Re: NASA Specialized Center of Research and Training, NSCORT, in Exobiology.
- From: "T Wake" <taswakeAt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:09:22 -0000
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_25_uRqN@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi T_Wake, You showed this failed attempt to find my link:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=distant+explosions+of+massive+stars&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
You have to enclose it in quotes, like this:
Google.CO.UK/search?q=%22distant+explosions+of+massive+stars%22
Ok, that works. (once the case resolves itself)
By the way... Do you see how much cleaner my links are ? !
No. Do you notice how you can click on mine and it takes you to the page? Do
you notice how mine include the protocol to be used and are properly formed
URIs?
You wrote:
There are no citations or "taglines" where we can determine who wrote
this.
Again, your web surfing skills are abysmal.
Well....
Why didn't you just click on the top left link labeled Astronomy ?
ExoBio.UCSD.EDU/Astronomy/astronomy.htm
Because I dont see the point in spending my spare time trying to ferret out
the details in links you send me.
Why should I? If he is so confident in his (dated) work, why not put his
name to it.
The advantage of using academic journals and research papers is that you
can, quickly, determine the author.
You said: ...black body radiation... isnt a fingerprint.
Yes it is, certain elements, certain supernovae,
have known Spectral_Lines... and they diminish with distance.
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Spectral_line
Not the same as a fingerprint. Black body radiation is the term for a curve
based on the heat of the star. A fingerprint would be (by definition) unique
to the star. The black body radiation isnt.
You asked: H_0 is an accelerating formula. What has been added ?
No it's not, H_0 has a constant velocity... and it's outdated.
Really? The common figure for H_0 is 80 km s^-1 Mpc^-1. This means that the
value (in km per second) depends on the distance away. Granted this is not
s^-2 acceleration but it is not constant.
Can you cite where it is outdated please?
You wrote:
For things "closer" to us to be moving apart faster than things more
distant, we would have to re-invent H_0:
which in turn would impact on the age of the universe and (funnily
enough)
the use of Supernovae as standard candles.
Your information is really, really outdated.
The universe is 13.7 +- .1 billion years old. See: Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV
How does that disagree with what I wrote?
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html identifies H_0 as a
determinant of the age of the universe. (Granted one method with wide error
margins)
It is this which provided a baseline for the more accurate results from
WMAP.
I wrote:
What you call Outward_Pressure is Negaitice_Pressure,
and because it takes energy to maintain a vacuum like that,
it's a virtual energy deficit
and, because E = mc², it's negative mass-energy.
And you imagined:
Really? Can you read my mind?
Where does the energy deficit come from, you ask ?
As I said, I posit that dissipation is intrinsic to Mass_Energy.
You can posit anything you like. It doesnt make it true.
The universe is _Observed_ to have net negative Mass_Energy,
I'm not making this up... see the WMAP and Riess data.
Your understanding of the data is flawed.
You told me: Not to mention the over simplification of e=mc^2
Look at my post using a smart newsreader, like Google,
Google.COM/group/sci.physics/msg/5975e8b42c1f62e5
I wrote: E = mc², not E = mc !
I saw what you wrote. Google is not a smart newsreader. Because you choose
to use a different encoding to me does not make you better. e=mc^2 is an
acceptable short hand for saying e = m * c squared.
However, the number used isnt the one Einstein predicted.
What does that tell you ?
Einstein had no value for lambda... how could he ?
It could have been predicted from the theory. Lots of things are theorised
before they are discovered. Read some more about physics. Learn why the
Higgs boson is causing problems (it hasnt been found at the predicted
energies).
The ideal case is not simply looking and plugging the numbers in. You make
your theory, see what it predicts (for example particle x with mass y) and
then you look there. If it matches the theory is good.
I am suprised you didnt know that.
He didn't have 1998 data from Riess and 2004 data from WMAP !
If he had, it wouldnt have been a prediction.
Did he ever predict any values for lambda?
You told me:
Posit what you like. Unknown does not mean random.
Lots of things are unknown but are not random.
My postulates are well grounded, yours are fanciful at best.
Hahaha. Brilliant. Were you looking in the mirror as you typed that?
Speaking of my quotes from Einstein, you told me:
it is good manners to put a citation when you direct quote
so people can read it in the original context.
You lack the Google skills to look it up, obviously... I don't.
Which make it more important for you to properly cite your quotes. I didnt
realise Einstein Einstein Google.
Besides, Einstein wrote in German, not English.
Its ok, I can speak German (and Einstein wrote lots in both languages). Now
we hit another problem. As your quotes were in English, I can only assume
there is the definite risk of translation error.
You could always cite the original work and let me read it in German.
I said GR allows things to be rotated and translated in space-time
because there are so few unknowns, and that
you could do it at the quantum level too if there weren't so many
unknowns.
And you replied:
So why isnt rotation through time required for symmetry ?
GR is symmetic in space-time... because there are so few unknowns.
You havent answered my question.
Speaking of quantum _Approximations_ you told me:
Both forces act in a manner that pretty much requires THREE
-- and no more or less -- spatial dimensions.
Of course... but that's merely due to unknowns !
Such as?
It'd be four spatial dimensions if more was known... I posit.
You are wrong.
I wrote:
It's only unknowns -- a.k.a. randomness -- that makes
life, gravity and photon spins seem like they're in a casino,
only winning in the short-term, consuming, glomming on,
...and _Always_ losing in the long-run.
And you replied:
Another pithy metaphysical bit of nonsense from Jeff.
Nice one. Keep them coming.
Prove that everything loses in the long run.
Everything loses in the long run, dissipating.
That's a fact of life that you merely can't deal with. Get a clue.
It is not a fact of life. I could deal with it if it was. It is, in reality,
just your attempt to accommodate for your sorry apparent self loathing.
Prove everything loses in the long run. Remember the conservation of energy
principle while you are doing this.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- T_Wake lives in la la land.
- From: Jeff_Яelf
- T_Wake lives in la la land.
- References:
- WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Heat_death.
- From: Jeff_℞elf
- Re: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Heat_death.
- From: T Wake
- From effectively no entropy to effectively infinite dissipation.
- From: Jeff_Яelf
- Re: From effectively no entropy to effectively infinite dissipation.
- From: T Wake
- Everything has just always been, and will continue to be, dissipating.
- From: Jeff_Яelf
- Re: Everything has just always been, and will continue to be, dissipating.
- From: T Wake
- NASA Specialized Center of Research and Training, NSCORT, in Exobiology.
- From: Jeff_Яelf
- WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Heat_death.
- Prev by Date: Re: The www. prefix.
- Next by Date: Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!
- Previous by thread: NASA Specialized Center of Research and Training, NSCORT, in Exobiology.
- Next by thread: T_Wake lives in la la land.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
