Expand Your Mind Virtually--Free!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos

That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
background.

Heh.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

Where am I, Dove?

< _The Einstein Intersection_

 

mimus wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>
> That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
> one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
> background.
>
> Heh.

I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the universe
seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is slowing down.
An interesting read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml
--
Tim Weaver

"We each owe a death, there are no exceptions, I know that,
but sometimes, oh God, the Green Mile seems so long."
-Dabbs Greer as Old Paul Edgecomb from "The Green Mile"

 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>
>> That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
>> one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
>> background.
>>
>> Heh.
>
> I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the universe
> seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is slowing down.
> An interesting read.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml

While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve of
this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the particle and
wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but
absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or
cosmology will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).

I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in the
"Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I compare
to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is
roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).

And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
apparent.

And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to the
"Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility with
Genesis' "Let there be light":

In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.

(No astronomy degree for _me_.)

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

The hell with the Galactic Overlords
and their tastes in literature.

< _The Day of the Burning_

 

mimus wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>
>>mimus wrote:
>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>
>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
>>>one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
>>>background.
>>>
>>>Heh.
>>
>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the universe
>>seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is slowing down.
>>An interesting read.
>>
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml
>
> While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve of
> this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the particle and
> wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
> stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but
> absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or
> cosmology will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>
> I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in the
> "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I compare
> to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is
> roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>
> And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
> shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
> apparent.

Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows that.

>
> And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to the
> "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility with
> Genesis' "Let there be light":
>
> In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.

Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>
> (No astronomy degree for _me_.)
>
I like p'astronomy on rye. Observatories go well with peach brandy in
the warmer months, hot buttered rum in the winter months and cheerful
banter (except for the poor dumb bastard(s) who got dome duty and have
to freeze in the dark).

Something like 79% of the population of the US believes that the sun
orbits around the earth.

--
nuts

 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>
>>>mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>
>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
>>>>one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
>>>>background.
>>>>
>>>>Heh.
>>>
>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the universe
>>>seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is slowing down.
>>>An interesting read.
>>>
>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml
>>
>> While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve of
>> this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the particle and
>> wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
>> stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but
>> absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or
>> cosmology will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>
>> I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in the
>> "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I compare
>> to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is
>> roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).

What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"? heh.

>> And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>> shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>> apparent.
>
> Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows that.

Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .

>> And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>> the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>> with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>
>> In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>
> Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?

<with dignity>

I am here, and so is It.

And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big Bang"
theory has . . . .

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

What about yer _second_ smart theory?

< _Deadbone_

 

mimus wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>
>> mimus wrote:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>
>>> That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
>>> one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
>>> background.
>>>
>>> Heh.
>>
>> I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the
>> universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is
>> slowing down. An interesting read.
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitim
>> e118.xml
>
> While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve of
> this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the particle and
> wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
> stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but
> absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics
> or cosmology will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the
> other).
>
> I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in the
> "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I compare
> to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth
> is roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>
> And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
> shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
> apparent.
>
> And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to the
> "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility with
> Genesis' "Let there be light":
>
> In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>
> (No astronomy degree for _me_.)

Excluding the nutz' reply and response, what do you believe?

And because I think you may be going to a place I've never been, keep it to
laymen's terms, please. However, feel free to be as prolific as you like.
--
Tim Weaver

"We each owe a death, there are no exceptions, I know that,
but sometimes, oh God, the Green Mile seems so long."
-Dabbs Greer as Old Paul Edgecomb from "The Green Mile"

 

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:53:44 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>
>>> mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>
>>>> That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
>>>> one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
>>>> background.
>>>>
>>>> Heh.
>>>
>>> I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the
>>> universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is
>>> slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitim
>>> e118.xml
>>
>> While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve of
>> this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the particle and
>> wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
>> stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but
>> absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics
>> or cosmology will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the
>> other).
>>
>> I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in the
>> "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I compare
>> to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth
>> is roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>
>> And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>> shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>> apparent.
>>
>> And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to the
>> "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility with
>> Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>
>> In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>
>> (No astronomy degree for _me_.)
>
> Excluding the nutz' reply and response, what do you believe?
>
> And because I think you may be going to a place I've never been, keep it to
> laymen's terms, please. However, feel free to be as prolific as you like.

<cough>

Our speculations are so vague and simple at this point as to necessitate
years of rumination, formulation and elaboration to get to the point of
being a hypothesis . . . .

It is, however, safe to say, that we believe firmly in "steady expansion"
of the cosmos; that the laws of conservation of mattergy etc. should
probably be revised at least at the cosmic level to be laws of
conservation of mattergetic _density_ etc. (it might be remembered here
that a set does not necessarily share the properties of its members, and
that therefore you cannot deduce the properties of a set taken as a whole
from those of its members-- by way of very pertinently analogous example,
an integer is finite, but the set of integers is infinite); that mattergy
and space(-time) are generated simultaneously, and indeed are inextricably
associated _or_ "equal and opposite" entities _or_ both; and that the
"background glow" is either the fundamental mechanism or (what we consider
more likely) a side-effect of "cosmic generation", the fundamental
steady-state process.

Note that we do in fact accept that the cosmos is expanding, and for that
matter that "red shift" is-- usually-- a valid "yardstick" of astronomical
distance, although we are suspicious of its validity with regard to "the
most distant objects" (see the word "usually" above, and keep the example
of the well-established phenomenon of gravitational red shift well in
mind), it's just that we think rushing to associate the two seems
uncautious to us, on the order of the rapid embracing of the "Big Bang"
theory.

These are some of our vague and simple reflections on the subject,
generally mulled over under the stars with binocs and a small scope and in
what might be called a receptive mood.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.

< Pratchett

 

mimus wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:53:44 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>
>> mimus wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>
>>>> mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>
>>>>> That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the
>>>>> full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very
>>>>> nice desktop background.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh.
>>>>
>>>> I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the
>>>> universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is
>>>> slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scit
>>>> im e118.xml
>>>
>>> While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve
>>> of this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the
>>> particle and wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the
>>> other, seem to be stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT)
>>> goes (it's peculiar but absolutely true that the mature Final Theory
>>> of either nuclear physics or cosmology will be or directly imply the
>>> mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>
>>> I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in
>>> the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I
>>> compare to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that
>>> the Earth is roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>
>>> And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>> shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>> apparent.
>>>
>>> And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>> the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>> with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>
>>> In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>
>>> (No astronomy degree for _me_.)
>>
>> Excluding the nutz' reply and response, what do you believe?
>>
>> And because I think you may be going to a place I've never been, keep
>> it to laymen's terms, please. However, feel free to be as prolific as
>> you like.
>
> <cough>
>
> Our speculations are so vague and simple at this point as to necessitate
> years of rumination, formulation and elaboration to get to the point of
> being a hypothesis . . . .
>
> It is, however, safe to say, that we believe firmly in "steady
> expansion" of the cosmos; that the laws of conservation of mattergy etc.
> should probably be revised at least at the cosmic level to be laws of
> conservation of mattergetic _density_ etc. (it might be remembered here
> that a set does not necessarily share the properties of its members, and
> that therefore you cannot deduce the properties of a set taken as a
> whole from those of its members-- by way of very pertinently analogous
> example, an integer is finite, but the set of integers is infinite);
> that mattergy and space(-time) are generated simultaneously, and indeed
> are inextricably associated _or_ "equal and opposite" entities _or_
> both; and that the "background glow" is either the fundamental mechanism
> or (what we consider more likely) a side-effect of "cosmic generation",
> the fundamental steady-state process.
>
> Note that we do in fact accept that the cosmos is expanding, and for
> that matter that "red shift" is-- usually-- a valid "yardstick" of
> astronomical distance, although we are suspicious of its validity with
> regard to "the most distant objects" (see the word "usually" above, and
> keep the example of the well-established phenomenon of gravitational red
> shift well in mind), it's just that we think rushing to associate the
> two seems uncautious to us, on the order of the rapid embracing of the
> "Big Bang" theory.
>
> These are some of our vague and simple reflections on the subject,
> generally mulled over under the stars with binocs and a small scope and
> in what might be called a receptive mood.

