Make that an Einsteinian "static" cosmological constant of 'expanse'! I have it "infinite set" and "sets"!
Is CMB Wrong? Is Big Bang Wrong?
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Let me try, one last time.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Great. So, when we measure features of the sun on earth, that light is actually 8 minutes old, it was emitted from the sun's surface then took 8 minutes to reach us right? However, the sun is a fixed distance from us, those distant galaxies emitted the light 13.5 billion years ago AND have been moving away ever since so the real distance today is 34 billion light years from us.
No! We are on the way into a universe singularity as Stephen Hawking said, unless life continues to migrate along the rivers to the constant of the "Life Zone" (Hawking's quote, life constantly, continuously, eternally migrating from old "Life Zones" going away on the river, the rivers, of time to oncoming new "life Zones." The travel itself, a travel by cutting the curvature, by detouring the curvature, the straightest of all lines cutting the curvature being identified as a tunneling, a wormholing, warping space and time. My visualization and realization, of the same thing, is space and time travel to existing, but unobserved and unobservable, future histories ahead in and of (hopefully) "Life Zone" frontier universes (plural). The trinity: The old and archaic "heavens" equal the near and far "horizons," equal the new/old "frontiers" . . . "DEJA VU". Einstein's "static" universe he never realized the ever renewing richness existing in the cosmologically constant rolling turnover of it. We being in about the middle of the local turnover.
Which comes first, "the tree or the seed?" Or, "The chicken or the egg?" Or, the grand total of all cosmic mass and energy equaling '0', or the Big Crunch/Big Bang equaling '1' via the infinite set and sets of black holes/white holes?
Having fun here and I will definitely be repeating my fun somewhere again. While I was off, banned, I looked elsewhere for the total of reads of what you have called my thread "nonsense." I not only found the 196,000 reads for one generalized thread of cosmology and physics, before I stopped counting due to weariness I had counted up over 650,000 reads of my originated nonsense threads, all told, in just one subforum of a very popular science site (NOT Physics.org)!
The closed systemic Large Hadron Collider, among all others of same type, you may not realize and understand is in fact a gravitron. You can't ever approach the speed of light doing any constant of 1-grav, 2-gravs, 3-gravs, what have you, of space and time travel by acceleration, or deceleration, in the open systemic, the opening systemic, universes. But in local closed systemic environments pushing utterly crunching numbers of gravity toward singularity, you approach the speed of light, locally. You get that in the gravitrons, the gravities, of the "atom smashers!!!!"
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Huh. So we have evidence of 650,000 people that read what you wrote and ... walked away.
It would have been better if you had said very few people read your posts. At least then you could claim "nobody responded because nobody read them" - which is your fault. But now we know that 650,000 users didn't respond because 650,000 users didn't want to engage.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Ah yes. The Gravitron.
"The Gravitron is an amusement ride, most commonly found as a portable ride at fairs and carnivals."
Gravitron - Wikipedia
Yes, the LHC is a Gravitron ride. Of course, you only get one ride in it, but it lasts the rest of your life!
Reported as a troll-y troll, trolling in the science forums.
Oh, there were responses! There were many, pro and con responses. What surprises me is the ever continuing reads of my one generalized thread last attended to in February. I am still not going to tell you where, but they are all very available to see on the widely looked to website when you find it and them. There were even articles on the net from various mags and sites following my inputs, that were closely paralleling, though independently of my input (many visionary responses and works already being in existence before me, just then being published after some post of mine I began to realize over five years of time spent in my picturing and modeling).
No Dave! I'm very proud of my [outside-of-the-box] work . . . and that it got, and, gets, read! I would never have even brought it up if it weren't for your constant abusive savagery.
Stop crapping on this thread, dude. Make your own where you can spew your garbage.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
No. I am happy with that answer.
I will add that science is not your thing.
Reported, enough is enough.
CMBR:
The universe can possess all of this and still be static, constant, infinite, in possessing all of it at once (be everywhere there is and be every time there is, in unison of universes):
A constancy:
en.wikipedia.org
The universe can possess all of this and still be static, constant, infinite, in possessing all of it at once (be everywhere there is and be every time there is, in unison of universes):
A constancy:
Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Whatever. Click.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
In metres per second, it is exactly 9 digits long; no more, no less.
I will add this to the Chart of Gibberish.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
It is now under discussion by two experts.
Thread 'The impact of early galaxy formation on the CMBR' https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-impact-of-early-galaxy-formation-on-the-cmbr.1080951/
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
You were right I was wrong. He is now on ignore.
Moderator note: Atlan0001 has been warned (again) for posting incoherent nonsense. This time, it is in one of our Science subforums. As a repeat offender, he was given a few more warning points that usual, to encourage him to take some more time to reflect on our Site Posting Guidelines and revise his posting style.
Due to accumulated warnings, Atlan0001 will be absent for the next month.
Due to accumulated warnings, Atlan0001 will be absent for the next month.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This is excellent. I see from the discussion that what the paper implies is a matter of debate between the two experts - and some scepticism. But they do make the point that the authors are not suggesting the whole Big Bang model is wrong, just that the CMBR may include have a hitherto unrecognised extraneous contribution from these foreground early galaxies.
One point I picked up from this discussion is the role of dust that these galaxies irradiate, which may thermalise the spectrum - which otherwise would not be a black body at CMBR type temperature, given that they emitted their light at a mere z=17 or so, rather than z=1100.
There's also an issue about whether the authors just made a bolometric estimation of total energy flux from this source, or whether they also analysed the spectrum to make sure it has the right spectral distributiion for a black body at the right temperature.
Last edited: