw in some humor and nonsence, take on all comers and next thing you know you have a half million view thread. I have this down to a science, I call it my formula. It has not failed me so I'm sticking to it but for some minor adaptations over the years. BTW, at "Above Top Secret" I announced I was gonna break their records. I got 5,000 views my first week. I obeyed the rules but was summarily banned for ever and ever, Amen. They had a vote as to who was the greatest poster. I won. But I was kicking teeth in and taking names. Apparently you can't have the new guy doing these things. I hope you people appreciate what a wonderful site you have going for you here. After all, ya'll put up with me.

-

See how the beer is taking affect?

-

So who is the next victim?

-

There's no way I'm gettin to new drawings tonight.
Posted by: Bill

Re: Trouble with wheels. - 01/31/16 03:42 AM

Paul, I showed a picture created by the ancient Egyptians that shows them moving a massive stone object on a wheelless sledge drawn by humans. You refuse to accept the evidence that that was a technique they used. But you argue for a technique for which there is no evidence. If you are so sure they did it with wheels and animals why don't you show us a picture that shows them using wheels and animals? Maybe because there aren't any?

I think that our viewers can now see that you really don't know what you are talking about, so I think that that is as far as I need to go on this thread.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Marchimedes

I need a break. - 01/31/16 05:34 AM

But I ain't taking one quite yet.

My fortitude is the thing of heroes.

Beer helps.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Ah. Why do I get the feeling that his former masters last names rhyme with words like "Astro" or "Spavez" or "Sputin?"


Originally Posted By: Orac
You would be correct my former masters were Russian, but I am not Russian a concept that sometimes seems to escape some especially in the USA.


Some? Lemme you in on a little secret there, Orac. Half of Americans shown a picture of the Vice-President can't tell you who that picture is but damn sure 90% of them can tell you which Kardashian has the fattest azz. I am, by any measurable test, in the top 1% of the top 1% of people world wide intelligence wise. That's just intelligence. Then comes memory, curiousness, adapability. To call me a genius would be an insult.

Here's where I stand on politics...



I'm The friggin Man.

This ain't no stinkin fluke, a one time thing. You should notice at that site I chose the name "teacher." I would have done the same here but that name was taken. My first name is Mark. So I threw a "M" at the front of Archimedes. "Lever long enough..." Get it? Thing is I'm wicked smart but look how hard I endevour to pass along my knowledge all the while trying to get some of the same outta the rest of ya.

Quote:
I just disagree totally with you and that makes me not your friend?


Nah, that just makes us advesaries at a debate site on a topic that I have a serious handle on.

Quote:
Do you know the fable of The Fox and the Crow?


Nope, hang on...

"A Fox once saw a Crow fly off with a piece of cheese in its beak and settle on a branch of a tree. "That's for me, as I am a Fox," said Master Reynard, and he walked up to the foot of the tree. "Good-day, Mistress Crow," he cried. "How well you are looking to-day: how glossy your feathers; how bright your eye. I feel sure your voice must surpass that of other birds, just as your figure does; let me hear but one song from you that I may greet you as the Queen of Birds." The Crow lifted up her head and began to caw her best, but the moment she opened her mouth the
piece of cheese fell to the ground, only to be snapped up by Master Fox. "That will do," said he. "That was all I wanted. In exchange for your cheese I will give you a piece of advice for the future.""

How does that Aesop's Fable apply to me?

Quote:
On the other side I am open to changing my opinion on things, something most on here are not.


I don't know about "most." Maybe "many."

Quote:
I am can also sometimes be wrong, as opposed to most on the forum who are never wrong.


I have a little theory about that. I get to type, I get to check what I type. I live in fear of what I typed being proven wrong. You will not often see me post "is." You'll see me often type "I've read" or "it's been reported" Have you ever seen me say "this is how the Egyptians built the pyramids?" You will only see me say that "the way I would do it" or "I think." I call it The Queen's English. If you catch me doing otherwise it's a typo or just a plain mistake. A favour, Orac, if I ever break the typo or mistake rule, call me on it. It's a Helluva thing, Orac, remaining undefeated, retaining dominance in a world of text. Again, I look to The Queen's English. Further more, when I find someone that knows more than I I follow them around asking questions till they tell me to go away.

Quote:
It was dangerous to be too insistent on being "right" in my upbringing.


I say that that is a dangerous thing in any society if one wants to be taken seriously on any topic. Again, why do you think I am so careful with my language?

Quote:
You might guess my education is what you call may call the "comrade school of learning"


A C.C.C.P. nation?

Quote:
and that they didn't paint a good picture of pharaohs. You can probably guess how Egyptian civilization is regarded by communists or socialists.


I'm, politically, a Libertarian. No, not the nut kind of libertarian, not the anarchist libertarian, not the "lettuce legalize heroin and cocaine" libertarian. There's a name for my kind of Libertarianism. It's called a consequential Libertarian, or a Neal Boortz Libertarian, or, what I call the "Perfect Libertarain." Socialy liberal, fiscally and national security wise conservative. A mantra is that if it does nuttin to bother someone alses life, liberty or property make no law about it. Leave me the f alone.

Yea, the Egyptians were top down total authoritarians.

Quote:
So maybe I am just brainwashed


I prefere the term "indocrinated."

Quote:
or maybe I just genuinely can't find a single thing to admire or like about this civilization.


They built some mighty structures will simple tools.

-

We'll get to the Aramanth Rose II deal when I get to her post.

Nice chat, comrade. (Can you take that joke yet?)

-

For sure English ain't your first language, but you are doing well. Sprechen sie Deutch?

-

I gots to go get to my political site to make sure they are all behaving.
Posted by: Marchimedes

I been looking forward to this one. - 01/31/16 07:41 AM

This shall be a study of delicate recalcitrance.

Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
Hi, Marchy, welcome back.


Why thank you, dear, how kind of you to say.

Quote:
Just stick to the topic


See, right there we have kind of a problem. I started with the universe, now we on pyramids. Pretty soon we gonna be on obelisks, then back to new stuff on the universe.

Here's my take, Ms. Rose II. This is a Marchimedes/teacher thread. I've a gazillion subjects to cover, some of them overlap, some of them don't, Rest assured, I shall always endvour to make a scientific theme that runs together. To space these themes out amoung different threads, that different forums is gonna confusify the reader let alone my own self. For intance, if I am going on and on and on about the universe and how it works, does not solar, galaxial, universal orbital mechanics all come into play together? Should I have to post hither and yon that they all obey the same physics?

Quote:
and don't stray into the outer realms of believability too far.


Please to find me one instance where I have went beyond believablility.

Quote:
No personal attacks,


Way I remember it Orac started in on me first, I finished it with extreame predjudice. In other words, I won going away. My only beef with you is that you yelled at me first when he swtarted it.

Quote:
keep it polite and respectful of your audience and you'll be fine. I may not agree with what you say


Is there some rule here that states that a moderator can't debate a member?

Quote:
but I will defend to the death your right to say it


Then we are kindred spirits.

Quote:
as long as you are not being offensive or crude deliberately.


To be honest with you, I'm working very hard about that at this site.

Quote:
Descend into the depths of personal remarks and you will incur my wrath which I'm sure you don't want to do.


Bah. I am admin at a interweb political debate forum where the members hate each other like poison and I'm in charge of keeping the peace. Worst you get is steady state or multidemnsional. Higgs or not to Higgs. I throw this at them...



Lady, you gots it easy.

Quote:
Hope you have a good time.


Find me a Swinging Richard that has more fun than I!

Quote:
Please be considerate.


All in all, I think I'm doing very well cents my last azz chewing. I am a Mighty US of A Army veteran. I can take an azz chewing without cracking a grin and stroll away skipping.

I am front and center, ma'am, message received, I am standing to.

-

1/24/16 - 291/539,204

Seven days later, right now...

1/31/16 - 347/545,171

That's 6k in a week.

If I stay on this, the rate of increase shall increase.

That's bank. Numbers don't lie.

-

Not so far now from new stuff. Then it's gonna start gettin interesting.
Posted by: paul

Re: Trouble with wheels. - 01/31/16 02:37 PM

OK...then lets be fair about it heres a drawing that
proves how the ancient Indians traveled amongst the galaxies.

its a drawing so its proof.
no solid evidence needed , just someone in the past with
an imagination and some water colors.