How would you explain that all the visible light (start, galaxies, novae,
etc.) all form along dark energy bands? In the absence of a band, we see
nothing. Without looking it up, I believe WMAP (maybe?) did the
observation.
--
Tim Weaver

"We each owe a death, there are no exceptions, I know that,
but sometimes, oh God, the Green Mile seems so long."
-Dabbs Greer as Old Paul Edgecomb from "The Green Mile"

 

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:24:40 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:53:44 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>
>>> mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the
>>>>>> full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very
>>>>>> nice desktop background.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heh.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the
>>>>> universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is
>>>>> slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scit
>>>>> im e118.xml
>>>>
>>>> While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve
>>>> of this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the
>>>> particle and wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the
>>>> other, seem to be stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT)
>>>> goes (it's peculiar but absolutely true that the mature Final Theory
>>>> of either nuclear physics or cosmology will be or directly imply the
>>>> mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>
>>>> I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in
>>>> the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I
>>>> compare to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that
>>>> the Earth is roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>
>>>> And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>> shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>> apparent.
>>>>
>>>> And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>> the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>> with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>
>>>> In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>
>>>> (No astronomy degree for _me_.)
>>>
>>> Excluding the nutz' reply and response, what do you believe?
>>>
>>> And because I think you may be going to a place I've never been, keep
>>> it to laymen's terms, please. However, feel free to be as prolific as
>>> you like.
>>
>> <cough>
>>
>> Our speculations are so vague and simple at this point as to necessitate
>> years of rumination, formulation and elaboration to get to the point of
>> being a hypothesis . . . .
>>
>> It is, however, safe to say, that we believe firmly in "steady
>> expansion" of the cosmos; that the laws of conservation of mattergy etc.
>> should probably be revised at least at the cosmic level to be laws of
>> conservation of mattergetic _density_ etc. (it might be remembered here
>> that a set does not necessarily share the properties of its members, and
>> that therefore you cannot deduce the properties of a set taken as a
>> whole from those of its members-- by way of very pertinently analogous
>> example, an integer is finite, but the set of integers is infinite);
>> that mattergy and space(-time) are generated simultaneously, and indeed
>> are inextricably associated _or_ "equal and opposite" entities _or_
>> both; and that the "background glow" is either the fundamental mechanism
>> or (what we consider more likely) a side-effect of "cosmic generation",
>> the fundamental steady-state process.
>>
>> Note that we do in fact accept that the cosmos is expanding, and for
>> that matter that "red shift" is-- usually-- a valid "yardstick" of
>> astronomical distance, although we are suspicious of its validity with
>> regard to "the most distant objects" (see the word "usually" above, and
>> keep the example of the well-established phenomenon of gravitational red
>> shift well in mind), it's just that we think rushing to associate the
>> two seems uncautious to us, on the order of the rapid embracing of the
>> "Big Bang" theory.
>>
>> These are some of our vague and simple reflections on the subject,
>> generally mulled over under the stars with binocs and a small scope and
>> in what might be called a receptive mood.
>
> How would you explain that all the visible light (start, galaxies, novae,
> etc.) all form along dark energy bands? In the absence of a band, we see
> nothing. Without looking it up, I believe WMAP (maybe?) did the
> observation.

Again, I would suggest that both "dark matter" and "dark energy" are
misinterpretations of cosmic generation, much as someone attempting to
explain "coriolis force" without knowing about the spheroidality and
rotation of the Earth might be tempted to deduce the existence(s) of
some "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" and/or "dark vacuum" to explain
the phenomenon.

As for the association of emitting entities with "dark energy bands", how
do you know the bands are there? by the emitting entities? doesn't that
whiff a bit of circular reasoning?

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

I wonder what I have been up to.

