Re: Do we know where the Big Bang happened?
From: Dale Trynor (dalet_at_nbnet.nb.ca)
Date: 07/11/04
- Next message: lensman1955: "Re: Register, GET OUT & VOTE Republican!"
- Previous message: Jon Bell: "Re: Weak Force Interactions"
- In reply to: Sam Wormley: "Re: Do we know where the Big Bang happened?"
- Next in thread: Michael Varney: "Re: Do we know where the Big Bang happened?"
- Reply: Michael Varney: "Re: Do we know where the Big Bang happened?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:15:57 GMT
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Michael Varney wrote:
>
>>"Dale Trynor" <dalet@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>news:ZQ0Ic.72208$Np3.3474044@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>
>>>
>>>Michael Varney wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dale Trynor" <dalet@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:OZHHc.71776$Np3.3450729@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>>>
>>>>Hello crackpot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Dale Trynor wrote:
>>>I don't get it, why so silent for so many months until now. I seam to
>>>remember that we corresponded once but you went silent when I coaxed you
>>>to give an alternative conclusion for the proposed gedankens.
>>>Dose this mean you are volunteering to give an objective review of the
>>>proposed experiments in support of this alternative theory. Do you
>>>remember any of it.
>>>
>>>I know you are capable of this and I seam to also remember having told
>>>you before that if you give a good reason where its basis was wrong I
>>>would gladly give up posting this stuff over and over and you never did
>>>this, so its well worth your time to do so and lessen the useless
>>>traffic here. Seriously I will stop my repetitive posts if you can give
>>>a reasoned argument and have a majority of the other posters agree with
>>>your analysis.
>>
>>Ok. You are a crackpot.
>>Lets see a show of hands of those who agree with my analysis.
>
>
>
> A crank (at least on the web and on USENET) is an individual
> that makes claims, or holds views, that are contradicted by
> the empirical data of observation and experiment.
>
> Dale fits that desciption.
Dale Trynor wrote:
No I do not contradict imperial data of observation and experiment.
To keep it short I have left out alternative experiments.
Here is the extremely oversimplified gedanken I cut and pased from
another post that allows one a framework for mathematical tests. Tell me
where it contradicts empirical data.
You probably know about the Shapiro delay and how it involves how light
is delayed as it passes
by a gravitational body, its
well documented so we can ignore details and just skip by and use our
analogy of the pole-vault
and barn gedanken that
becomes rather similar to the Shapiro delay when we have a black hole
within the barn.
Trying to keep this ridiculously simple, lets put in a time dilation of
300,000,000 times and make
the barn 1 meter long and
our rod is some reasonable percentage of light speed. We allow both the
rod as well as a series of
light pulses to enter the
barn and because we know the rod cannot travel faster than the light its
only logical to expect the
rod will take 1 second to
exit the outlet door as this must also be the case for the light.
Note that if the rod is much longer than the barn we will still be able
to show that the longer rod
will still fit nicely within the
barn from the prospective of our outside observers and given that much
time delay they will all
have agreed that both doors
were at some time more or less simultaneously closed. You cant do this
without the time dilation
effect within the barn as you
will get different observers disagreeing on when both doors were closed
but I wont repeat this old
stuff and I know you must
know it and its importance to simultaneity arguments.
Its gets tricky even with simplified extremes showing that from our rods
prospective it will also
measure more distance within
the barn as Lorentz contraction effects become significant and because
it is in free fall it will gain
speed making this more
complicated, but try doing this where the rod is prevented from gaining
speed relative to the black
hole and it will become
more obvious that it will and indeed measure more distance inside the
barn than it would have
estimated before it entered.
Do it any way you like and after you have estimated the observations for
the two observers
yourself I will continue this
discussion.
You will love how it gives remarkably similar predictions to those given
to inflation theory where
black holes are created and
if you could be inside of one during such a process.
Response from Uncle Al, Science is empirical. Propose a real world
experiment.
Fortunately the Shapiro delay is probably close enough, it just needs to
be re examined. I cannot
for the life of me say why this
has been overlooked for so long. To make matters more odd its even been
predicted that mass
might contract under gravity
that I wont get into here but yet they never noticed that measuring
distances with a contracted
measure can also lead to some
decent arguments on how it would lead to a greater measure of space.
Obviously this is not
applicable to bound systems as
within a space craft.
Dale
- Next message: lensman1955: "Re: Register, GET OUT & VOTE Republican!"
- Previous message: Jon Bell: "Re: Weak Force Interactions"
- In reply to: Sam Wormley: "Re: Do we know where the Big Bang happened?"
- Next in thread: Michael Varney: "Re: Do we know where the Big Bang happened?"
- Reply: Michael Varney: "Re: Do we know where the Big Bang happened?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