Quote:
Paul, I showed a picture created by the ancient Egyptians that shows them moving a massive stone object on a wheelless sledge drawn by humans.


the picture that you showed was a reconstruction of the actual
drawings inside the tomb ... what I showed was the WHOLE reconstructed image along with pictures of the actual wall
drawings.

Quote:
You refuse to accept the evidence that that was a technique they used.


a drawing on a wall is not evidence now is it.

evidence would be the statue that hasn't been found or
the sleds that were depicted and ropes they used.

anyone can draw anything on a wall , just like the helicopter
and the yatch and spaceship and hovercraft that I posted a actual picture of that is a actual carving on a actual Egyptian wall.

whats the difference between what I posted and what you posted?

Quote:
But you argue for a technique for which there is no evidence.


then where is the evidence that you haven't yet shown that
could be used as evidence.

or do you want me to believe that all ancient drawings are
of actual events and physical objects and can be used as
evidence , lets see how about folklore and ancients writings
can all of these also be used as evidence?

Quote:
If you are so sure they did it with wheels and animals why don't you show us a picture that shows them using wheels and animals? Maybe because there aren't any?


Im not so sure , not at all ... there is no evidence to be
sure about.

Quote:
I think that our viewers can now see that you really don't know what you are talking about, so I think that that is as far as I need to go on this thread.


Im not sure why you would say that , you certainly haven't presented any believable evidence that ropes were used.

if you have then I have presented evidence that they had
helicopters , yatchs , spaceships and hovercraft now haven't I?

broad statements that have absolutely no evidence to
support them seem to be a integral part of modern science.

Posted by: Orac

I built the pyramids - 02/01/16 07:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
How does that Aesop's Fable apply to me?

I can't imagine smile

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Yea, the Egyptians were top down total authoritarians.

Yep and the guys at the tops were Gods and could do anything they wanted. They had massive brains and ego as well and strangely they remind me of someone.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
They built some mighty structures will simple tools.

I can think of some equally impressive structures in USA, start with the US Capitol Building and White House. Not bad work for a group of Afro-American slaves with little education and probably getting regular floggings and sexual abuse. Really not bad workmanship, I think I would have been tempted to do a shoddy job and hoped it fell on the people inside.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Nice chat, comrade. (Can you take that joke yet?)

You are ex American Army so do you get this joke?

Nice chatting, American Imperialist Facist Oppressor (Can you take that joke yet?).

I left off the various war crime atrocities I could have used in the description in good taste.

You have fought against an enemy, I am surprised you thought it would be funny. Perhaps you were just a cook in the army.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
For sure English ain't your first language, but you are doing well. Sprechen sie Deutch?

Ein Freund ging nach Amerika

Good luck with the Politics and Pyramids, Mach smile
Posted by: Marchimedes

A drawing revision. - 02/01/16 11:46 PM

Remember, folks, this site seriously downsizes my drawings that why I'm posting drawings at my political site. I've asked and asked and asked for help with this dilema to no avail. The ammount of work I would have to do to break images up and post them here sos they would be readable is sumpin I care not to do. The links I'll be posting will take you to my thread at liberalforum.org, thread titled "...and the horse you rode in on. My links shall take you right to the drawings, you don't have to be bothered with my politics. I stongly suggest, especialy if you aren't a constitutional conservative, to NOT stray away from the linked drawings. Don't say I didn't warn you. I'd far rather be able to post large drawings here, but there ya go.

First off is a drawing revision about the propect of creating a vacuum with fire. I did my drawing, asked a bud, a good ol' boy with solid mechanical reasoning to give it a go over, he failed me not thus the revision. Also remember, when you see this image...



I'm lettin you know that the link takes you to a different site. Fair warning. Now would be one of those times...

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059370475

In this case scroll down two posts to see good ol' boys answer. It's rather ammusing. Good ol' boy is known as Chuck!, I call him lowrent.

-

Now, we are gettin into the weeds a bit here in this thread. It would take a lot of time to address ropes, ships, wheels, bearings, axles, the casting of metal and on and on and on.

Not to mention helicopters and spaceships.

We gots all the time in the world to go over these ancillary things and you know me, we'll get to them all but I'm making an exuctive decision here to get to the meat. I shall do one more post before gettin to twiwdi to answer a recent post by Orac as I find it ammusing.

Remember, the recent topic in this thread is how I would have built the pryamids. Not saying this is how it was done, oh yea, and after Orac one more post that should alleviate some minds.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Ladies, gentlemen and Orac... Orac. - 02/02/16 12:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
How does that Aesop's Fable apply to me?


Originally Posted By: Orac
I can't imagine smile


Yea, you are coming along just fine.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Yea, the Egyptians were top down total authoritarians.


Quote:
Yep and the guys at the tops were Gods and could do anything they wanted. They had massive brains and ego as well and strangely they remind me of someone.




Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
They built some mighty structures will simple tools.


Quote:
I can think of some equally impressive structures in USA, start with the US Capitol Building and White House. Not bad work for a group of Afro-American slaves with little education and probably getting regular floggings and sexual abuse. Really not bad workmanship, I think I would have been tempted to do a shoddy job and hoped it fell on the people inside.


I see you throwing some politics in there. Sure you want to do that with me?

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Nice chat, comrade. (Can you take that joke yet?)


Quote:
You are ex American Army so do you get this joke?

Nice chatting, American Imperialist Facist Oppressor (Can you take that joke yet?).


Do I appear to have a thin skin? Sure I can take it. However: If Americans were imperialists we would be ruling Kuwait and Iraq. Facism is where Mother government controls bidness.

Quote:
I left off the various war crime atrocities I could have used in the description in good taste.


If you really want to get into all that politics come join liberalforum.org and find the "...and the horse you rode in on" thread. Just be warned there are barely any rules and I have dominated for years.

Quote:
You have fought against an enemy, I am surprised you thought it would be funny.


Nah, I was peace time, 1981 - 1987. Uncle Sam had his chance to get me dead.

Quote:
Perhaps you were just a cook in the army.


Now that's funny. Go look up Army MOS requirements, go right to the top of the scale and there ya go.

Ni zhidao wode yisa ma?

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
For sure English ain't your first language, but you are doing well. Sprechen sie Deutch?


Quote:
Ein Freund ging nach Amerika


Gut genung.

Quote:
Good luck with the Politics and Pyramids, Mach smile


Thanks, but luck ain't gots Jack to do with it.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Lions and tigers and wheels, oh my. - 02/02/16 01:15 AM

So we are pondering wheeels, axles, bearings, tracks, carts and what not to move blocks on. Take this drawing...



http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059371509

Imagine instead of switchback stairs they are swichback ramps. rails, turntables, whatever. I imagined this over a decade ago.

A problem or two I have with this idea. There's always a direct downhill. Sumpin gets outta hand it's carnage below. There must always be a safety brake. I learned this moving heavy stuff for a living.

Remember my safety briefing long ago?

Oh yea, we have to load blocks onto carts and unload them. I can do this easy. Thing is, there's some 2.3 million of the average blocks that make up the pyramid. That's 4.6 extra million steps to take.

Ya'll so friggin smart, show us how to load then unload a block safely.

That's right, it's all fun and games until you have to think.

-

Okay, I think we are here. Drawing time. I'm gonna need a short break, I should probably make an Iowa statement on my political site and there's always some malcontent to deal with, dontchya know Ms. Rose II?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Here we go... - 02/02/16 04:16 AM

These are all the old pyramid construction images I found. All are over decade old. By my standards these days they are horrible, but they start to get the job done. I can now, in MSPaint, draw 3d to scale, but, like I said, I'm lazy. Please to forgive the atrocious Queen's English, the out of order, the convolutedness of it all. I did not scan and put stuff in order, I just blazed with it. Still, that is a frigggin ton of work, I dare you to say I did not put some work/thought into this. As always, I'm looking for peer review. You see a mistake? Come guns a blazing. There's holes in this, I'm missing a lot of hard work. So, this would be 26 drawings spread over 5 posts. I don't have quarrying stones, I don't have moving big stones, I don't have the very involved details of manipulating heavy, I don't have the fabricating and setting of casing stones, I don't have logistics, I don't have labor force, there's buku I don't have. To be honest with you, I haven't put much thought into this for a decade. I can't imagine how much I've forgot. Ever heard the old saying "I've forgotten more than you'll ever know?" Tell ya what I do have... start at this link and go till you run outta drawings...



http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059371566

Bring the questions, bring the ideas, bring the insults. I take on all comers.

