@Lou

Thanks for the book offer. Let me think of it. I'm bad on returning books they usually wind up in my big book collection.

Quote:

How do the particles that made up the flare compare to the rest of space around the earth?

The flare that hit earth was an X class. That's greater than 10^-4 Watt per meter squared. This is more energy than a non-flare event. Which is why the auroras and concern of EM knocking out electronics.

How should this change? Example: We have radiative forces pushing on the earth all the time. If there's a symmetrical increase in strength (flare hits the whole planet uniformly) there should be a no vector change but a momentum change. If there's an asymmetrical increase in strength (flare hits the northern half but not southern) we would see a vector change as well as a momentum change. If we have a non-flare event we have X particles in the rest of space around earth. That X is comprised of particles from both the sun and the earth. When a solar event occurs we have X+solar event particles. And thereby a greater radiative force in the same area of space. Should an increase of radiative pressure impart some sort of change in vector or change in momentum to the earth? If the answer is yes then shouldn't the increase in pressure impart even a larger vector or momentum change to satellites flying around the earth because they are of lower mass and lower energy than the earth they should see even greater impact.

We can measure the increase in energy on the earth's surface from an X class flare compared to a non-flare day. Radiation dectectors in an airplane can measure an increase in radiation from the X class flare. If it's really this radiation that's keeping the earth into orbit we are indeed able to measure increase in radiation.

For example, we have figured out that the earthquake in Japan did shift the earth's axis by roughly 6 inches. We have figured out the same earthquake shorted the day by ~2 microseconds. There is no mass difference on the planet. Instead there is a difference in the balance of the mass on the planet. The change in location of the mass caused the forces on the planet to change. These caused a new vector and a different momentum, compared to what they should have been had the event not occurred. Do we see this sort of thing with 'radiative pressure?'

I checked on speed. The solar wind travels from the sun to us at a rate of ~1 million miles per hour. The solar flare traveled to us at the rate of ~4.5 million miles per hour. Seems to me when one blows a fan at 4x the rate the speed of the fan speeds up in reaction. What was the momentum change to earth and satellites.


Additionally, Haramein claimed that aliens driving earth sized spaceships were driving into the sun to make interstellar jumps using the blackhole inside our sun. As we have 365 degree monitoring for the first time ever of our sun any evidence that an earthsized alien craft entered the spot where the flare ejected out?

Last edited by BrianK on 09-Mar-2012 at 10:13 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 09-Mar-2012 at 10:02 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 09-Mar-2012 at 09:56 PM.

@Nimrod

I'm not the one named Nimrod here...

As for your constant memory loss, its obvious you are senile.

@Lou

Quote:

I'm not the one named Nimrod here...

The original Nimrod whose name I have borrowd was a man who refused to be intimidated by other men who claimed to speak with the authority of their deity, and was consequently described by the followers of that religion as "evil". This name is appropriate for me as I also refuse to kowtow to your self appointed "divine wisdom", and refuse to accept something as a fact without evidence.
Your reference to Nimrod as "Idiot" comes from american street slang, however I am not one of George W's "fellow merkins", I use British English as my native language. If you wish to talk like a merkin, go ahead. Incidentally the use of Nimrod meaning "foolish person" originates in a Warner Bros cartoon in which Bugs Bunny refers to Elmer Fudd, the hunter (see my avatar) as a little Nimrod, a comment aimed at his persistence.

Quote:

As for your constant memory loss, its obvious you are senile.

Once again claims that I have forgotten your no doubt brilliant counter to my proofs, but I have just looked back through both threads on the topic of "Nibiru, what if" and have found boo, bumpkiss, bupkis, dick, diddly squat, jack, jack squat, nada, nowt, nunya, zero, zip, zippo so if you can just be so kind as to point out exactly where you have successfully refuted my mathematics, please do so. All I could find were spurious claims, and links to even more spurious claims. Your comment once again ignores the actual facts and makes an ad hominem against the messenger, a tactic you have used from the first with absolutely no success. Even your recent attempts to claim to be the victim of such attacks serves only to make yourself look foolish. A subtle hint, that which has been written, stays written, and can be referred back to. for example Quote:

How did Atzecs or Mayans who couldn't fly build the figures on the Gaza strip? Why doesn't someone build a pyramid today using the same technology as the Sumerians? Why are skeletons of 'giants' dug up then hidden?

