Cosmology Theory

bruceralph · Jul 31, 2008

I have developed a new theory of the cosmos and it is published in my book (google: "Connect with Planet Earth"). It builds on the existing current known science and I think it is a reasonable explanation on how the whole thing started. This is obviously one of the profound questions that puts human existence into perspective with the natural world and it is in my book as part of this theme. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Aug 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have developed a new theory of the cosmos and it is published in my book (google: "Connect with Planet Earth"). It builds on the existing current known science and I think it is a reasonable explanation on how the whole thing started. This is obviously one of the profound questions that puts human existence into perspective with the natural world and it is in my book as part of this theme. Posted by bruceralph</DIV> Google didn't return any results.  Do you have an ISBN number?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

lildreamer · Aug 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Google didn't return any results.  Do you have an ISBN number?  Posted by derekmcd</DIV> <h3 class="itemPageHeadline">Description:</h3>A new environmental view based on scientific understanding of the human mind, institutions,ecosystems,the earth and the universe. The interconnections of the above topics are explored in detail with the purpose of providing a framework towards harmony between humans and the planet in the 21st century. This book introduces a new theory of the cosmos and new ecological land classification which can be used in resource management planning.you can buy it on line at lulu.com for 12.50 online or 18.70 for paper back.it has a ghastly green cover is all I can say....other than that Ican't find any content to view...edit...change that lulu.com lets you preview several pages into the book... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Aug 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Description:A new environmental view based on scientific understanding of the human mind, institutions,ecosystems,the earth and the universe. The interconnections of the above topics are explored in detail with the purpose of providing a framework towards harmony between humans and the planet in the 21st century. This book introduces a new theory of the cosmos and new ecological land classification which can be used in resource management planning.you can buy it on line at lulu.com for 12.50 online or 18.70 for paper back.it has a ghastly green cover is all I can say....other than that Ican't find any content to view...edit...change that lulu.com lets you preview several pages into the book... Posted by lildreamer</DIV>I did read the pages available for preview.  To me it seems ghastly, your basic vanity press garbage.  Very few words per page, with even less intellectual content -- basically none.  At $18.70 for a print copy or $12.50 for a download it appears to be over-priced by at least $12.50 for the download.  Counting the value of my time I think that a payment of about $10.00 for just having previewed this junk would be in order.  The concept of my parting with my money is ludicrous.The original post appears to be a shameless plug for a worthless book.  And I think I am sugar-coating it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

lildreamer · Aug 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I did read the pages available for preview.  To me it seems ghastly, your basic vanity press garbage.  Very few words per page, with even less intellectual content -- basically none.  At $18.70 for a print copy or $12.50 for a download it appears to be over-priced by at least $12.50 for the download.  Counting the value of my time I think that a payment of about $10.00 for just having previewed this junk would be in order.  The concept of my parting with my money is ludicrous.The original post appears to be a shameless plug for a worthless book.  And I think I am sugar-coating it. Posted by DrRocket</DIV> Generally speaking he did state straightforwardly that he was generally speaking in broad general terms.(couldn't resist)Therefore no real hard nut and bolts information just alot of broad generalization - something like this general statement of mine - alot of words but no substance - drawing very little conclusions on generally large facts...(babble filter kick....bei ..for ..away fr..eybo...<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-yell.gif" border="0" alt="Yell" title="Yell" />)  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vastbluesky92 · Aug 11, 2008

Anyone who spends around 15 dollars to buy this book should have his/her head examined. If you want a good book on a similar subject I'm sure there are plenty at Borders for the same price. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --____________________________________________-- Don't be too hard on me...I'm only in PHY 1010