I understand I've some holes to fill in. No big deal. Remember, I moved safes for a friggin decade often with the same tools the ancient Egpytians had. I am the quintisential blue collar man. I can sand rust offa metal with the callouses on the palms on my hands.

I can't wait to get into the mindset of the workers.

Lemme say it again: I am the world's foremost authority on pyramid construction.

-

Please to excuse me, Ms. Rose II, for any untoward language in my images. Just lazy, no disrespect intended.

-

Now, who wants to raise an obelisk? No easy feat, that.
Posted by: Marchimedes

I think we shall chat a while... - 02/02/16 07:21 AM

it needs doing. For this chat we shall go Pink Floyd Animals full album.

Let's ya'll know where my mind is at.

"And when you loose control, you'll reap the harvest you have sown.
And as the fear grows, the bad blood slows and turns to stone.
And it's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw
around.
So have a good drown, as you go down, all alone,
Dragged down by the stone."

So, a good start on constructing a pyramid.

Now we gonna raise one of these...



http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059371686

They big, they tall, they ungainly, they just friggin work for me.

All this stuff I used to construct my pyramid? Gonna use all that to raise my obelisk, after all, said stuff is laying around, gots my workers who know well how to use all said stuff, what could be more efficient or simpler?

An aside: I've read/saw/watched most every Swinging Richard's idea as how to move and stack heavy. I've found most all of them wanting. Dogging all these so-called theories will take a long series of posts. I've taken a two ton safe from the parking lot and put it up on the sidewalk a thousand times. I wonder how many times a bespectacled, leather elbow patched, tweed jacket wearing, pipe smoking, papered Oxford proffesor has done that? Wally Walllington has some game. Julian Richards is a friggin joke. Bob Brier is clueless. Henri Houdin couldn't change a tire on a bicycle. It's a shame Zahi Hawass is such an arogent non-swarthy type hater as he has some good ideas, far as who the labor force was. I know of more fellows. The only one I would trust holding the end of a lever would be Wally. That's a lot of theories by a lot of papered men but hardly any of them can take one of these...



and have their way with it all by their damn self.

Any time anyone of you wants to give me someone elses ideas go right ahead. Dollars to dounts I can find a flaw.

Find a flaw with me yet? Again, I'm blue collar, everything I've said that can be done I've probably done it and not got flat. There is no BSing a decade of hands on experience.

Took me the entire Animals album to pen that. You can't say I ain't putting the time in.

Howz about Megadeth Countdown to Extinction Full Album to raise an obelisk?
Posted by: Marchimedes

What? It's a Marchimedes thread. - 02/02/16 08:54 AM

It's so simple it's mind blowing. This one is gonna be seven(7) posts, 35 images...


[url=http://postimage.org/]

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059371734

Lot of info, follow it to the end.

I'm gonna heat some food up and then come back for some thoughts/abuse.

Lemmme know if the links or such don't work, no big deal, I have it all submitted at the horse thread. It's gonna blow minds there. Too.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Lions and tigers and wheels, oh my. - 02/02/16 09:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Ya'll so friggin smart, show us how to load then unload a block safely.

Safely??? ... Don't you just throw it off the cart trying to kill as few serfs or slaves as possible?

If you kill a few doing God's work then it's okay, it's a fairly common theme with religions. Thou shall not kill unless in Gods name, maybe it was the same with these clowns.

As you are the foremost authority on the pyramids the question is do we know if they cared if they killed a few in the building process. I mean do we have evidence that work overseers were charged with negligence or held responsible if someone died?

The great wall, is suggested by most authorities, to have cost 1 million people their lives. The various Emperor's were probably prepared to sacrifice 100 times that number.

To build the good old USA it cost what 750,000 in the civil war. Some people still think that it was worth the loss. The British had already shown you could outlaw slavery by peaceful means. So one is left to ask what the war was really about, and was it worth the lives it cost.

So do we know these Egyptian builders weren't just cannon fodder like so many others in history?
Posted by: Marchimedes

The ends justifies the means. - 02/02/16 09:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Orac
Ya'll so friggin smart, show us how to load then unload a block safely.


Ya'll is for many, you're is for one.

Haven't I shown enough of my knowledge tonight?

Did you follow the links?

Think I can't draw up unloading a block from a cart safely?

I can do that crap, alone, in my sleep. safely.

Quote:
Safely??? ... Don't you just throw it off the cart trying to kill as few serfs or slaves as possible?


Serfs and slaves? These men were knowlagable, experienced men. Not litely tossed aside. The difference between your world and mine, comrade.

I guess we get right back to politics. In my nation, I am valuble.

Quote:
If you kill a few doing God's work then it's okay,


We don't do that in my nation. Ivan.

Quote:
it's a fairly common theme with religions.


I'm a Christian. That would be a religion. In my so-called religion that is not a theme. We look out for each other. Just shows how ignorant you are.

Quote:
As you are the foremost authority on the pyramids the question is do we know if they cared if they killed a few in the building process.


No we don't. But that would be very cost uneffective. Smart leaders tend not to off those that save them cash and get the job done.

Quote:
I mean do we have evidence that work overseers were charged with negligence or held responsible if someone died?


Neither do we have evidence that they weren't held responcible. Don't play strawman with me, sport.

Quote:
The great wall is suggested by most authorities to have cost 1 million people their lives but what is that to the Emperor's they were probably prepared to sacrifice 100 times that number.


That is China, China is not Egypt, Egypt is not China, China, just look at today, China is not America.

Jintian, wode zhongwen zhen shi buhoa. Kushi, wo dong Zhonguoren gen wo dong Meiguoren. Wo xiang, ni die xiang.

You want to try to bust my chops on politics, I done told you this is not the place. I done told you where to try that weak.

You can take your stinkin colllective and wait in line for bread before you go home to your one light bulb apartment.

Somebody has to be the best, turns out I'm the best, What are the odds that you had to run into me?
Posted by: Orac

Re: The ends justifies the means. - 02/02/16 10:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
We don't do that in my nation. Ivan.

Really I know a few who have been on the back of drone strikes that may beg to differ. You know the saying one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
I'm a Christian. That would be a religion. In my so-called religion that is not a theme. We look out for each other. Just shows how ignorant you are.

I think the ones running around with a black flag fighting you claim the same thing. Hard for us ignorant atheists to know which of you religious guys to believe.

Tell you what slug it out and I will go with the winner being the right religion.

Quote:
No we don't. But that would be very cost uneffective. Smart leaders tend not to off those that save them cash and get the job done.

Doesn't cost much less than the cost of a good meal for a GOD probably.

Originally Posted By: Mach
Neither do we have evidence that they weren't held responcible. Don't play strawman with me, sport.

So that would be like most of your construction evidence then? Now be consistent, if that is a strawman then so is your construction ideas.

Originally Posted By: Mach
That is China, China is not Egypt, Egypt is not China, China, just look at today, China is not America.

There is a difference? Sorry I don't see and I have lived in both countries, there are just some creature comfort differences for the most part.

Originally Posted By: Mach
You want to try to bust my chops on politics, I done told you this is not the place. I done told you where to try that weak.

Politics I care for about as much as religion, a process run by people of dubious morals and intelligence.

Originally Posted By: Mach
You can take your stinkin colllective and wait in line for bread before you go home to your one light bulb apartment.

Oh no they always feed and look after us scientists well .. they wants them little edges on the other guys.

I do equally well in good old USA, China, Russia or any other political system. I am currently in your country so if the lights go out for me they will be out for you slightly before that.

We have drifted a long way from the poor insignificant Egyptians, lets get back to them.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Shut up! - 02/02/16 10:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Orac
Really I know


You don't know Jack, You are a nasty, igonorant malcontent. I done told you where to deal with me if you want to go politics...

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/

This is a site of science. If you have a beef with me on the universe or the moving and stacking of heavy stuff make your case.

This is not the site to advance your communist manifesto.

Quote:
I do equally well in good old USA, China, Russia or any other political system.


Talk is cheap. You can't talk your way outta wet paper sack.

You are so lucky I obey the rules here.