1. Ancient South American natives were nowhere near modern day Palestine
2. We have better methods today
3. They weren't. The pictures were photoshopped. You simply prefer to believe fantasy than accept reality.
At this point you were already expressing irritation with those who did not blindly follow your lead into the realms of paranoia, and I hadn't even started yet!

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

Good quick read on how'd we get to Dark Matter and how science deals with it now and in the future.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-372

The solar system is an air bubble surrounded by a sea of ZPF radiation pressure.
Read it and weep.

Nimrod, you yellow-bellied, well, nimrod!

I am so glad you finally played your yellow card. You have proven once and for all that you are full of manure. Calling me a coward when I challenge your potentially edited "evidence", personally attacking me, but when fire is fought with fire, you turn tail and run for the "report" button. Go find another skirt to hide behind. You've been exposed for the pansy that you are. I could have just as easily have reported you but unlike you I have to functional testicles between my legs.

Ah yes DARPA...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/03/17/1437217/darpa-director-leaves-pentagon-for-google

Interesting comments from the man leaving DARPA for google...


Looks like hobbits were real too:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

Last edited by Lou on 17-Mar-2012 at 05:38 PM.

@Lou
Quote:

Calling me a coward when I challenge your potentially edited "evidence"

We both drew from the same evidence pool. If my evidence is flawed, so is yours. Do at least try to think logically

Quote:

personally attacking me, but when fire is fought with fire, you turn tail and run for the "report" button.

I used the report facility in the mistaken belief that it would do some good and stop the personal abuse that you were spreading about, almost from the beginning. Strangely enough the person who whines most about personal attacks (Lou) is the person responsible for the majority of feeble minded comments about armpits, cheese Mr twister etc. as well as directly calling people liars. That nice Mr Franko has the approriate vocabulary to describe your behaviour on this thread, but since I am from south of the wall, I couldn't possibly use such terminology.

Quote:

I could have just as easily have reported you

for what, exactly. Link to where I resorted to puerile comments or derogatory remarks about your personal hygeine, or honesty, or even accused you of having multiple accounts, prior to my next response.
.
Quote:

unlike you I have to functional testicles between my legs.

between your ears, more likely.

Quote:

Looks like hobbits were real too: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

That was back in 2004, then later this was reported, but the latest, and more important news about hobbits is here

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-372 The solar system is an air bubble surrounded by a sea of ZPF radiation pressure. Read it and weep.

I am not finding the word AIR in the article at all? It's a bubble of charged particles, according to the article. The sun is known to spew electrons and protons, particles. The sun is comprised of hydrogen and helium with a trace amount of argon and nitrogen. Not seeing the sun comprised of AIR? Can you aid me in understanding how you came to the air conclusion?

Though again note we never said the sun didn't eject EM. We said it ALSO ejects gravity. EM being there is not a disproof of gravity. To do that we'd need to use something like a gravityometer to measure to see what happens to the gravitational field.

Do you have any experimental data collected and any coorelating ZPF and Gravity? If they are one in the same we should at least see a linear relationship in all areas. It'd be interesting to see if the ZPF from the sun, at say Jupiter lines up with gravitational measures.

Quote:

Interesting comments from the man leaving DARPA for google...

DARPA is about doing not dreaming. I think that's a fair assessment. DARPA is more about applied science. They'd be the ones to take, say anti-gravity, and make an anti-gravity bomb.

Quote:

Looks like hobbits were real too:

Another possible cause to monument building.