The following goes without saying: </div>

bechcube · Oct 13, 2008

Black holes are just another manmade construct as is the theory of evellution.This theory makes more sense:                        THEORY OF EVERYTHING  This theory was created in 1970 and has been consistently supported by new discoveries in Particle physics and cosmology.   In the beginning, there was a naked singularity, which I call the JAH Field. The JAH Field is composed of JAH's in a density calculated by Bechtel's Perfect Cube, the seminal equation of this theory.                                                                                                      BECHTEL'S  PERFECT  CUBE                     The cube root of 10>-50ccm //10>50JAH  This cube root quotient is equal to the absolute value of the Plank length, 10>-33 1/3cm.  Therefore, for every 10>-50ccm of space there are 10>50JAH, and each JAH has a diameter of 10>-33cm.  Each JAH spins at the rate of: w=X/pD, where D=the JAH diameter, p=Pi and w=Rho.// equal a division sign.  Then, w = 2.998x10>8 m/s//px10>-331/3cm            w = JAH spin = 9.54x10>42 1/3Hz.    Because each JAH has equal spin, its True Energy = EE = Plank constant //f= 6.625x10>-4J.s//9.54x10>42 1/3s  EEJAH = 6.949x10>-77 1/3 J.The electron volt equivalent = h//J/eV                                                   The eV/JAH =  6.649x10>-77 1/3J = 4.343x10>-58 1/3 eV/JAH   =1.602x10>-19 J/eV  The mass of each JAH = MeV/JAH x em // eMeV   JAHm  = 9.11x10>-31Kgx4.343x10>-52 1/3MeV// 5.11x10>6 MeV = 7.742x 10>-89 1/3Kg.                           Where       em = 9.11 x 10>-31 Kg            eMeV = .511          JAHMeV = 4.331 x 10>-52 1/3 MeV            JAHm = 7.742x10>-89 1/3 Kg  The number of JAH/e = 9.11x10>-31 Kg//7.742 x 10>-89 1/3 Kg = 1.1766x10>58 1/3 JAH/e = 11766 x 10>54 1/3 JAH/e                                   The 1/3 power of  JAH's/e = (11766x10>54)>1/3 = 22.745x10>18 JAH/e, therefore the 22x10>18 JAH are added to the 11766x10>54 JAH/e and the  eV binding EE =.745 x 10>18 JAH/e x 4.343x10>-58 1/3 eV/JAH = 3.2355 x 10>-40 1/3 eV.  This 3.2355x10>-40 1/3 eV  is the True Energy that binds the JAH's into a relative particle of matter and is equal to the total relative strong force within the electron.  The difference between EJA Hm and EEJA Hm =[E=Mc2] therefore =  (7.742x 10>-89 Kg +4.297x10>-71 Kg)(2.988x10>8 m/s)>2.    EJA Hm = (6.9585x10>-72 Kgm>2/s)>2 = 6.9585x10>-72 J.  The electromagnet spectrum runs from 6.625 x 10>-34 Js to 137 x 6.625 x10>-34 Js therefore EJA Hmax = 9.076x10>-32 Js.  There are 137 prime relative gradations in the EEJAH spectrum.  137x6.625x10>-34 Js = 9.076x10>-32 Js at alpha = 90 degrees.            100 x 6.625 x 10>-34 Js at alpha = 100 degrees                                                                                 45x6.625x 10>-34 Js at alpha = 45 degrees.                                                                                               2 x 6.625 x 10>-34 Js at alpha = 2 degrees                                                                                                                  6.625 x 10-34 Js at alpha = 0 degrees.  This set of absolute values is restricted to four significant figures by using the J/eV, eMeV values.   The Plank length is verified by BECHTEL'S PERFECT CUBE.  The two electrons in each sub-orbital then repel each other with twice this force and this keeps them separated in the sub-orbital. The electrons magnetic moment  precession, as it travels around the nucleus, causes them to follow a figure eight pattern due to the varying repulsive forces caused by the angles of moment of each electron.   All particles are composed of three groups of resonating JAHs with up or down spins, which are bound by an area of combination and when they are separated by force, those areas momentarily create the six fragments called quarks and have either up, down,  top, bottom, charm or beauty (intermediate) magnetic moments as well as the fragments called W+,W-,Gluons etc..  Each JAH has equatorial velocity equal to c and moves the resonating groups of JAHs at that maximum velocity through the JAH Field, where all JAHs are stationary within the JAH Field. These equatorial circles have a diameter of the Plank Length and when seen sidways create strings with a diameter equal to the Plank Length.The absolute electron mass = eEEm = 1.766 x 10>58 1/3 JAH/e x 7.742 x 10>-89 1/3 Kg = 9.1092 x 10 >-31 1/3Kg.  