Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum The universes expansion accelleration solved.

I usually go by the screen name teacher.

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!

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

-------------------------------------------------------
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?

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

"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.

"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

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.

----------------------------------------------------------
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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

(((( 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.

- 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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/

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?

"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

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.



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.



Redundent

You must have Aspberger's Syndrome.

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?

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.

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/

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.

"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...

"""""""""""
- 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?

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

Still..."its that simple."

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

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

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.

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

""" 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.

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.

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!!!!

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



Not familiar with that.

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



I remember my first dubie.



i missed sumpin somewhere.



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.







Dude, "Dune" is just a book. Lay off the spice.


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).




What? No speeds?


yep.




Simple logic, I'm still with you.



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]

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



!..

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

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

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

Maybe sumpin can get done.



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.




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





The pull decreases exponentialy with distance?



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?





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.

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.

Marchimedes, I don't have time to reply yet - got to be out of here ten minutes ago 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.

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.



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.

LOL! hadn't thought of it that way but you are correct!

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.

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".

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.

Mmm that's what I want. Talking brainy to me just turns me on. Why do you think I post on science forums?

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.

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.

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.

Boys, that was friggin smooth.

Don't try that at home.

You are completely sexy!

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?

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.

You don't know hwo to flirt with a woman do you?

You can say that again.

Who's flirting?

This is stalking.

1506



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

It'll get worse before it gets better.

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.