Any feedback on the reason the earth wasn't moved from a 4 fold increase of pressure from a solar wind? For example your first evidence sees particle ejecting happening in surges. How large of the ZPF change has to exist to say move a planet. For example, you claim the ZPF moves the earth (~1x10^50 atoms) wouldn't 4x ZPF and perhaps hitting just the northern hemisphere, like the recent solar wind, have some effect? You didn't answer that yet. I figured you needed more time to work it. Hows it coming?

On and off I've gradually worked my way through this thread (took some time)...

I am left drawing one solitary single conclusion from it...

Amiga users really are mad & live in alternate reality from the rest of society...

_________________

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Calling me a coward when I challenge your potentially edited "evidence" We both drew from the same evidence pool. If my evidence is flawed, so is yours. Do at least try to think logically Quote: personally attacking me, but when fire is fought with fire, you turn tail and run for the "report" button. I used the report facility in the mistaken belief that it would do some good and stop the personal abuse that you were spreading about, almost from the beginning. Strangely enough the person who whines most about personal attacks (Lou) is the person responsible for the majority of feeble minded comments about armpits, cheese Mr twister etc. as well as directly calling people liars. That nice Mr Franko has the approriate vocabulary to describe your behaviour on this thread, but since I am from south of the wall, I couldn't possibly use such terminology.

apparently, you are finally stating to realize your logic is flawed....

Quote:

Quote: I could have just as easily have reported you for what, exactly. Link to where I resorted to puerile comments or derogatory remarks about your personal hygeine, or honesty, or even accused you of having multiple accounts, prior to my next response. .

for being an all around a r s e hole.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-372 The solar system is an air bubble surrounded by a sea of ZPF radiation pressure. Read it and weep. I am not finding the word AIR in the article at all? It's a bubble of charged particles, according to the article. The sun is known to spew electrons and protons, particles. The sun is comprised of hydrogen and helium with a trace amount of argon and nitrogen. Not seeing the sun comprised of AIR? Can you aid me in understanding how you came to the air conclusion?

Perhaps you missed all the musings about how "dirty" out solar system is from various scientific sources...? Remember, the vacuum has more energy than matter... 90% of the engergy of a proton comes from its empty space, not its quarks(/matter).

Quote:

Though again note we never said the sun didn't eject EM. We said it ALSO ejects gravity. EM being there is not a disproof of gravity. To do that we'd need to use something like a gravityometer to measure to see what happens to the gravitational field. Do you have any experimental data collected and any coorelating ZPF and Gravity? If they are one in the same we should at least see a linear relationship in all areas. It'd be interesting to see if the ZPF from the sun, at say Jupiter lines up with gravitational measures.

You still seem to be unclear about what gravity is. At the end of this post, I linked a video series. Watch it and keep in mind the bubble concept.

Quote:

Quote: Interesting comments from the man leaving DARPA for google... DARPA is about doing not dreaming. I think that's a fair assessment. DARPA is more about applied science. They'd be the ones to take, say anti-gravity, and make an anti-gravity bomb.

My argument about DARPA has always been that they dis-eminate alien technology to be reporoduced by private corporations. They don't 'invent', they fund re-invention/reverse engineering.

Quote:

Any feedback on the reason the earth wasn't moved from a 4 fold increase of pressure from a solar wind? For example your first evidence sees particle ejecting happening in surges. How large of the ZPF change has to exist to say move a planet. For example, you claim the ZPF moves the earth (~1x10^50 atoms) wouldn't 4x ZPF and perhaps hitting just the northern hemisphere, like the recent solar wind, have some effect? You didn't answer that yet. I figured you needed more time to work it. Hows it coming?

I highly suggest you watch this 8 part series...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP4zQ4R8vJg

Last edited by Lou on 18-Mar-2012 at 07:07 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 18-Mar-2012 at 07:03 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 18-Mar-2012 at 07:01 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 18-Mar-2012 at 06:59 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 18-Mar-2012 at 06:59 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Perhaps you missed all the musings about how "dirty" out solar system is from various scientific sources...? Remember, the vacuum has more energy than matter... 90% of the engergy of a proton comes from its empty space, not its quarks(/matter).