The absolute proton mass = PEEm  = 1836 x 9.1092 x 10>-31 1/3 Kg = 1.67244 x 10>-27 Kg.  Mass of hydrogen = HEEm = 1.67244 x 10>-27 Kg + 9.1092 x 10>-31 1/3 = 1.6733 x10>-27 Kg   Some predictions of this theory are:   1. Galaxies reaching near light velocity at the edge of the universe disintegrate leaving gamma ray bursts  and non-existent optical galaxy photons, solving the mystery of the missing galaxies.   2. Where such gamma ray bursts occur, the background radiation shows a slight increase relative to the average 3 degree MBR.  3. That Black Holes are areas where gravity has been focused, eg. center of galaxy and the JAH Field is not able to resonate any groups of JAHs (matter) through the field, causing no transfer of light photons.  4. That because the JAHs are stationary within the JAH Field, the Michelson-Morley  experiment does not apply as a method of determining the JAH Field existence.  5. That The General Theory of Relativity applies to the JAH Field but not the groups of  JAHs (matter) within the field .  6. That Quantum Mechanics and Relativity can be married in this theory once the non-relative parts are excluded.  7. That the bending of light in a magnetic field is caused by the local inability of JAHs to resonate matter through the field and not because there is a warping of the field or space-time.  8. That the alleged missing matter in the universe is the Zero Point Field creations of hydrogen and virtual particles.  9. That for the neutrons and neutrinos, the rotation of the particle group of JAHs is the reverse to that of the individual JAHs or have spherical shells of JAHs with reverse spin to the group and which will therefore not allow the particle to combine with other groups but will support Beta decay.  10. That there is only one true particle which is combined into groups(matter) and all others are fragments of groups. These fragments are unstable and disintegrate into the known fragments or cease to resonate as a group in the JAH Field.  VOPYWRITE 1967All COPYWRITE is reserved    Black holes are just another manmade constrict as is the theory ofevellution.This theory makes more sense:                        THEORY OF EVERYTHING  This theory was created in 1970 and has been consistently supported by new discoveries in Particle physics and cosmology.   In the beginning, there was a naked singularity, which I call the JAH Field. The JAH Field is composed of JAH's in a density calculated by Bechtel's Perfect Cube, the seminal equation of this theory.                                                                                                      BECHTEL'S  PERFECT  CUBE                     The cube root of 10>-50ccm //10>50JAH  This cube root quotient is equal to the absolute value of the Plank length, 10>-33 1/3cm.  Therefore, for every 10>-50ccm of space there are 10>50JAH, and each JAH has a diameter of 10>-33cm.  Each JAH spins at the rate of: w=X/pD, where D=the JAH diameter, p=Pi and w=Rho.// equal a division sign.  Then, w = 2.998x10>8 m/s//px10>-331/3cm            w = JAH spin = 9.54x10>42 1/3Hz.    Because each JAH has equal spin, its True Energy = EE = Plank constant //f= 6.625x10>-4J.s//9.54x10>42 1/3s  EEJAH = 6.949x10>-77 1/3 J.The electron volt equivalent = h//J/eV                                                   The eV/JAH =  6.649x10>-77 1/3J = 4.343x10>-58 1/3 eV/JAH   =1.602x10>-19 J/eV  The mass of each JAH = MeV/JAH x em // eMeV   JAHm  = 9.11x10>-31Kgx4.343x10>-52 1/3MeV// 5.11x10>6 MeV = 7.742x 10>-89 1/3Kg.                           Where       em = 9.11 x 10>-31 Kg            eMeV = .511          JAHMeV = 4.331 x 10>-52 1/3 MeV            JAHm = 7.742x10>-89 1/3 Kg  The number of JAH/e = 9.11x10>-31 Kg//7.742 x 10>-89 1/3 Kg = 1.1766x10>58 1/3 JAH/e = 11766 x 10>54 1/3 JAH/e                                   The 1/3 power of  JAH's/e = (11766x10>54)>1/3 = 22.745x10>18 JAH/e, therefore the 22x10>18 JAH are added to the 11766x10>54 JAH/e and the  eV binding EE =.745 x 10>18 JAH/e x 4.343x10>-58 1/3 eV/JAH = 3.2355 x 10>-40 1/3 eV.  This 3.2355x10>-40 1/3 eV  is the True Energy that binds the JAH's into a relative particle of matter and is equal to the total relative strong force within the electron.  