The Cosmos isn't going outwards. We're going in. - Page 2

astrocat · #31 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

No, it's not clear. But I guess I can't think independently". You need to explain it better; and removing all the implied insults will make it clearer.

So sorry, Pzkpfw, if you felt insulted by my challenge. I'm certainly not trying to insult anyone, implied or otherwise.
Can we move on?[quote]Firstly, a Universe "out of nothing" is a bad mis characterisation of mainstream science. Sorry. Where do you think this egg came from?

To me, the Big Bang is complicated. When Hubble heard about it he disliked such a complex, almost childish, explanation.

To hear the Observable Cosmos was expanding, and to extrapollate backwards (actually forwards. Don't you see?) to the Cosmos reduced to a singularity seems to me a bit of a no-brainer.

More likely, to me, and much simpler - if I'm not mistaken, would be a Cosmos that came 'Already Expanded', in other words, with a very low density, much like it is in Space right now - except then, at the beginning, there were, of course, no Clumps. Just perturbations... Totally to be expected in a huge Primordial Cloud of hydrogen, I would say.

My way, matter would be everywhere, of course, which, coincidentally - it is.

The Big Bang, which happened everywhere, if you can honestly believe that, states that matter is everywhere. And it is - but look what you have to do to get it there. You have to violate the most basic Laws of Gravity... Never mind...

Quote:

Secondly, why is your counter idea ("came already expanded") any more reasonable?

It's so much simpler.

Quote:

And that's ignoring the evidence that led to what mainstream science thinks.)

No no, I'm agreeing with all the evidence of mainstream science. Please don't think that of me. I'm the one who doesn't need to break the law to float my kite. Hope that helps.

CodeSlinger · #32 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 05:22 PM

Your "math" has already been shown to be flat out wrong, as tusenfem pointed out. Apparently you don't even understand basic concepts like angular velocity and tangential velocity. Seriously, exactly what new material do you have that would justify opening a new thread on old ideas?

astrocat · #33 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EndeavorRX7

What did you win? You haven't won my opinion of you as a credible scientist. You're suggestions are baseless and without any merit. If you continue your poor analysis, you will win a spot on my ignore list. Have a nice day

Wow, I've been told...

Nice to meet you, Endeavor, if I can call you that? The worst thing you can do to a scientist like me. Baseless, w.out merit... You're tough. I'll say that.

astrocat · #34 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

What Growing Mass in the Center are you talking about?

How do you explain the observations that not only are we expanding- but it is accelerating?

Neverfly - how nice to meet you.

I was really talking about Black Holes and their Accretion Rings - actually Galaxies, composed of Stars Etc.

When we look at these Galaxies, we see they are vortices, being drawn inwards by the Black Hole(s) at their centers. But what gives a Black Hole the power to do this, Neverfly? How can a Black Hole literally 'bend' inwards' the orbit of a nearby Star?

By Growing gravitationally. Think about it, Neverfly. What would happen to Earth if Sol began losing mass? Would we move inwards or outwards?

astrocat · #35 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

No, before we get to the question "why" we'd have to agree there was someplace we were going in.

Take your average Celestial Vortex, M51 - the Whirlpool Galaxy. Ask yourself, why did they call it that? I'm sure the Milky Way works just the same. Not trying to upset you, but again, we're going in. You do see that, don't you?

Quote:

Nope. Your misconceptions about black holes and gravity were covered in earlier threads.

Sorry you feel that way.

astrocat · #36 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I get a real kick out of how some folks try to use Occams Razor.
Occams Razor does not apply to everything, it has a certain application.

Many folks try to misapply it. Being sarcastic too about it sometimes.

Then when skeptics say that it doesn't work that way- they accuse skeptics of cherry picking and changing the rules.

You're so right, Neverfly.

Quote:

Their abuse or confusion of the rule does not constitute a failure on the skeptics part but on their own. Sadly, they do not see that.

We can hope, one day, they will see the light.

I forgot to say why I thought the Expansion was accellerating. It's how things fall, that's all.

astrocat · #37 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Occam

Well, I'll say it, even if no-one else will.
Astrocat you are spouting utter garbage - a proposition that is neither supported by any known physics nor by observation.

I can tell, right away, Occam, you are not one to mess around.

Quote:

It is not enough to strike a pose and make an announcement that contradicts everything we know about the universe.

Not without evidence, it's not.[quote]You have to present a testable case with data that can be examined and either verified or disproven.[quote]Data? Well, what about this Speeding Up of the Observasble Universe. I say it's Gravity. I'd be interseted to hear your explanation.

Quote:

You have nothing but a stupid idea based on ignorance of physics and, quite frankly, reality.

But Occam - how can you be so sure?

Bozola · #38 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrocat

You have to violate the most basic Laws of Gravity

Such as?

astrocat · #39 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Well why did you not say so then, that you meant tangential velocity divided by the circumference of a circle? Just a little critical thinking about what you write down does a lot to safe you from getting chopped up in little pieces.

Yes, the circumpherence of a circle.. 2Pi times r. You're so right.