< _Beyond Apollo_

 

mimus wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:24:40 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>
>> mimus wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:53:44 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>
>>>> mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> mimus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the
>>>>>>> full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very
>>>>>>> nice desktop background.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Heh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the
>>>>>> universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is
>>>>>> slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scit
>>>>>> im e118.xml
>>>>>
>>>>> While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve
>>>>> of this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the
>>>>> particle and wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the
>>>>> other, seem to be stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT)
>>>>> goes (it's peculiar but absolutely true that the mature Final Theory
>>>>> of either nuclear physics or cosmology will be or directly imply the
>>>>> mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>
>>>>> I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in
>>>>> the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I
>>>>> compare to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that
>>>>> the Earth is roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>
>>>>> And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>>> shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>>> apparent.
>>>>>
>>>>> And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>>> the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>>> with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>
>>>>> In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>
>>>>> (No astronomy degree for _me_.)
>>>>
>>>> Excluding the nutz' reply and response, what do you believe?
>>>>
>>>> And because I think you may be going to a place I've never been, keep
>>>> it to laymen's terms, please. However, feel free to be as prolific as
>>>> you like.
>>>
>>> <cough>
>>>
>>> Our speculations are so vague and simple at this point as to necessitate
>>> years of rumination, formulation and elaboration to get to the point of
>>> being a hypothesis . . . .
>>>
>>> It is, however, safe to say, that we believe firmly in "steady
>>> expansion" of the cosmos; that the laws of conservation of mattergy etc.
>>> should probably be revised at least at the cosmic level to be laws of
>>> conservation of mattergetic _density_ etc. (it might be remembered here
>>> that a set does not necessarily share the properties of its members, and
>>> that therefore you cannot deduce the properties of a set taken as a
>>> whole from those of its members-- by way of very pertinently analogous
>>> example, an integer is finite, but the set of integers is infinite);
>>> that mattergy and space(-time) are generated simultaneously, and indeed
>>> are inextricably associated _or_ "equal and opposite" entities _or_
>>> both; and that the "background glow" is either the fundamental mechanism
>>> or (what we consider more likely) a side-effect of "cosmic generation",
>>> the fundamental steady-state process.
>>>
>>> Note that we do in fact accept that the cosmos is expanding, and for
>>> that matter that "red shift" is-- usually-- a valid "yardstick" of
>>> astronomical distance, although we are suspicious of its validity with
>>> regard to "the most distant objects" (see the word "usually" above, and
>>> keep the example of the well-established phenomenon of gravitational red
>>> shift well in mind), it's just that we think rushing to associate the
>>> two seems uncautious to us, on the order of the rapid embracing of the
>>> "Big Bang" theory.
>>>
>>> These are some of our vague and simple reflections on the subject,
>>> generally mulled over under the stars with binocs and a small scope and
>>> in what might be called a receptive mood.
>>
>> How would you explain that all the visible light (start, galaxies, novae,
>> etc.) all form along dark energy bands? In the absence of a band, we see
>> nothing. Without looking it up, I believe WMAP (maybe?) did the
>> observation.
>
> Again, I would suggest that both "dark matter" and "dark energy" are
> misinterpretations of cosmic generation, much as someone attempting to
> explain "coriolis force" without knowing about the spheroidality and
> rotation of the Earth might be tempted to deduce the existence(s) of
> some "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" and/or "dark vacuum" to explain
> the phenomenon.
>
> As for the association of emitting entities with "dark energy bands", how
> do you know the bands are there? by the emitting entities? doesn't that
> whiff a bit of circular reasoning?

The math predicted what was actually seen. Obviously by "seen", I mean
analyzed data.
--
Tim Weaver

"We each owe a death, there are no exceptions, I know that,
but sometimes, oh God, the Green Mile seems so long."
-Dabbs Greer as Old Paul Edgecomb from "The Green Mile"

 

mimus wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>
>>mimus wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>
>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
>>>>>one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
>>>>>background.
>>>>>
>>>>>Heh.
>>>>
>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the universe
>>>>seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is slowing down.
>>>>An interesting read.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml
>>>
>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve of
>>>this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the particle and
>>>wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
>>>stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but
>>>absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or
>>>cosmology will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>
>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in the
>>>"Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I compare
>>>to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is
>>>roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>
> What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"? heh.
>
>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>apparent.
>>
>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows that.
>
> Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>
>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>
>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>
>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>
> <with dignity>
>
> I am here, and so is It.
>
> And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big Bang"
> theory has . . . .
>
The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given the
state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global desire for
compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of observation
often do not fit neatly into existing models but this does not mean
that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum
energy solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in any
earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way to
distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.

Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can be
used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people wave
their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so that
others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get depressed
and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).

Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.

The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as patched.


<burp>


--
nuts

 

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>
>>>mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
>>>>>>one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
>>>>>>background.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the universe
>>>>>seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is slowing down.
>>>>>An interesting read.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml
>>>>
>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve of
>>>>this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the particle and
>>>>wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
>>>>stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but
>>>>absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or
>>>>cosmology will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>
>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in the
>>>>"Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I compare
>>>>to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is
>>>>roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>
>> What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"? heh.
>>
>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>>shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>>apparent.
>>>
>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows that.
>>
>> Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>
>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>>the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>>with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>
>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>
>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>
>> <with dignity>
>>
>> I am here, and so is It.
>>
>> And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big Bang"
>> theory has . . . .
>>
> The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
> (there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given the
> state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global desire for
> compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of observation
> often do not fit neatly into existing models but this does not mean
> that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum
> energy solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in any
> earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way to
> distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.
>
> Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can be
> used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
> observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people wave
> their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so that
> others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get depressed
> and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>
> Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>
> The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
> 'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
> functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
> 'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as patched.
>
> <burp>

Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at higher
red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy elements that
ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but aren't . . . .

HA

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

Decorum, after all, was a more subtle and ultimately more
satisfactory weapon than high feelings and improper conduct.

< Jack Vance

 

mimus wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>
>> mimus wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the
>>>>>>>full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very
>>>>>>>nice desktop background.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the
>>>>>>universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is
>>>>>>slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/sci
>>>>>>time118.xml
>>>>>
>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve
>>>>>of this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the
>>>>>particle and wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the
>>>>>other, seem to be stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT)
>>>>>goes (it's peculiar but absolutely true that the mature Final Theory
>>>>>of either nuclear physics or cosmology will be or directly imply the
>>>>>mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>
>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in
>>>>>the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I
>>>>>compare to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that
>>>>>the Earth is roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>
>>> What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"? heh.
>>>
>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>>>shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>>>apparent.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows
>>>>that.
>>>
>>> Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>
>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>>>the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>>>with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>
>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>
>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>
>>> <with dignity>
>>>
>>> I am here, and so is It.
>>>
>>> And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big
>>> Bang" theory has . . . .
>>>
>> The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>> (there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given the
>> state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global desire for
>> compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of observation
>> often do not fit neatly into existing models but this does not mean
>> that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum
>> energy solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in any
>> earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way to
>> distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.
>>
>> Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can be
>> used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>> observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people wave
>> their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so that
>> others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get
>> depressed and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>
>> Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>
>> The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>> 'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>> functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>> 'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as
>> patched.
>>
>> <burp>
>
> Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at
> higher red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy elements
> that ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but aren't . . . .

I'll go with the pros on this one. If Dr. Mitchu Kaku says it, I believe
it.
--
Tim Weaver

"We each owe a death, there are no exceptions, I know that,
but sometimes, oh God, the Green Mile seems so long."
-Dabbs Greer as Old Paul Edgecomb from "The Green Mile"

 

mimus wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>
>
>>mimus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
>>>>>>>one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
>>>>>>>background.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the universe
>>>>>>seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is slowing down.
>>>>>>An interesting read.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml
>>>>>
>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve of
>>>>>this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the particle and
>>>>>wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
>>>>>stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but
>>>>>absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or
>>>>>cosmology will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>
>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in the
>>>>>"Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I compare
>>>>>to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is
>>>>>roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>
>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"? heh.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>>>shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>>>apparent.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows that.
>>>
>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>>>the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>>>with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>
>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>
>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>
>>><with dignity>
>>>
>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>
>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big Bang"
>>>theory has . . . .
>>>
>>
>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given the
>>state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global desire for
>>compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of observation
>>often do not fit neatly into existing models but this does not mean
>>that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum
>>energy solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in any
>>earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way to
>>distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.
>>
>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can be
>>used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people wave
>>their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so that
>>others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get depressed
>>and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>
>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>
>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as patched.
>>
>><burp>
>
> Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at higher
> red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy elements that
> ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but aren't . . . .
>
> HA
>
Except for the likely situation where the earliest stars were very
massive and supernovaed in a few million years leaving heavy elements
and the occasional black hole for the next generation to form and rally
around. The small stuff may not be luminous enough, and may be occluded
by gas and dust such that population spastictics are skewed to favor big
and mature 2nd generation objects.