The difference between EJA Hm and EEJA Hm =[E=Mc2] therefore =  (7.742x 10>-89 Kg +4.297x10>-71 Kg)(2.988x10>8 m/s)>2.    EJA Hm = (6.9585x10>-72 Kgm>2/s)>2 = 6.9585x10>-72 J.  The electromagnet spectrum runs from 6.625 x 10>-34 Js to 137 x 6.625 x10>-34 Js therefore EJA Hmax = 9.076x10>-32 Js.  There are 137 prime relative gradations in the EEJAH spectrum.  137x6.625x10>-34 Js = 9.076x10>-32 Js at alpha = 90 degrees.            100 x 6.625 x 10>-34 Js at alpha = 100 degrees                                                                                 45x6.625x 10>-34 Js at alpha = 45 degrees.                                                                                               2 x 6.625 x 10>-34 Js at alpha = 2 degrees                                                                                                                  6.625 x 10-34 Js at alpha = 0 degrees.  This set of absolute values is restricted to four significant figures by using the J/eV, eMeV values.   The Plank length is verified by BECHTEL'S PERFECT CUBE.  The two electrons in each sub-orbital then repel each other with twice this force and this keeps them separated in the sub-orbital. The electrons magnetic moment  precession, as it travels around the nucleus, causes them to follow a figure eight pattern due to the varying repulsive forces caused by the angles of moment of each electron.   All particles are composed of three groups of resonating JAHs with up or down spins, which are bound by an area of combination and when they are separated by force, those areas momentarily create the six fragments called quarks and have either up, down,  top, bottom, charm or beauty (intermediate) magnetic moments as well as the fragments called W+,W-,Gluons etc..  Each JAH has equatorial velocity equal to c and moves the resonating groups of JAHs at that maximum velocity through the JAH Field, where all JAHs are stationary within the JAH Field. These equatorial circles have a diameter of the Plank Length and when seen sidways create strings with a diameter equal to the Plank Length.The absolute electron mass = eEEm = 1.766 x 10>58 1/3 JAH/e x 7.742 x 10>-89 1/3 Kg = 9.1092 x 10 >-31 1/3Kg.  The absolute proton mass = PEEm  = 1836 x 9.1092 x 10>-31 1/3 Kg = 1.67244 x 10>-27 Kg.  Mass of hydrogen = HEEm = 1.67244 x 10>-27 Kg + 9.1092 x 10>-31 1/3 = 1.6733 x10>-27 Kg   Some predictions of this theory are:   1. Galaxies reaching near light velocity at the edge of the universe disintegrate leaving gamma ray bursts  and non-existent optical galaxy photons, solving the mystery of the missing galaxies.   2. Where such gamma ray bursts occur, the background radiation shows a slight increase relative to the average 3 degree MBR.  3. That Black Holes are areas where gravity has been focused, eg. center of galaxy and the JAH Field is not able to resonate any groups of JAHs (matter) through the field, causing no transfer of light photons.  4. That because the JAHs are stationary within the JAH Field, the Michelson-Morley  experiment does not apply as a method of determining the JAH Field existence.  5. That The General Theory of Relativity applies to the JAH Field but not the groups of  JAHs (matter) within the field .  6. That Quantum Mechanics and Relativity can be married in this theory once the non-relative parts are excluded.  7. That the bending of light in a magnetic field is caused by the local inability of JAHs to resonate matter through the field and not because there is a warping of the field or space-time.  8. That the alleged missing matter in the universe is the Zero Point Field creations of hydrogen and virtual particles.  9. That for the neutrons and neutrinos, the rotation of the particle group of JAHs is the reverse to that of the individual JAHs or have spherical shells of JAHs with reverse spin to the group and which will therefore not allow the particle to combine with other groups but will support Beta decay.  10. That there is only one true particle which is combined into groups(matter) and all others are fragments of groups. These fragments are unstable and disintegrate into the known fragments or cease to resonate as a group in the JAH Field.Seperating the men from the boys.  COPYWRITE 1967All COPYWRITE is reserved

