|
|
Re: verifying the expansion of space
Posted:
Jun 23, 2012 7:24 PM
|
|
On Jun 23, 3:46 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:58 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 2:41 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 9:19 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 23, 12:04 am, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 22, 8:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 22, 9:42 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 22, 2:22 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 12:23 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 11:22 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 11:39 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > ** Chandrasekhar limit ? This term was derived based on the exploding
> > > > > > > > > > > > pressure of simple electron degeneracy model and the imploding
> > > > > > > > > > > > pressure of classical Newtonian law of gravity. We know Newtonian law
> > > > > > > > > > > > of gravity deviates from reality at extremities. So, this quantity
> > > > > > > > > > > > becomes questionable.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > No, the Chandeskhar limit has nothing to do with it. Or rather very little.
> > > > > > > > > > > The expansion of the Universe has been measured using white dwarfs and
> > > > > > > > > > > supernova.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Ignorant imbecile, get the fvck lost. <middle finger>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > [rest of crap snipped]
>
> > > > > > > > > Taking the infinite variables of our universe into account, is
> > > > > > > > > obviously too much trouble for those of the mainstream status quo that
> > > > > > > > > are mostly public funded and set for life.
>
> > > > > > > > > Our mostly diamagnetic universe isn't expanding on its own, unless
> > > > > > > > > those quantum string laws of physics are quite different and much
> > > > > > > > > further reaching than any physics we otherwise know of.
>
> > > > > > > > > If a photon wave can be infinitely replicated for billions of light
> > > > > > > > > years, then perhaps other forces and/or energy can also be transferred
> > > > > > > > > over great distances with little if any loss. Otherwise our 5e55 kg
> > > > > > > > > universe isn't missing any mass that would keep whatever expansion
> > > > > > > > > from accelerating, that is unless there were sufficient external
> > > > > > > > > masses doing the big pull-apart.
>
> > > > > > > > > How can there be 100e12 Ms of mostly hydrogen and helium external to
> > > > > > > > > these 5 galaxies?
>
> > > > > > > > > A cosmic version of the HLC that started off with perhaps a combined
> > > > > > > > > or collective 150 trillion solar masses, that obviously contracted
> > > > > > > > > instead of those galaxies having ?Big Bang? expanded away from one
> > > > > > > > > another. That?s a potential whopping 30 trillion solar masses (6e43
> > > > > > > > > kg) each galaxy prior to the mergers that pretty much destroyed all
> > > > > > > > > life in all five galaxies from the billions if not trillions of cosmic
> > > > > > > > > fusions taking place when the merging gravity of such galaxies took
> > > > > > > > > place, and by rights there should be a great deal of metallicity
> > > > > > > > > created.
>
> > > > > > > > > Supposedly 100 trillion solar masses is just the hydrogen and helium
> > > > > > > > > gas blown outside of these collided enormous galaxies.
> > > > > > > > > http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/06/image-of-the-day-quintet...
>
> > > > > > > > > In a few billion years, the Great Attractor with thousands of
> > > > > > > > > galactic mergers taking place (including whatever?s left of our
> > > > > > > > > galaxy), should put on quite a spectacular show. No doubt by then,
> > > > > > > > > our larger than average sun will have turned into a red giant, or
> > > > > > > > > possibly even evolved towards forming a white dwarf with few if any
> > > > > > > > > planets.
>
> > > > > > > > > The good news is that the greater mass of our galaxy (though not
> > > > > > > > > necessarily us) will have survived the Andromeda encounter, and
> > > > > > > > > otherwise there should be a great deal more local metallicity for the
> > > > > > > > > next evolution level of humanity to exploit. Unfortunately, most of
> > > > > > > > > our universe is diamagnetic and reacting as though the strong magnetic
> > > > > > > > > fields within galaxies are sometimes sufficient to expel those
> > > > > > > > > diamagnetic elements.
> > > > > > > > > http://www.periodictable.com/Properties/A/MagneticType.html
>
> > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> > > > > > > > > http://translate.google.com/#
> > > > > > > > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/Guth
> > > > > > > > > Venus
>
> > > > > > > > The stars die but space expands forever...
>
> > > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > Expands into what? (the 4th or 5th dimension?)
>
> > > > > > > Isn't gravity worth anything anymore?
>
> > > > > > Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
> > > > > > matter is gravity.
>
> > > > > > The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; a
> > > > > > larger version of a black hole polar jet.
>
> > > > > The universe is not at all shaped like a jet...
>
> > > >http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html
>
> > > > The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual
>
> > > emission of aether into the Universal jet.
>
> > > Where does the aether come from to end up there?
> > > No. There is a better answer... there are more aether points
> > > inbetween...
>
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> > > > Three dimensional space
> > > > associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in
> > > > our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving
> > > > outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image
> > > > above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.
>
> > I like to think of aether being a cosmic flux or soup of clear/
> > transparent FIFO nodes.
>
> > Since individual photon waves are but 2D quantum items that still
> > can't be individually detected without destroying them, so could the
> > FIFO nodes of aether be as always 2D (flatland) invisible to us.
>
> For the phenomenon of light absorption only its waves
> are required. Matter may have duality but not light...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
Quantum duality of matter seems possible.
What's the 3rd dimension if not a form of quantum duality?
|
|