There are some low mass iron depleted stars in our own galaxy -
where'd they come from?

HAHA!

--
nuts

 

Tim Weaver wrote:
> mimus wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>
>>>mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the
>>>>>>>>full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very
>>>>>>>>nice desktop background.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the
>>>>>>>universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is
>>>>>>>slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/sci
>>>>>>>time118.xml
>>>>>>
>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve
>>>>>>of this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the
>>>>>>particle and wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the
>>>>>>other, seem to be stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT)
>>>>>>goes (it's peculiar but absolutely true that the mature Final Theory
>>>>>>of either nuclear physics or cosmology will be or directly imply the
>>>>>>mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in
>>>>>>the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I
>>>>>>compare to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that
>>>>>>the Earth is roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>
>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"? heh.
>>>>
>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>>>>shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>>>>apparent.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows
>>>>>that.
>>>>
>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>
>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>>>>the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>>>>with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>
>>>><with dignity>
>>>>
>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>
>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big
>>>>Bang" theory has . . . .
>>>>
>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given the
>>>state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global desire for
>>>compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of observation
>>>often do not fit neatly into existing models but this does not mean
>>>that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum
>>>energy solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in any
>>>earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way to
>>>distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.
>>>
>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can be
>>>used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people wave
>>>their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so that
>>>others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get
>>>depressed and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>
>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>
>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as
>>>patched.
>>>
>>><burp>
>>
>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at
>>higher red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy elements
>>that ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but aren't . . . .
>
>
> I'll go with the pros on this one. If Dr. Mitchu Kaku says it, I believe
> it.

He ain't nothin' if he doesn't have a mother ship and ride in a
chauffered Bentley.

--
nuts

 

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:33:17 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>
>>
>>>mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
>>>>>>>>one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
>>>>>>>>background.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the universe
>>>>>>>seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is slowing down.
>>>>>>>An interesting read.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml
>>>>>>
>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve of
>>>>>>this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the particle and
>>>>>>wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
>>>>>>stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but
>>>>>>absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or
>>>>>>cosmology will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in the
>>>>>>"Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I compare
>>>>>>to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is
>>>>>>roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>
>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"? heh.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>>>>shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>>>>apparent.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows that.
>>>>
>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>>>>the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>>>>with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>
>>>><with dignity>
>>>>
>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>
>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big Bang"
>>>>theory has . . . .
>>>>
>>>
>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given the
>>>state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global desire for
>>>compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of observation
>>>often do not fit neatly into existing models but this does not mean
>>>that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum
>>>energy solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in any
>>>earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way to
>>>distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.
>>>
>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can be
>>>used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people wave
>>>their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so that
>>>others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get depressed
>>>and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>
>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>
>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as patched.
>>>
>>><burp>
>>
>> Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at higher
>> red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy elements that
>> ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but aren't . . . .
>>
>> HA
>
> Except for the likely situation where the earliest stars were very
> massive and supernovaed in a few million years leaving heavy elements
> and the occasional black hole for the next generation to form and rally
> around. The small stuff may not be luminous enough, and may be occluded
> by gas and dust such that population spastictics are skewed to favor big
> and mature 2nd generation objects.

Patch 17.D.1.a.(2) . . . .

> There are some low mass iron depleted stars in our own galaxy -
> where'd they come from?
>
> HAHA!

There are heavy-element-lacking globular clusters running around all over
the place.

Where do _they_ come from?

*Ah*hahahahahahahahaha!

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

The hell with the Galactic Overlords
and their tastes in literature.