Quote:

I do not see a capital greek R (Ρ) anywhere on the wiki page, are you confusing it maybe with just a regular capital p (P) which is explained in the text to mean Particle?

Quote:

I meant the letter that goes straight up, then turns right at the top.

Then again, read the wiki page, coz even after you looked at it, your definition is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can't you even read?

Quote:

Sheesh, you don't have to get mad.

The second equation on that page gives you the correct definition, namely

ω = (v sin(θ)) / |r|

in radians per second. So there is no 2 pi in there. Again, reading and a little critical thinking about what you write down.

your 'w' is angular velocity. I know that much. Thank you for your equation. You don't know how lucky you are. I will take this equation away and study it.

Quote:

If you start garbling up the basics already, this does not bode well for any future development of your theory. (but we noticed that in your previous threads already).

I'm so lucky to have you.

Quote:

And to answer your last question, I am going nowhere, the Earth is going around the sun,

In a stable orbit.

Quote:

the sun around the center of the milky way,

But not neccessarily in a stable orbit. Not if the Black Hole(s) at the center are actively growing.

Quote:

...and the universe is expanding.

That's the Observable Universe, Tusenfem, that's been observed to be expanding. The Observable Universe...

Quote:

So, no, I don't think we are going in, because, like at the beginning of this whole stuff, we are going in(to) WHAT? You need to explain yourself.

I don't know. Why are you asking me? well, OK, into a singularity. Why not?

Quote:

And no, Occam's Razor does not mean that the smallest theory is correct, let alone the theory with the fewest words. You really do not have the foggiest.

Sure, it does. Fortunately for me, that's a given.

astrocat · #40 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeSlinger

"astrocat's wrong". That's 2 words to his 6. Must mean I'm right

Okay, why do you say the Observable Universe is expanding? My answer - Gravity, is only one word long. What's your answer?

astrocat · #41 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bozola

Such as?

The Law that says when you fall you speed up. Honestly, what's the matter with you?

astrocat · #42 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeSlinger

Your "math" has already been shown to be flat out wrong, as tusenfem pointed out. Apparently you don't even understand basic concepts like angular velocity and tangential velocity. Seriously,

Aha, you don't believe that yourself.

Quote:

exactly what new material do you have that would justify opening a new thread on old ideas?

The math is new. Now please answer my question to you. About the expansion.

CodeSlinger · #43 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 06:59 PM

Sorry, not interested in playing your games, or re-treading old ground.

I'm reporting your thread as an attempt to bypass the 30-day rule.

antoniseb · #44 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrocat

Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be quite the ride. By the way, the Math for the Cosmos is as follows...

Angular Velocity = Radial distance from center/ 2Pie times the radius. Anyone disagree?

Please lay out how exactly this thread is different from your previous closed thread, seemingly on this same topic. Do you have something new to add, or are you simply re-presenting, and re-phrasing your previous claims and arguments?

I'll need an answer relatively quickly, or this thread will close.

speedfreek · #45 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrocat

Okay, why do you say the Observable Universe is expanding? My answer - Gravity, is only one word long. What's your answer?

Well my answer is - Lambda.

It's a shorter word than Gravity so I win.

tusenfem · #46 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrocat

Yes, the circumpherence of a circle.. 2Pi times r. You're so right. your 'w' is angular velocity. I know that much. Thank you for your equation. You don't know how lucky you are. I will take this equation away and study it. I'm so lucky to have you.In a stable orbit. But not neccessarily in a stable orbit. Not if the Black Hole(s) at the center are actively growing. That's the Observable Universe, Tusenfem, that's been observed to be expanding. The Observable Universe... I don't know. Why are you asking me? well, OK, into a singularity. Why not?
Sure, it does. Fortunately for me, that's a given.

The only question is now DID YOU UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT WAS WRITTEN?

Stop going off on sideway and tell what you want to do with angular velocity.
Stop talking about munching black holes expanding their gravity.
To go on a sideway myself, the sun around the center of the galaxy does not care if the black hole in the center gets heavier by swallowing stars and gas around it, because ...... Gravity, which binds the sun is only dependent on the WHOLE mass within the orbit of the sun, and whether it is composed of single stars or one big black hole is totally unimportant.

Be very glad you have me you might learn something.

korjik · #47 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 08:19 PM

How about this:

It is.

There. My theory is only 2 words and 4 letters. That must mean that the universe is static and unchanging.

KaiYeves · #48 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Cosmos, with Carl Sagan, is back on TV in reruns.

Yes, I was making a joke.

Van Rijn · #49 (**permalink**) 01-February-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Stop talking about munching black holes expanding their gravity.
To go on a sideway myself, the sun around the center of the galaxy does not care if the black hole in the center gets heavier by swallowing stars and gas around it, because ...... Gravity, which binds the sun is only dependent on the WHOLE mass within the orbit of the sun, and whether it is composed of single stars or one big black hole is totally unimportant.

I'm afraid that was pointed out in at least one of the previous threads. Astrocat insists on "vacuum cleaner" black holes.