Move along, junior!

And really, learn how to quote, I'm tired of trying to repair your posts.

Posted by: Orac

Please have the pulpit - 02/02/16 11:54 AM

LOL if I disagree with you I am nasty, a troll or a malcontent ... sorry I don't agree with your view it's not a crime. I have done nothing to attack you personally, I just can't follow your logic.

You present ideas of how the Pyramids were built with no evidence and that is fine with you. If I suggest that the people may have been treated a certain way with no evidence then it is a strawman argument. I have asked a number of times can we treat all ideas consistently please.

All I am doing is forcing you to face the reverse of your argument and hence you must prove it. It is what all good scientists do, because the easiest person to fool is yourself. It isn't me you are getting upset at it's science process which forces you to consider the reverse argument. If your idea was sound you wouldn't be getting upset you would be producing evidence. So I made my case and you don't like it.

I was struggling to work out, if you are genuinely trying to to discuss ideas or just trying to preach some crazy unfounded idea at us.

If you don't want me to discuss your ideas that is fine, don't pretend you want to discuss it. I don't care enough about this deadbeat civilization (my bias I know), one way or another, but then don't direct responses and post titles at me. I generally answer any and all questions, even uncomfortable ones, which I am sure many on here will testify too.

I am an atheist for both religion and politics, they are both jokes which groups of people try to palm off as necessary. I am about as likely to go to a political forum as a religious one.

I am not sure why you think I care about some vodka swilling riff raff, any more than I care what the good old USA does or doesn't do ... but hey this discussion doesn't seem to have any logic. Suddenly I am a commie, ignoring the fact I would most likely be killed by them given half a chance.

Now apparently I can't talk and I am lucky you obey some rules, so we are all clear on that so I guess we will be moving right along.

As for quoting errors let me paraphrasing your response to me, "why do I care".

We do allow non science discussion on the forum now, so you have the floor and I will happily ignore you.

No let the sermon continue .... I promise I won't comment anymore unless you directly ask something to me.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: Please have the pulpit - 02/02/16 04:23 PM

Did you make a joke there in the Re: window?

Originally Posted By: Orac
LOL if I disagree with you I am nasty, a troll or a malcontent ... sorry I don't agree with your view it's not a crime. I have done nothing to attack you personally, I just can't follow your logic.


You're the one that started in with the proletariet stuff.

Quote:
You present ideas of how the Pyramids were built with no evidence and that is fine with you.


There is hardly evidence as to how the pyramids could have built. Many of my ideas use this lack of evidence, wait for it, as evidence.

Quote:
If I suggest that the people may have been treated a certain way with no evidence


And there ya go.

Quote:
All I am doing is forcing you to face the reverse of your argument and hence you must prove it.
How many friggin times to I have to say that this is not necessarily how it was done. This is The WAY I Would Do It (twiwdi)

Quote:
It is what all good scientists do, because the easiest person to fool is yourself.


I've moved too many safes and vault doors to have to proove anything to myself.

Quote:
It isn't me you are getting upset at


It was your politics and all men have always been oppressed that gets me upset.

Quote:
I was struggling to work out, if you are genuinely trying to to discuss ideas or just trying to preach some crazy unfounded idea at us.[quote]

Struggle away.

[quote]I am an atheist for both religion and politics, they are both jokes which groups of people try to palm off as necessary.


There ya go again.
I am about as likely to go to a political forum as a religious one.

Quote:
I am not sure why you think I care about some vodka swilling riff raff, any more than I care what the good old USA does or doesn't do ...[/quote}

You certainly had plenty to say about America yesterday.

[quote]I promise I won't comment anymore unless you directly ask something to me.


Sure, just how much did you pay for a muffler?
Posted by: Orac

Re: Please have the pulpit - 02/02/16 05:40 PM

Not sure if you want me to answer that or not it's semi directed??????

Lets just pick up the relevant thing

Originally Posted By: mach
This is The WAY I Would Do It (twiwdi)

That isn't Science it's something for a handyman man forum and I am not being nasty but that is what it is.

Google: "handiman forum how to lift a large rock" will get you lots of like minded people to discuss it with. There is also a guy called Wally Wallington who plays around lifting stonehenge like pillars by himself and he has a discussion forum (http://www.theforgottentechnology.com). He has played with Egyptian hoists so someone to bounce things off. So there are a couple of options who would probably love to discuss your ideas.

I only do science so please don't even reference stuff to me and I will leave you to it.
Posted by: Marchimedes

It's official... - 02/02/16 06:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
There is also a guy called Wally Wallington who plays around lifting stonehenge like pillars by himself and he has a discussion forum (http://www.theforgottentechnology.com). He has played with Egyptian hoists so someone to bounce things off.


Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Wally Wallington has some game... The only one I would trust holding the end of a lever would be Wally.


you don't do the reading. I say you are just here to rattle my cage.

I've talked to Wally, he says my ideas would work. Says they are different than his, but they work.

Any more smart azz comments?
Posted by: paul

Re: Please have the pulpit - 02/02/16 07:19 PM

Quote:
That isn't Science it's something for a handyman man forum


funny how most of the so called scientist ideas form and are
discovered in handyman forums as the scientist don't
seem to have enough head on their shoulders and are so
afraid of trying anything new due to peer pressure so they
troll around looking for their next idea.

without the tinkerer and handyman types those who have the
skill and curiosity to discover new things the so called scientist types would never discover anything at all.

so this is the right place to discuss it , because the
trolls of science searching for new things to lay claim on don't hang around in these boring science forums.
Posted by: Marchimedes

I AM a handyman. - 02/02/16 08:23 PM

Quote:
That isn't Science it's something for a handyman man forum


Originally Posted By: paul
funny how most of the so called scientist ideas form and are
discovered in handyman forums as the scientist don't
seem to have enough head on their shoulders and are so
afraid of trying anything new due to peer pressure so they
troll around looking for their next idea.

without the tinkerer and handyman types those who have the
skill and curiosity to discover new things the so called scientist types would never discover anything at all.

so this is the right place to discuss it , because the
trolls of science searching for new things to lay claim on don't hang around in these boring science forums.


I been using this one for years...

You know how logs are knotched at the ends to the middle of the logs fit snuggly?



Who do you think first thought of that? A guy in the woods with an axe with winter coming on or a tweed jacket wearing Oxford professor?
Posted by: Orac

Re: Please have the pulpit - 02/02/16 11:22 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
so this is the right place to discuss it , because the trolls of science searching for new things to lay claim on don't hang around in these boring science forums.

That is your view and you are entitled to it.

To make this understandable to you, you are a member of a religion and you can't change the rules how that religion works can you? If you want to change the rules then you have to form you own religion.

Scientific rigour isn't decided by me your or anyone else on this backwater science forum or any science forum, and we can't change it.

Feel free to make your own version of science but posting on here complaining about how science should change this or that is a waste of time and effort. You have been doing it for how many years here now, and no-one in science cares.

Do you think the Pope cares if you post about how the rules of the Roman Catholic church should change? Same problem, You or I don't have the capacity to change the rules.

What gets tiresome is layman who can't even bother to learn the rules of science complaining and getting agro about those rules being applied to their discussions. It's a science forum we are supposed to apply the rules of science and that should not cause agro as it's outside our control.

Rose my dear, can I offer a suggestion why don't we have a section on the site called "Science and or it's rules are wrong/bad and I would like to discuss my topic under how science should work which is better". Sort of a nice positive neutral tone. To be honest I don't mind if you make a section called "Evil, Bad ungodly fantasy science" where we have discussions with science norms, so at least I know what standards we are using. Would seem to stop a certain amount of agro on the site by keeping the two groups apart. At the moment it's confusing when people want to discuss things using actual science or use something else.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Please have the pulpit - 02/03/16 06:59 AM

For the record scientists don't build houses. We leave that to Engineers, Builders and some woodsman to do. You probably need to find a more relevant example to attack us evil no good for nothing scum with. We are far to busy playing with the fun stuff like nukes in our tweed suits to get our hands dirty. Besides what would the Engineers do if we solved building problems.

I can't even master setting up a good beer keg and you really want me to build your house? I serve a pretty mean foam in a cup.