lildreamer · Oct 14, 2008

can I recommend to the moderators please move this thread now into the Unexplained forum or another suitable forum other than this one please.... since the OP has not been by of late... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 14, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>can I recommend to the moderators please move this thread now into the Unexplained forum or another suitable forum other than this one please.... since the OP has not been by of late... Posted by lildreamer</DIV> Go Directly to the Unexplained. Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 15, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Black holes are just another manmade construct as is the theory of evellution.This theory makes more sense:                        THEORY OF EVERYTHING <SNIP>1. Galaxies reaching near light velocity at the edge of the universe disintegrate leaving gamma ray bursts  and non-existent optical galaxy photons, solving the mystery of the missing galaxies.<SNIP> COPYWRITE 1967All COPYWRITE is reserved     Posted by bechcube</DIV>So the galaxies at the edge of the universe disintegrate, leaving GRBs and leaving "non-existent optical galaxy photons", eh? The leave behind something that doesn't exist, eh?  That's nice.And by the way, if you want to claim intellectual rights for this work, you should at least understand what copyright means - and it's not about writing copy.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 15, 2008

WELCOME TO THE UNEXPLAINED FORUM HERE THERE BE DRAGONS! ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO ENTER HERE <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

DrRocket · Oct 15, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> WELCOME TO THE UNEXPLAINED FORUM HERE THERE BE DRAGONS! ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO ENTER HERE Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/3/ab6e56d2-4491-4d7d-b3c5-feb8f8773115.Medium.jpg" alt="" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bechcube · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So the galaxies at the edge of the universe disintegrate, leaving GRBs and leaving "non-existent optical galaxy photons", eh? The leave behind something that doesn't exist, eh?  That's nice.And by the way, if you want to claim intellectual rights for this work, you should at least understand what copyright means - and it's not about writing copy.   Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV>SpeedFreek:Guess I did not explain the comment on GRB's.When the galaxy disintegrates into gamma ray radiation the light from the galaxy disappears and the galaxy which was there can no longer be seen. This is what astronomers observe and explains why the galaxy light disappears.Further, this theory was copyrighted and is a copy of that copyright.Where is your proof that disproves the theory?

lildreamer · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek:Guess I did not explain the comment on GRB's.When the galaxy disintegrates into gamma ray radiation the light from the galaxy disappears and the galaxy which was there can no longer be seen. This is what astronomers observe and explains why the galaxy light disappears.Further, this theory was copyrighted and is a copy of that copyright.Where is your proof that disproves the theory? Posted by bechcube</DIV> Hi Bechcube how's life??quick question the term JAH and in reference to this work - is the article trying to mean a GOD field or the "GOD particle" since JAH is the shortened name for GOD,  YHWHand can we not say Theory more like Hypothseis since there has been no experiments or test that can be  done to verify and support the claim from this article...just wondering.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bechcube · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi Bechcube how's life??quick question the term JAH and in reference to this work - is the article trying to mean a GOD field or the "GOD particle" since JAH is the shortened name for GOD,  YHWHand can we not say Theory more like Hypothseis since there has been no experiments or test that can be  done to verify and support the claim from this article...just wondering.... Posted by lildreamer</DIV>lildreamer:Your observation of the JAH field is correct. Call the energy entity what you may but it is not the particle being sought at Cern(God particle).I have suggested that the temperature at a gamma ray burst be compared with the local temperature of the burst which would indicate that the field exists and galaxy are disappearing.Is their any connection between "Littledreamer" and your doll's headache?