< _The Day of the Burning_

 

mixed nuts wrote:

> Tim Weaver wrote:
>> mimus wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the
>>>>>>>>>full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very
>>>>>>>>>nice desktop background.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the
>>>>>>>>universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is
>>>>>>>>slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/sc
i
>>>>>>>>time118.xml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve
>>>>>>>of this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the
>>>>>>>particle and wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the
>>>>>>>other, seem to be stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT)
>>>>>>>goes (it's peculiar but absolutely true that the mature Final Theory
>>>>>>>of either nuclear physics or cosmology will be or directly imply the
>>>>>>>mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in
>>>>>>>the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I
>>>>>>>compare to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that
>>>>>>>the Earth is roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>
>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"? heh.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>>>>>shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>>>>>apparent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows
>>>>>>that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>>>>>the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>>>>>with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>
>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>
>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>
>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big
>>>>>Bang" theory has . . . .
>>>>>
>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given the
>>>>state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global desire for
>>>>compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of observation
>>>>often do not fit neatly into existing models but this does not mean
>>>>that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum
>>>>energy solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in any
>>>>earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way to
>>>>distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.
>>>>
>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can be
>>>>used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people wave
>>>>their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so that
>>>>others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get
>>>>depressed and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>
>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>
>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as patched.
>>>>
>>>><burp>
>>>
>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at
>>>higher red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy elements
>>>that ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but aren't . . . .
>>
>>
>> I'll go with the pros on this one. If Dr. Mitchu Kaku says it, I believe
>> it.
>
> He ain't nothin' if he doesn't have a mother ship and ride in a
> chauffered Bentley.

What happened to your mother ship?
--
Tim Weaver

"We each owe a death, there are no exceptions, I know that,
but sometimes, oh God, the Green Mile seems so long."
-Dabbs Greer as Old Paul Edgecomb from "The Green Mile"

 

mimus wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:33:17 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>
>>mimus wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
>>>>>>>>>one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
>>>>>>>>>background.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the universe
>>>>>>>>seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is slowing down.
>>>>>>>>An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve of
>>>>>>>this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the particle and
>>>>>>>wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
>>>>>>>stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but
>>>>>>>absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or
>>>>>>>cosmology will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in the
>>>>>>>"Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I compare
>>>>>>>to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is
>>>>>>>roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>
>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"? heh.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>>>>>shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>>>>>apparent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>>>>>the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>>>>>with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>
>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>
>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>
>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big Bang"
>>>>>theory has . . . .
>>>>>
>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given the
>>>>state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global desire for
>>>>compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of observation
>>>>often do not fit neatly into existing models but this does not mean
>>>>that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum
>>>>energy solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in any
>>>>earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way to
>>>>distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.
>>>>
>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can be
>>>>used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people wave
>>>>their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so that
>>>>others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get depressed
>>>>and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>
>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>
>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as patched.
>>>>
>>>><burp>
>>>
>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at higher
>>>red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy elements that
>>>ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but aren't . . . .
>>>
>>>HA
>>
>>Except for the likely situation where the earliest stars were very
>>massive and supernovaed in a few million years leaving heavy elements
>>and the occasional black hole for the next generation to form and rally
>>around. The small stuff may not be luminous enough, and may be occluded
>>by gas and dust such that population spastictics are skewed to favor big
>>and mature 2nd generation objects.
>
> Patch 17.D.1.a.(2) . . . .
>
>>There are some low mass iron depleted stars in our own galaxy -
>>where'd they come from?
>>
>>HAHA!
>
> There are heavy-element-lacking globular clusters running around all over
> the place.
>
Clusters and escapees from clusters. And possibly a loner here and
there what never had much opportunity to accrete supernova dust. Old
bastards. Left over from when there wasn't anything heavier than 8Be
around. From 13 billion years ago. More or less.

There is the possibility that clusters were mined for all their heavy
elements by unknown entities and are a mere shadow of their former
Iron rich selves, I suppose. Maybe.