Scientists didn't build the first boat (Noah - farmer), car (Ford - machinist), train (Watt - Engineer) or plane (Wright bothers - Machinists) either along with long lists of other things. So as inventors of all the important things in life us poor scientists are hopeless, I have no idea why people keep us around. Machemedes is into politics it's probably a question for his forum. Paul phone your political representative and get on this, demand they pull all science funding and give it to the woodsman.

Again discussion not relevant to science but I readily agree you are correct, the wood cabin join would never have been discovered by any scientist.

It is also highly likely no scientist will work out how the pyramids were built mainly because of the way the discipline works. We will leave that honor to Engineers, Builders, Woodsman, Archaeologists or Machemedes and there is nothing wrong with that. I have already accepted I can't setup a keg, and trust me that is far worse to me.
Posted by: paul

Re: evil no good for nothing scum - 02/03/16 01:07 PM

Quote:
For the record scientists don't build houses. We leave that to Engineers, Builders and some woodsman to do. You probably need to find a more relevant example to attack us evil no good for nothing scum with.


it took a while to find something that you guys had done
mostly because I was trying to think of something good for
humanity , that's when I decided that I was looking in the wrong direction... and then this came in to mind
as soon as I changed my search or thought pattern.



your right you evil no good for nothing scum never do
build anything , but you sure are good at destroying things.

hows that for relativity , scum.

Quote:
I can't even master setting up a good beer keg and you really want me to build your house? I serve a pretty mean foam in a cup.


which is exactly why I don't think you guys should be allowed
to play with toys such as the LHC that engineers and construction workers designed and built for you so that you
could accomplish squat after squat after squat.

you are waaaaaaaaaay to prone to be brain dead from all the
alcohol and drugs you consume not to mention the fantasy existence that you reside in and believe in as if it
is were reality.






Posted by: paul

I predict that Machimedes will post next... - 02/03/16 01:40 PM

Quote:
a section on the site called "Science and or it's rules are wrong/bad and I would like to discuss my topic under how science should work which is better". Sort of a nice positive neutral tone.


I think that there should be 2 separate forums that describe
the contents of each forum.

1) Actual Science : where fantasy is not allowed.
where all post must be accompanied by links to evidence
of a actual physical occurrence or event or property.
where the math is not designed to fulfill some theory or
support a theory but to check the theory for correctness
using math elements that mirror actual physical elements
not fantasy or imagined math elements.


2) Fake Science : not actual science but more of
a game where fantasy is not only allowed but encouraged.
and the dungeon masters create all the rules to the game
as the game is played and as deemed necessary to support
the previous rules and the popularity of the game using
rigged rules and loaded dice.







Posted by: Marchimedes

Orac, I'm coming to get you. - 02/03/16 05:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac

Rose my dear, can I offer a suggestion why don't we have a section on the site called "Science and or it's rules are wrong/bad and I would like to discuss my topic under how science should work which is better".


Ms. Rose II, my dear. I would like to make a counter offer.

How a bout we start a sub forum? Some possible titles:

1, Marchimedes and what he thinks.
The Deuce. Marchimedes, handyman extrodinaire.
Carps. THe Marchimedes show.
IV. Marchimedes, scinetist of redneck engineer?

Ms. Rose II, I have buku outside of the box ideas, I haven't even scratched the surface here, I have posted 189 times and so far have 547,226 views. Imgine what I could get with several thousand posts?



Of course I'm being sarcastic here but see what I mean?

So, Orac, you really gonna sit there in your Mother's basement typing with one hand and say there is zero science in this thread? Go google the physics of the lever, for starters.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Oh no they got me ... help - 02/04/16 05:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
So, Orac, you really gonna sit there in your Mother's basement typing with one hand and say there is zero science in this thread? Go google the physics of the lever, for starters.

Scientists only deal with the discovery they don't deal with the application that is what an ENGINEER does. That is why a scientist would never have invented a boat,plane,train or car.

Originally Posted By: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer
An engineer is a practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics, and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical, societal and commercial problems.

So on a science forum you are generally dealing with trying to understand things or challenge science. On an engineering forum you would be generally dealing with how to implement.

Handyman I guess we best describe as layman engineers, they are trying to implement things without a formal qualification but using lots of experience. I believe that describes you.

So depending on what you are asking about a lever problem it would depend which forum is best for it. If you are asking what is the best way to use levers etc then it's an engineering forum a scientist can't help you. If you were trying to challenge or understand how a lever works, you would go to a science forum.

So I don't believe you are challenging or need me to explain how a lever works, you know all that. So there isn't much I or any other scientist is going to be able to help you with. What you seem to be asking is whats the best way to implement things and that is an engineering question. An engineer can help you and will be interested and scientist will go who cares and walk away.

It isn't about whether there is science in a lever, more is the question being asked science or engineering?

I am not saying what you are asking is wrong or bad, I think you are on the wrong forum. That is I am actually trying to help you, but getting insulted in the process. My thinking is you want an engineer not a scientist. You curveballed me at the start because you seemed interested in the history and archaeology but you since refined what you want to your TWIWDI theory.

On an engineering forum they will discuss levers in ways that we never would on a science forum and I think that is what you seem to be after. Sort of confirmed by your having discussions with Wally Wallington.

Machemdedes, for all Paul's interest in this subject his contribution to whatever you seem to be after appears to be about zero. About all he seems to be contributing lately is smartazz comments which noone even bothers with or complaining science is evil/bad because it killed my god, sob sob. On most things you two are completely at odds, the Egyptians have wheel, rope, lasers ... I lost track. I don't see that anyone here seems to be helping your discussion and I certainly have lost interest in it now I understand what you want to discuss. Bill G knows better and has run away.

So lets make this real simple, why do you want a Scientist to discuss this not an Engineer?
The extension question to that is, on this forum how can we help you?
Posted by: paul

Re: Oh no they got me ... help - 02/04/16 03:59 PM

Quote:
An engineer is a practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge,


Quote:
Scientists only deal with the discovery they don't deal with the application that is what an ENGINEER doe


it appears to me that Marchimedes is dealing with the
discovery of how the pyramids were constructed and I doubt
that he will be building a pyramid ... so he wont be
applying his discoveries just trying to discover how the
pyramids were constructed.

you on the other hand offer him the common everyday
grade school lip service that you were taught as a child
and still are.

I understand both science and engineering so I can understand
why you are having troubles comprehending how work is applied
in construction techniques that you don't understand and probably never will.

were not trying to get you orac , you do that yourself on
a daily basis ... anyone who reads this forum fully understands
that you are a repeater of discoveries not a discoverer.

and I fully understand that because of your social contacts
you cannot stray from what you have been taught until consensus
deems that a change is necessary.

so even though I do call you dummer than dirt a lot
its mostly to get your goat or pull your chain.

to me its really dumb to settle for things I am told to be
the truth when I know that those things are false or could
be done in other more feasible or economical ways to produce the same result.

and the reason why scientist never did really accomplish
anything is because they adhere to the things they were
taught without questioning those things or doing what
marchimedes or myself do.

so todays scientist are stuck in the predominant fantasy realms of modern science , they cannot discover new things anymore due to their adherence in fantasy .

personally Im glad that we did have scientist in the past
that were not afraid of the social disconnect that is the
result of doing things differently from the way they were taught or we would still be in the dark ages or living in
caves if all of histories inventors and discoverers were like modern day scientist are today.

Posted by: Marchimedes

Re: Oh no they got me ... help - 02/04/16 04:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac

So on a science forum you are generally dealing with trying to understand things


And here we are in a General Science Discussion Forum.

Hmm.

Quote:
or challenge science.


I seem to be doing some of that now, just wait.

Quote:
Handyman I guess we best describe as layman engineers, they are trying to implement things without a formal qualification but using lots of experience. I believe that describes you.


Quite well.

Quote:
So lets make this real simple, why do you want a Scientist to discuss this not an Engineer?
The extension question to that is, on this forum how can we help you?


Are archeologistest scientists or engineers?

I really don't care. All I'm looking for if for my theory to be checked. I think I'm more betterer served by being checked by scientists AND engineers.

So just what is your problem? YOu don't like whiich forum I cose to put this thread in? As this thread has been in this forum cents 2007 you are a tad late with your complaint. You do understand there is more in this thread than pryamids, right?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Lettuce be done with this. - 02/04/16 04:49 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
it appears to me that Marchimedes is dealing with the discovery of how the pyramids were constructed and I doubt
that he will be building a pyramid ... so he wont be
applying his discoveries just trying to discover how the
pyramids were constructed.