SpeedFreek · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek:Guess I did not explain the comment on GRB's.When the galaxy disintegrates into gamma ray radiation the light from the galaxy disappears and the galaxy which was there can no longer be seen. This is what astronomers observe and explains why the galaxy light disappears.Further, this theory was copyrighted and is a copy of that copyright.Where is your proof that disproves the theory? Posted by bechcube</DIV>Ok. So the idea is that the galaxies at the edge of the observable universe are disintegrating into gamma rays, which explains why astronomers can see no galaxies more distant than that.Well, that must mean that we are at the actual centre of the Universe then. Is that it? I mean, galaxies at the same distance in any direction (the edge of our observable universe) are all disintegrating. We are at the centre of a universal sphere and all the galaxies at the edge are disappearing.Are you claiming that the Earth is actually at the centre of the Universe? (As for the copyright thing, whoever originally did it spelt copyright wrongly. Not very promising!)    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

bechcube · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok. So the idea is that the galaxies at the edge of the observable universe are disintegrating into gamma rays, which explains why astronomers can see no galaxies more distant than that.Well, that must mean that we are at the actual centre of the Universe then. Is that it? I mean, galaxies at the same distance in any direction (the edge of our observable universe) are all disintegrating. We are at the centre of a universal sphere and all the galaxies at the edge are disappearing.Are you claiming that the Earth is actually at the centre of the Universe? (As for the copyright thing, whoever originally did it spelt copyright wrongly. Not very promising!)    Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV>SpeedFreek:Because galaxies are being constantly formed through the universe, the solar system location varies but can, because of the size of the universe, be spoken of as in the area of the center of that universe and is supported by the average 3 degree temperature of the gamma ray radiation.Thanks for the spelling correction, but what proof can you offer to disprove the theory?

SpeedFreek · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek:Because galaxies are being constantly formed through the universe, the solar system location varies but can, because of the size of the universe, be spoken of as in the area of the center of that universe and is supported by the average 3 degree temperature of the gamma ray radiation.Thanks for the spelling correction, but what proof can you offer to disprove the theory? Posted by bechcube</DIV>No, it is up to you to supply proof that your theory is better than the current mainstream theory.So, just to be clear, it seems to me you are really stating the following about point 1 of your theory:We are approximately at the centre of the universe, and see no more galaxies over a certain distance in any direction. The reason for this is because we can see the edge of the universe in all directions, and galaxies at the edge of the universe reach near-light velocity and disintegrate in gamma ray bursts.You also say that galaxies are being constantly formed. So you are suggesting a steady-state theory for the universe, with galaxies being continually produced and moving away from a central point. You suggest that we are close enough to the central point as to be considered at the centre of the universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

lildreamer · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>lildreamer:Your observation of the JAH field is correct. Call the energy entity what you may but it is not the particle being sought at Cern(God particle).I have suggested that the temperature at a gamma ray burst be compared with the local temperature of the burst which would indicate that the field exists and galaxy are disappearing.Is their any connection between "Littledreamer" and your doll's headache?   Posted by bechcube</DIV>Is their any connection between "Littledreamer" and your doll's headache?    LOL (snicker) <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bechcube · Oct 20, 2008

SpeedFreek: In your 7:39 Post, you seem to understand my theory presented.I was hoping that someone with knowledge of space would join my "Gandanken (?) experiment" with an arguement why they disagree, based on the standard model or their beliefs.