> Where do _they_ come from?
>
> *Ah*hahahahahahahahaha!
>

--
nuts

 

Tim Weaver wrote:
> mixed nuts wrote:
>
>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>
>>>mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the
>>>>>>>>>>full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very
>>>>>>>>>>nice desktop background.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the
>>>>>>>>>universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is
>>>>>>>>>slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/sci
>>>>>>>>>time118.xml
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve
>>>>>>>>of this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the
>>>>>>>>particle and wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the
>>>>>>>>other, seem to be stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT)
>>>>>>>>goes (it's peculiar but absolutely true that the mature Final Theory
>>>>>>>>of either nuclear physics or cosmology will be or directly imply the
>>>>>>>>mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in
>>>>>>>>the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I
>>>>>>>>compare to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that
>>>>>>>>the Earth is roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"? heh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>>>>>>shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>>>>>>apparent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows
>>>>>>>that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>>>>>>the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>>>>>>with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big
>>>>>>Bang" theory has . . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>>>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given the
>>>>>state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global desire for
>>>>>compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of observation
>>>>>often do not fit neatly into existing models but this does not mean
>>>>>that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum
>>>>>energy solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in any
>>>>>earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way to
>>>>>distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.
>>>>>
>>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can be
>>>>>used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>>>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people wave
>>>>>their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so that
>>>>>others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get
>>>>>depressed and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>>
>>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>>
>>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>>>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as patched.
>>>>>
>>>>><burp>
>>>>
>>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at
>>>>higher red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy elements
>>>>that ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but aren't . . . .
>>>
>>>I'll go with the pros on this one. If Dr. Mitchu Kaku says it, I believe
>>>it.
>>
>>He ain't nothin' if he doesn't have a mother ship and ride in a
>>chauffered Bentley.
>
> What happened to your mother ship?

Mot 'rapture ready' and have no large population of gullible loonies
over which I hold dominion. Don't need one.

--
nuts

 

mixed nuts wrote:

> Tim Weaver wrote:
>> mixed nuts wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the
>>>>>>>>>>>full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a
>>>>>>>>>>>very nice desktop background.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why
>>>>>>>>>>the universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose
>>>>>>>>>>time is slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18
>>>>>>>>>>/sci time118.xml
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly
>>>>>>>>>approve of this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation,
>>>>>>>>>since the particle and wave boys on the one hand, and the
>>>>>>>>>cosmologists on the other, seem to be stymied as far as the Grand
>>>>>>>>>Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but absolutely true that
>>>>>>>>>the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or cosmology
>>>>>>>>>will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe
>>>>>>>>>in the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of
>>>>>>>>>which I compare to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without
>>>>>>>>>knowing that the Earth is roughly spheroidal and
>>>>>>>>>rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"?
>>>>>>>heh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that
>>>>>>>>>"red shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic
>>>>>>>>>expansion real or apparent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows
>>>>>>>>that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion
>>>>>>>>>to the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its
>>>>>>>>>compatibility with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big
>>>>>>>Bang" theory has . . . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>>>>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given
>>>>>>the state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global
>>>>>>desire for compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of
>>>>>>observation often do not fit neatly into existing models but this
>>>>>>does not mean that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved
>>>>>>a precise minimum energy solution in real time on a scale that
>>>>>>cannot be contained in any earthbound laboratory or computer. We
>>>>>>have no timely way to distinguish whether or not we inderstand
>>>>>>what's going on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can
>>>>>>be used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>>>>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people
>>>>>>wave their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so
>>>>>>that others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get
>>>>>>depressed and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>>>>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as
>>>>>>patched.
>>>>>>
>>>>>><burp>
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at
>>>>>higher red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy
>>>>>elements that ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but
>>>>>aren't . . . .
>>>>
>>>>I'll go with the pros on this one. If Dr. Mitchu Kaku says it, I
>>>>believe it.
>>>
>>>He ain't nothin' if he doesn't have a mother ship and ride in a
>>>chauffered Bentley.
>>
>> What happened to your mother ship?
>
> Mot 'rapture ready' and have no large population of gullible loonies
> over which I hold dominion. Don't need one.

Will you ever? Do you have a plan in place?
--
Tim Weaver

"We each owe a death, there are no exceptions, I know that,
but sometimes, oh God, the Green Mile seems so long."
-Dabbs Greer as Old Paul Edgecomb from "The Green Mile"