Well said. I done moved enough heavy stuff in my day, I don't need to proove to myself that which I've already prooved.

Quote:
were not trying to get you orac


No, we are not, trying that is. We don't have to try on this.

It's not like there is a lack of theory here...



I think I had it pegged the first time, Orac...

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
malcontent
Posted by: Orac

Re: Oh no they got me ... help - 02/04/16 08:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Are archeologistest scientists or engineers?

They are neither they are there own discipline. It is a study of history and yes they use bits of science as well.

So lots of disciplines use science (its in almost everything) and depending on what you are asking different forums are more or less appropriate.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
I really don't care. All I'm looking for if for my theory to be checked. I think I'm more betterer served by being checked by scientists AND engineers.

Go way back to the top, I told you your theory works from a science perspective. However there is no evidence the Egyptians did that and I suspect there is a subtle reason.

We never got to discuss what I see as the historical problem, the insults were flying by then. So let me give you what I see as an issue.

If they had been using water in intestines they would have quickly seen air pockets and they would have work out very quickly what we now call a spirit level or a bubble level. That we know the inventor of as it's a written record and the invention dates to exactly 1661.

My problem I see to your idea is the glaring and huge time gap before the appearance of the spirit level. It stands at a 4000+ years if they were playing with water in tubes in 2630BC.

If an archeologist came to me with that story I would expect he would have to have proof because it seems a bit far fetched.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
So just what is your problem? YOu don't like whiich forum I cose to put this thread in?

My problem was two fold, it wasn't exactly clear to me what you were asking. Secondly when I tried to work thru it you were inconsistent with things.

If you wanted a critique I gave you one .... the idea is sound but I suspect unlikely to have been used by the Egyptians.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
As this thread has been in this forum cents 2007 you are a tad late with your complaint. You do understand there is more in this thread than pryamids, right?

Yes there is more and I am not asking you to stop posting for that very reason. All I am saying is current question you are asking at the moment is a bit out of the scope of the forum.

Ask a different question and we can probably help, I can't do much with that one.

Apparently I am still a malcontent, so I am over bothering with this trash. Since this is Paul's favourite civilization and he is your best friend now, why don't you stop talking to me and get him to give you answers. That should be really interesting watching him get beyond the science is evil/bad and ate my god spam he puts out smile

Guaranteed to get at least 2 or 3 more spams from that .. watch laugh
Posted by: paul

Re: Oh no SPAM ... SPAM ... - 02/04/16 11:39 PM

Posted by: Marchimedes

twiwdi - 02/05/16 12:26 AM

The Way I Would Do It.

Again...

That's what I call my pryamid construction theory. You do me see me say this is how it was done.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Are archeologistest scientists or engineers?


Originally Posted By: Orac
They are neither they are there own discipline. It is a study of history and yes they use bits of science as well.

So lots of disciplines use science (its in almost everything)


And here we are in a forum of General Science.

Quote:
and depending on what you are asking different forums are more or less appropriate.


Done told you, I don't care you if think I have this or that in a more or less appropriate forum. I'm puttting all my science/engineering/handyman eggs in one basket. Easier for me to keep up with and according to the numbers I'm doing just fine.

Is this your entire beef? That I ain't putting my ideas where YOU think I should put them.

Lemme tell ya sumpin, pal, I'm an a American, I have freedom of speech which may or may not be a concept you are familiar with. It's called the 1st Amendment. Got a probelm with that? Check the 2nd Amendment. THose two go hand in hand.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
I really don't care. All I'm looking for if for my theory to be checked. I think I'm more betterer served by being checked by scientists AND engineers.


Quote:
Go way back to the top, I told you your theory works from a science perspective.


Why thnk you, how kind of you to say.

See? Now we gettin somewhere.

Quote:
However there is no evidence the Egyptians did that and I suspect there is a subtle reason.

We never got to discuss what I see as the historical problem, the insults were flying by then.


Have we just met? It's part of my schtick.

Quote:
So let me give you what I see as an issue.

If they had been using water in intestines they would have quickly seen air pockets


So you scientists can't get air bubbles out of water levels. We handymen can.

Quote:
and they would have work out very quickly what we now call a spirit level or a bubble level.


What materials would they have made such a thing out off and like you said to me, were is the evidence of this?

Quote:
That we know the inventor of as it's a written record and the invention dates to exactly 1661.


That's abot 4,000 years too late.

Quote:
My problem I see to your idea is the glaring and huge time gap before the appearance of the spirit level. It stands at a 4000+ years if they were playing with water in tubes in 2630BC.


So you don't know what a water level is. Turns out I have an image...



http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059374437

Quote:
If an archeologist came to me with that story I would expect he would have to have proof because it seems a bit far fetched.


A water level made from intestines is far fetched. Rogar that.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
So just what is your problem? YOu don't like whiich forum I cose to put this thread in?


Quote:
Secondly when I tried to work thru it you were inconsistent with things.


So let's hear it.

Quote:
If you wanted a critique I gave you one .... the idea is sound but I suspect unlikely to have been used by the Egyptians.


One of the reasons we know so little as to how the pryamids were built is that there remains so little evidence. So why is it unlikely?

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
As this thread has been in this forum cents 2007 you are a tad late with your complaint. You do understand there is more in this thread than pryamids, right?


Quote:
Yes there is more and I am not asking you to stop posting for that very reason.


See? We are getting along spledidly.

Quote:
All I am saying is current question you are asking at the moment is a bit out of the scope of the forum.


Noted.

Quote:
Ask a different question and we can probably help


Seen anything I've said that wouldn't work?

Seen anything that would work more betterer?

Quote:
Apparently I am still a malcontent,


Get over where I post stuff and I'll take it back.

Quote:
so I am over bothering with this trash.




http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-

Quote:
Since this is Paul's favourite civilization and he is your best friend now, why don't you stop talking to me and get him to give you answers. That should be really interesting watching him get beyond the science is evil/bad and ate my god spam he puts out smile


Eh.

Quote:
Guaranteed to get at least 2 or 3 more spams from that .. watch laugh


Drama, don't start none, won't be none.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Just an observation... - 02/05/16 11:49 PM



I did not pen that thread, Josh did and should receive due credit.

Check under the "General Discussion" window to see what I'm seeing.

Maybe that will go away when I hit "submit" to this post. Then I'll be a hero. Maybe.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Yep, I'm a hero. - 02/06/16 12:35 AM



See?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Marchimedes saves humanity. - 02/06/16 06:01 AM

So, a short break from my pyramiding.

"Oh Thank The Lord" you unwashed masses would be wagering bout now, correct?

Ya'll bout to lose that bet right quick.

What with my charming disposistion and humble personality I shall make the normal warning a tad more smallerer...



http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059375138

What can I say? I been here cents 2007, barring a nice banning this shall remain the same. I gots WAY more. I'm giving politics a break until the two(2) nominies are named and then I'll go friggin nuts at the political site. No, it's not MY site, I just dominate it. I actually have a site, just in case. I'm smart like that. I do so wish I could curse here, it adds flavour when interjected properly.

So where we? What is the mass of a photon? Nope, that wasn't it. Where's all this friggin so-called dark matter? Nah. Thought experiments on the speed of light? Perish the thought. Don't get me started on dark energy. What is the speed of gravity? I can go onnd on and on.

You know, Orac, I asked this site what are the speeds attained at various G forces. I got an answer. In this thread. In this thread I learned, cause I asked the correct question, what is the function of gravity over distance. Turns out it's the inverse square. But I'm just a handyman and am not so fond of writing formulas out rather than understanding them almost without thought. I needs to see/understand things in my minds eye. I think that is what paul is refering to, at times. paul has a lovely, nasty streak in him. He just ain't as good at it as I am. But I understand everything he is saying. You, Orac, said...

Originally Posted By: Orac
Guaranteed to get at least 2 or 3 more spams from that .. watch laugh


I already gave you one, this is the second. One to go. Not this post.

You also said/asked...

Originally Posted By: Orac
on this forum how can we help you?


I'd say find a flaw with my stuff but I've already thought this though. If you can find a flaw that would be rare. I'd say more where am I failing to splain things. Where are my gaps? How can I make this simpler? There's no bubbles in a water level unless you lay a water level down like an idiot.

