Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

This the psychologist idiot, isn't it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aloha Everyone,

There is a publication which indicates that Type 1a supernovae may have the same point of origin as de Sitter space. This might serve as a fulcrum for futher work in this important area of interest.

> Einstein-de Sitter model re-examined for newly discovered Type Ia supernovae
Vishwakarma, R. G.
> Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 361, Issue 4, pp. 1382-1386.
> The consistency of the Einstein-de Sitter model with the Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) recently observed by the Hubble Space Telescope is examined. The model shows a reasonable fit to the observations, if account is taken of the extinction of SN light by the intergalactic metallic dust ejected from the SN explosions. Although the fit to the new data is considerably worse than that of earlier data, it can still be regarded as acceptable. We should wait for more accurate observations at higher redshifts (as expected from forthcoming space missions such as SNAP and the James Webb Space Telescope) before ruling out a model that seems to explain all the other existing observations well (some even better than the favoured ΛCDM model), is consistent with beautiful theoretical ideas such as inflation and cold dark matter, and is not as speculative as the models of dark energy.
Keywords: supernovae: general, cosmology: theory
> DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09275.x

Best Aloha and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

De Sitter space is a mathematical construct; there is no physical evidence that it exists, it's really just a way to model things. I'm not sure but I think it's because De Sitter space is globally hyperbolic.

It's like saying a point of light has the same point of origin as Minkowski space which is globally 'flat', fer chrissakes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its the never ending threeeeaaaad, LaLAla lalala!

 

There's actually as much reason as not to believe we're already in a de Sitter universe. At the moment the dominant factor wrt the expansion of the universe is dark energy, and that causes accelerating expansion. Accelerating expansion is de Sitter space.

 

So "god" who made the big bang was really just some high energy physicists experimenting in their flat universe and they punched a hole in it to let de Sitter space (our universe) burst in.

Now, I know what is outside our universe - their universe and those researchers (our God) drinking beer and celebrating the interesting collision results they made. - Hey that's as good as any of the prime cause theories, and more interesting than most, I think.

 

Aloha,
Please recall, in this instance, that there may be visitors to those remaining from the selection process of de Sitter space Supernova generation. To infiltrate our visitors vessels with portable atomic weapons would be advisable. From an historical perpective, let us recall the influx of these early visitors to America and the subsequent havoc in the native resident populations. Better safe than sorry! An insidious attack may be effective where shielding may exist for an overt atomic attack.

ALL BEST WISHES FOR THE NEW YEAR!!!

Cordailly,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

 

Seasons greetings from the frost-ridden, sub-zero climate of NW Europe.

Hawaii must be great..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Has Paul now just gone into full blown paranoia mode, worrying about visitors, aka invaders, who might arrive after someone sets off a supernova? If we did set off a supernova (which is not going to happen, cosmic rays demonstrate that) there'd be nothing left of the planet. Paul seems to have gone from "It'll kill us all!!" to "It'll kill some of us but then we'll be invaded!!".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Aloha,

In this connection, we may recall Professor Enrico Fermi's observation as to the presence of aliens in our ecosphere. The question we might ask is following the Nobel prize winner in this, where are they? They may have fallen to their own self-generated catastrophe. i.e., Supernova generation. Yet if they have managed to have survived, they may represent ancient forms that have come into the modern cosmos. They may be extremely deadly, intelligent and nothing to be trifled with.

Let us be most careful in this.

All Best Wishes for the New Year!!!

Cordially,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova form Experimentation

 

I for one am extremely cautious about talking to aliens. It just isn't a good idea to get off-base with the green guys.

I tried talking in Klingon once at a Star Trek convention--total disaster!

 

Yes Paul is correct - best to blow them up at first contact.

Everyone knows they have superior technology and their robotic space-warping ship came to Earth to prevent further technological advances here. They have been doing this "halting of progress" to thousands of civilization that foolishly welcomed them with the idea of learning from them. Their simple, (to them) standard destruction procedure does destroy the robotic ship along with that developing planet's solar system, sun included. I.e. they punch a hole in local de Sitter space, which from great distance looks like a natural super nova event.

 

I have to agree with you on that Billy T. Now what kind of beer are they drinking?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

BBB, I think. (Big Bang Bud)

 

Hey, whatever happened to this thread? I thought it was at least gonna get to 100 pages!
Paul, u there?!

 

He was last seen April 3rd 2012, so that's unlikely.

 

Paul W. Dixon (not a very uncommon name) was a psychologist at the University of Hawaii, born August 1, 1936. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a3604/4281928/
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/v...curriculum-vitae-university-of-hawaii-at-hilo
He's retired. http://hilo.hawaii.edu/blog/chancellor/2013/05/ which makes it harder to know his current status.

I found 1 "rate my professor" entry from 2015, but it is uncertain that this was legitimate evidence of Paul Dixon's continued teaching.

 

The thread was essentially over after the first post by crisp. Some pretty knowledgeable posts were made with some detail and reference. Paul may have a PH.D. But it isn't in particle physics. Over this topic he rings my crank bell. IE he doesn't seem to want to absorb any of the scholarship associated with this subject because he'd have to acknowledge his analysis wasn't to good. We got enough cranks as it is.