Archer17 · Oct 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek: In your 7:39 Post, you seem to understand my theory presented.I was hoping that someone with knowledge of space would join my "Gandanken (?) experiment" with an arguement why they disagree, based on the standard model or their beliefs.  Posted by bechcube</DIV>It doesn't supplant the standard model. It needs to. I won't pretend to understand all the math you gurgitated but when you get down to it you got to do better than play defense here. A lot better. Have you had your ideas peer-reviewed by the nerds willing to dissect your mathematic minutiae, which could be gibberish for all I know? I kinda doubt it because if your ideas had merit I wouldn't have to have you come here to tell me about 'em. My alarm bells go off when someone comes by with a notion like yours and doesn't realize that the word "prove" in a scientific context is non sequitur. You should know that. The burden of providing irrefutable evidence that supplants current cosmological models is yours alone bechtube, you're the one here trying to sell something so start trying to sell it in a coherent manner that doesn't involve half a page just to figure out what you are trying to say. I'm still not sure what you're talking about - steady-state? Galaxies disintegrating at a particular "end point "which is consistent in distance no matter what direction with regards to Earth's location? Earth in the center of the universe?? I dunno, maybe it's me. I did go only 9-5 in this weeks's SDC football poll...    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bechcube · Oct 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It doesn't supplant the standard model. It needs to. I won't pretend to understand all the math you gurgitated but when you get down to it you got to do better than play defense here. A lot better. Have you had your ideas peer-reviewed by the nerds willing to dissect your mathematic minutiae, which could be gibberish for all I know? I kinda doubt it because if your ideas had merit I wouldn't have to have you come here to tell me about 'em. My alarm bells go off when someone comes by with a notion like yours and doesn't realize that the word "prove" in a scientific context is non sequitur. You should know that. The burden of providing irrefutable evidence that supplants current cosmological models is yours alone bechtube, you're the one here trying to sell something so start trying to sell it in a coherent manner that doesn't involve half a page just to figure out what you are trying to say. I'm still not sure what you're talking about - steady-state? Galaxies disintegrating at a particular "end point "which is consistent in distance no matter what direction with regards to Earth's location? Earth in the center of the universe?? I dunno, maybe it's me. I did go only 9-5 in this weeks's SDC football poll...    Posted by archer17</DIV>Archer17:I left out all calculus and used only basic algebra.If it is beyond you, why answer the challenge?

Archer17 · Oct 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Archer17:I left out all calculus and used only basic algebra.If it is beyond you, why answer the challenge? Posted by bechcube</DIV>You missed my point. Your notion is not my (or others here for that matter) "challenge," it's yours. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

lildreamer · Oct 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek: In your 7:39 Post, you seem to understand my theory presented.I was hoping that someone with knowledge of space would join my "Gandanken (?) experiment" with an arguement why they disagree, based on the standard model or their beliefs.  Posted by bechcube</DIV> Why don't we pick apart the post's mathematics first...This cube root quotient is equal to the absolute value of the Plank length, 10>-33 1/3cmthe Planck length is approximately 1.6 × 10−35 meters taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_lengthIf the cube root quotient is taken from your original value then your final value and theory based on this value would be off by a couple of magnitudes.or maybe I'm not reading the first equation properly - possible ?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek: In your 7:39 Post, you seem to understand my theory presented.I was hoping that someone with knowledge of space would join my "Gandanken (?) experiment" with an arguement why they disagree, based on the standard model or their beliefs.  Posted by bechcube</DIV>Ok, I know I will probably regret this, but I'll bite.I disagree, based on the standard model. More precisely, I disagree based on the cosmological principle that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic at the large scale. Therefore I do not believe that the Earth resides at a special place in the Universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

Cosmology Theory

bruceralph

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

lildreamer

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

lildreamer

Guest

vastbluesky92

Guest

bechcube

Guest

lildreamer

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

bechcube

Guest

lildreamer

Guest

bechcube

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

bechcube

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

lildreamer

Guest

bechcube

Guest

Archer17

Guest

bechcube

Guest

Archer17

Guest

lildreamer

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page