How about a nice image?



That's funny every time.

Here's the image...

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/22244-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on/?p=1059375185

If you, Orac, can't get the bubble out of that water level than you gots no bidness buttering toast.

Orac, I am a scientist, inventer, handyman, red neck engineer, physicist, blue collar genius, idiot savant, whack job, flake, carpenter, mechanic, electrician, plumber, nail pounder, you friggin name it.

What ever problem you have with me you have to get over it. I don't lose. Somebody has to be the smartest man alive, turns out it's me. I prove it day in, day out. If you want to pester me on terms we'll just go to the dictionary.

So get in on this thread on the correct side. A lot of folks are reading. Be a contributer. If you catch me I'll admit it, give you credit and figure the fix. There is ALWAYS a fix. You should have seen what I did today. I had a problem. I couldn't fix it right that second. But then I went back to me, told myself, "there is ALWAYS a fix." I had to THINK for a few minutes, and then, with some work, the problem was solved. So what was that? Science? Engineer? Inventer? I'd call it stuborn. I'm not gonna bandy terms in this, my thread. It don't get Jack done.

Tonight I gave a possible solution to an ELE Le Rock.

You ever seen that one before? Should we now debate the term of what it is exactly was I did there? I'd rather see, given enough time, why that wouldn't work.

But then you have to entertain. If one posts volumously with no one reading then all one is doing is practicing typing.

You gots to put butts in seats, man.

So, as I announced, I'm taking a break from politics and that's why ya'll poor miserable sots have to put up with my convoluted ramblings.

Le Mimeapult. I spent some time on that drawing. You, Orac, I'm betting, have never put the ammount of time into any single post that I did into that post. My preffered screen name is teacher. I do my homework. I went and did some checking up on you. I didn't see one original idea by you. I saw lots of "this guy said" and "that guy said."

It's one thing, Orac, to put someone elses butt on the line. Quite another to proffer, as I do, day in and day out, my own butt out there.

-

I do believe, Ms. Rose II, that I stayed within the rules. I have not seen any rule that states that I can not destroy another member. I look foward to your continued scrutiny.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Just to be clear... - 03/08/16 01:34 AM

This should take you to a post in this thread...

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=22575#Post22575

Check the date on that post. Now click on this link to The Japan Times...

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/06...n-made-meteors/

I don't see anywhere in that article as to when they thought of this, that is if they didn't steakl the idea from me, but I'm betting I thought this up first.

Next thing you know they'll be stealing my Le Mimeapult idea...

Posted by: Marchimedes

Please to bear with me... - 04/27/16 01:33 AM

I needs bump this thread to the top for a nice screen shot that involves the top banners and what not for purposes of arrogence.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Long time no love? - 10/25/16 01:47 AM

Sup, nerds?

Miss me? 689k and change. Lemme go check...

Last time I was here and checked the tally it was 2/3/16 and the tally was 547k and change. Math anyone? Me likie.

This one should splain itself.

-

Did a little looking around but couldn't find one, which seems odd to me. What I was looking for was a dry contact relay that would switch cable on or off. That is, apply or drop power (preferably 12vdc) to open close a switch that would connect/disconnect your basic cable wire, you know, like for your TV or internet as most folks use coaxial cable/RF/RG6 to get their internet. Or the same thing for fiber optic or phone line. This so is one could physically connect/disconnect the internet hard wire going to a computer.

Seems to be a lot of hacking going on these days. This is a simple idea to do away with a lot of that. I'm gonna use a basic burglar alarm that is remote accessible by phone with programmable outputs as this is a very cheap and common device. System looks like this...



And here's how it works: Say you've a sensitive PC/server, well, if hack boy has your address he can get to your PC and if he knows what's what he can have his way with it next thing you know little willie's gay circus midget orgy porn pics are on the net for all us us to see. Hack boy can get to your PC cause it is directly hard wired to the internet. What the switch relay does is physically cut the connection. If the authorized guy wants to remote access this PC he calls the alarm via phone line with his PC, enters the password to the alarm and switches on or off the applicable programmable output and THEN he can access the remote PC/server via his PC with yet another password. Sure, this all can be hacked BUT...

said hacker has to know that there is a switch relay, has to know the phone number to the alarm (let alone has to know that there is an alarm panel that controls this) that controls the switch relay and also has to be able to hack the alarm and has to know which programmable output to turn on or off.

That's pretty much it.

Trust me, folks, I'm a low voltage genius. I was putting alarm systems in banks back when the means of alarm transmission was polarity reversal.

I've gots more on this but ya'll morons are confusified enough as it is.

-

I'll be a Monkey's Butler, looks like this post is working so far. I know, it's not universe and it's not pyramid construction. Not to worry, I'm still thinking about those other two(2) but I'm so bored with all that. I understand the off topic debate and all that but then it is my thread, correct? Unless ya'll live in a cave much like the cave where I keep a guy for screaming at my internet time is pretty much exclusively taken up debating politics. I'm a Libertarian. If ya'll think I'm obnoxious here can you imagine me debating politics at a site where I rule just as large as I do here AND am admin? It's horrible, look away.

Anyway, one of my politic things I've been screaming long time is a list I have, I call it "teacher's (my OTHER screen name) list of ideas to cure America's ills." List starts like this...

1. Term limits.

As in congressional term limits. You know where to find my political rants but the other day Trump came out with his 100 day deal and what was the #1 thing he would push for?

Wait for it...

Term limits.

Off course I'm all for Trump, not the point. Point ya'll should take away is that I say Mother government is broken and has been long time. These jerks are too well ensconced, gots too much power, gots too many pals, anti-trust type rules should apply to politicians also.

And before some of you socialists go all crazy you should take notice that term limits applies to Republicans just the same as it does to democrats.

No, I didn't show up here just before the election to go all politics. Just looks that way. I finally wrote up that switch relay post for my other site and thought that is just fine for here so I show up here and you know how I am once I gets to typing.

Term limits, man. Run them ALL outta town on a rail. What I'm saying here is that Trump agrees with what I been saying cents forever.

And then there's Shrillary with her hacked email stuff and it's all just serendipitous, ain't it?
Posted by: Marchimedes

Philosophy - 12/01/16 04:13 AM

What it is about being correct that is so wrong?

So, God's honest truth, my little political debate forum that I link ya'll to now and again, there's been a shake up there. Despite my constant advise and consul I ended up in charge. I can understand why, I've been a fair and just moderator for a decade, I guess I'm just the last man standing. I also have the most viewed thread there. I've a thread here. This thread. As I have been cross contaminating these threads cents forever I thought ya'll should know. It's called transparency.

We good?

So yea, I'm not a mod at that place and I just friggin love that, so I should just get on with it..

-

Eh...

-

Quote:
So, I watched a science thing the other day on TV and I'm thinking "they gonna go WMAP," and they went WMAP. Then all of a sudden was the question I should have been asking all along popping into my skull...


WMAP should be beyond us. How can we be measuring the temperature WMAP gives us right now?


I thought some right there and then (I swear, some thirty(30) seconds of thinking) and came up with a theoretical answer.


The good news is that my theoretical answer supports my ongoing theory as to why the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate from our perspective. This is most cool. Lately I been thinking about the added variables of what the speed of gravity is and if the inflation theory is valid (leaning that way) and it is all coming to a very fine minds eye picture of the entire universe in my skull. In other words... yes.


Very difficult indeed to put all this into words and images that makes it simple. I'll get to it.


Must be decades I been thinking about the universe. I have trained my mind to think of space being infinite, the observable universe being far from that, the Milky Way being a speck, I mean, to be able to ponder any of this at all the sheer scale of it all needs be accepted, understood and be put to work.


The scale is working for me.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Back on the horse... - 07/09/17 10:03 PM

Before I get all into my latest revised edition of "why the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerated rate from our perspective" theory I'd like to spend some time dogging the dark energy theory. Spent plenty of time dogging dark matter but not so much dark energy.

This is all assuming that the big bang theory is correct and most everyone has no problems with that, especially the dark matter/energy crew. So, our visible universe is expanding and the rate/speed of expansion is accelerating, we know this by measuring Doppler shift. The farter away matter is from us the faster it is speeding away from us. The so-called scientists can't splain this so they came up with the dark energy theory. That is there is an invisible, unmeasurable force that is pushing stuff away from all other stuff. Invisible, unmeasurable antigravity if you will. Of course I have a simple, non-voodoo theory about this expansion that obeys the laws of physics but we won't be getting into that today.

In my world I say that the universe is infinite but the dispersion of matter in it is not. The big bang theory states that in an almost empty universe there was an almost infinitesimally small point of matter/energy and it blew up. An explosion in the vacuum of space. Being as there was no gravity, matter, anything that could affect this exploding point that would mean that this explosion threw matter/energy omnidirectionaly. How could it not? Right after the explosion the point of explosion should be empty with everything growing outward from that point and the dispersion of matter (dark green) within the universe should look sumpin like this...



Zero(0) being the point of the explosion and the red outlined area being, for this case, our visible universe. Barring the effects of flying Monkeys or voodoo that just HAS to be, correct?

So far no mathematical equations or complicated formulas are necessary, simple.

A side view of the sphere gives us...



I know, they who are called they now say that the universe if 13.7 billion years old, I rounded up to 14 billion years. So the dispersal of matter in our universe has to be at least 54 billion light years in diameter. The diameter of the inside circle can not be determined but I say it has to be at least sumpin, no matter. Now, with the dark energy theory if we are located somewhere in the middle of that red area the matter at the inside and outside edge should be moving away from us at the same speed. The inside edge is moving back to the zero(0) point and the outside edge towards the great beyond. Seems to me the dark energy folks have forgotten about the effects of gravity. Take this image...



As the power of gravity decreases with distance the matter between the two ends of "x" should have more gravitational pull than the matter between the two ends of "z." That matter as the "x's" should be increasing in speed away from us more fasterer than the matter at the "z." But the measurements of our visible universe state that the speed of matter withdrawing from us is all the same. The "y" measurement should be at least 28 billion light years more than "x."

Just a wee math problem I have with the dark energy theory.
Posted by: Marchimedes

It doesn't matter why. - 08/05/17 04:33 AM

I'm still here after a decade and I gots one for ya'll. It's an old one but I lost the originals so at my political site I was prompted to get back into MSPaint and get busy. As always, it's simple, I like to think it's funny but then I'm not a stiff like the rest of you. No idea how this is gonna submit, lately this site shrinks my stuff and you know me, that is just not gonna play. Like I can put my mind into a millimeter by millimeter sized image. Might as well ask your moderating staff to put their life experience into an image and have room left over.

I'm so sorry, moderating staff, that was, hopefully, a joke.

Try #1...



-

I'll be, good nuff.

-

Good news, stiffs. You know that political site I keep linking ya'll to? I got promoted there. I'm now admin. Besides the site owner I'm completely in charge. Before now I was just mostly in charge.

Reason I mention this is cause I have a little skin in the online forum game. I have what you call it? Experience. I administrate a online political debate forum. You think you people have problems? I have to deal with feminists vs. skin heads. So lemme tell ya, I love this site, it's like an escape. Trust me, when I tell ya'll I'm toning it down, I'm WAY toning it down. At my site I'm admin and the rabble gets to call me, well, I can't say it here but they get to call me anything they want. But then they have to deal with me. They don't call me things so often. I'm more horrible than they are. Put it this way, I belong to a site of malcontents, ne'er-do-wells, misfits, rule breakers, bigots of every nature and I'm their leader. See, I always strive to put a bit of my philosophy, my take, into every post of semi-importance. So this post has man made shooting stars in it, that image is (explicative deleted) killer. I submit that to you wicked smart nerds for peer review. But then I first submitted that in the early 2000s and I've yet to have a reasonable rebuke/refutation. Just like the rest of my stuff. Again, I hail this site as one of the few that hasn't banned me. Hail!

-

So, the image. It's an old idea but I lost all the old images I had of that so I made that image tonight. I know, I'm a tad bent but come on, billions and billions of shooting stars when and where The Mighty US of A wants them. Tell me why that can't be. Tell me why that wouldn't be a PR jackpot for NASA. Tell me why every American wouldn't go "oh yea."

Tell me you wouldn't say that that wasn't the greatest light show short of the borialisis.

Tell me it wasn't my idea.

My thread, there's more coming.
Posted by: KirbyGillis

Re: It doesn't matter why. - 08/10/17 01:50 AM

There's a problem with this scenario.

The Earth is traveling around the Sun at approximately 67,000 mph. When the earth and its atmosphere collide with comet dust at that speed we can observe shooting stars. If sand is pushed out of the space station the collision force is much smaller and the maximum speed that it will achieve will be limited by the terminal velocity. Every grain of sand will meet the ground virtually intact. I don't want to go through the calculation at this time but to illustrate the point: If we pushed out a bowling ball from the ISS it would travel at a terminal velocity of 350 mph when it met the ground...only then would it be a real sight to see.
Posted by: Marchimedes

Somebody thinking too much. - 08/30/17 02:06 AM

Originally Posted By: KirbyGillis
There's a problem with this scenario.


Nuh-uh.

Quote:
The Earth is traveling around the Sun at approximately 67,000 mph. When the earth and its atmosphere collide with comet dust at that speed we can observe shooting stars. If sand is pushed out of the space station the collision force is much smaller and the maximum speed that it will achieve will be limited by the terminal velocity. Every grain of sand will meet the ground virtually intact. I don't want to go through the calculation at this time but to illustrate the point: If we pushed out a bowling ball from the ISS it would travel at a terminal velocity of 350 mph when it met the ground...only then would it be a real sight to see.


Well, if you were static in Earth's orbit at the top of the atmosphere I guess all that would be true. But we are kicking this stuff outta the International Space Station. I looked it up just for you. The ISS is at an altitude of 254 miles travelling at 17,150 MPH. The Earth's atmosphere goes quite high but doesn't really thin greatly until about ten miles up. So our bowling bowl immediately is going a tad fasterer than 350 MPH. Then it has 244 miles of virtually zero friction to pick up speed due to gravity before it hits appreciable push back and by then it's on fire big time. Matter of fact, the ISS is going just a tad slower than the speed at which stuff burns up in the atmosphere. Specifically .24 MPS slowerer. Don't feel bad, Kirby, I posted your post at my political site, (not your name) and asked them what was wrong with this (your) post. Nobody got it even after hints. There was one person who got it right away and that was my so-called boss. He claims to have an IQ of 178 which is 7 points higherer than my best but then in my defense I only take IQ tests when I'm drunk.
Posted by: newton

Re: Somebody thinking too much. - 09/23/17 03:26 AM

P=mv it is bad equation
Univers is much more complicate
Than we fought

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthr...n_tur#Post56560
Posted by: Marchimedes

Dunno... - 10/01/17 01:51 AM

Originally Posted By: newton
P=mv it is bad equation


That's Power = mass times velocity, right?

Seems to work for me as far as martial arts go. I'm only so big and if I don't want to get more biggerer than I have to get more fasterer to hit harder.

Quote:
Universe is much more complicated
Than we thought


My contention is that is more simple.
Posted by: newton

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 10/20/17 12:55 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
Paul, as we know all too well, nuclear fission produces energy. How does your explanation differ from the conventional explanation? Example:

Total mass before the reaction ( mass of U-235 + n)
= 235.0439u + 1.0087u
= 236.0526u
Total mass after the reaction ( mass of Nd + Kr + 2n)
= 147.9169u + 85.9106u + 2 x 1.0087u
= 235.8449u
There is a decrease in mass by 0.2077u. This mass has been converted to energy.


EXIST VERY OLD PHYSICS LAW

ARCHIMEDES TOLD EURECA MY MASS IS EQUAL TO WATER'S MASS

IN UNIVERSE EXIST PRESSURE
SIMILAR TO HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE


Very funy and very simple is other fact during fast motion my body is pushing more water at one time

Yellow color it is energy "warter"


Ohh exist one more problem self rotation is producing cavitation chamber



You can push water or you can push energy

Posted by: newton

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 10/20/17 01:09 AM

Inverse square law it is very old law
When you moving underwater or under energy pressure you registering dynamic pressure



NOT EXIST FREE FALL IN UNIVRRSE


Galileo DIDN'T UNDERSTAND PRESSURE
Posted by: newton

Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. - 10/20/17 01:25 AM