Still not seeing how this supports your Air Bubble? If the energy is empty space and not matter and because air is matter then how does an Air Bubble exist? I get the article's magentic buble that would seem to apply to your explaination here. Still not seeing 'Air'?

Quote:

You still seem to be unclear about what gravity is. At the end of this post, I linked a video series. Watch it and keep in mind the bubble concept

Einsteinin gravity is mass causing spacetime curvature.

Quote:

My argument about DARPA has always been that they dis-eminate alien technology to be reporoduced by private corporations

Perhaps they do. Though I'd note someone quiting because DARPA was too applied for them doesn't in any way prove or disprove they're using alien technology. The statements had to evidenciary value to the 'alien reverse technology'.

The videos seem to not be anything new? Haven't you told us all this already? I don't see them evidencing forces necessary. Sure sound waves can keep a bubble this doesn't mean the EM is anti-gravity. It's a different force, as currently understood. If they're 1 in the same we must show they are the same. A force counteracting another force doesn't mean the other force didn't exist. And yes sound waves can keep a bubble aloft. What' the force necessary? How much force exists to keep Saturn aloft? It should be predictable and measureable. Hopefully some evidence will happen someday to prove, or disprove, this postulate.

Now getting back to the EM Theory. I don't see this answering the earth's movement. What we saw was a 'wave' of particles travelling with increased force (4x) and a different direction - this should change the waveform. Consider the differences of dropping a drop at 90 degrees versus 65 degrees. Consider the difference of a larger drop and a smaller drop. That would change the waveform (heck he showed you the diagrams of waveform change). This in turn should impact a planet in some manner would it not? It seems to me you claim EM moves the planets but then changing the EM 4 fold and a different angle, therefore a different wave) has no impact?

QUESTION - Why does DARPA not reverse engineer Alien anti-gravity technology. It seems to me this would be a huge benefit to society. An anti-gravity car would be a huge benefit to society. We don't need roads so it eliminates large costs of production and maintenance. We could build force fields saving many lifes and many injuries from crash. DARPA would profit with trillions. Not only would they benefit from huge improvements to transportation, but this could improve motors overall. Which means they'd profit in most every device in our society today. Wow! Seems to me the DARPA which would profit enough to probably fund the whole of our society from this invention is really doing us a disservice (assuming they have such an animal.)

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Mar-2012 at 01:33 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

apparently, you are finally stating to realize your logic is flawed....

You made an assertion and posted "evidence" to support a baseless accusation against a man who was not in a position to defend himself, in true cowardly fashion. I examined your "evedence" without prejudice and came to the conclusion that you were wrong and showed, using the same source, that you were mistaking a reflection for something else, just as happened with all of the "two suns" footage linked to last year. But of course, by your own admission, you would never investigate anything that closely, or even take the trouble to think.

Quote:

for being an all around a r s e hole.

And here we have the pinnacle of intellectual debate from Lou

Quote:

My argument about DARPA has always been that they dis-eminate alien technology to be reporoduced by private corporations. They don't 'invent', they fund re-invention/reverse engineering.

And I suppose that you will support this baseless assertion with yet another link showing somebody making yet more baseless and unsupported, unscientific assertions. Quote:

I highly suggest you watch this 8 part series... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP4zQ4R8vJg

Guess what, I was right. Up to and including the one about Illuminati running a secret world government, FTL travel, the lot. Do you know how to say paranoid delusional? If just one tenth of one percent of this bumbling, mumbling, stumbling presentation were true, the guy would have been quietly "disappeared" by a man with a loaded umberella over a decade ago. In the meantime, I still do not see Marty McFly type hoverboards on sale in my local shop.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Guess what, I was right. Up to and including the one about Illuminati running a secret world government, FTL travel, the lot. Do you know how to say paranoid delusional?

Stan Deyo retreats to safety It appears Stan believed the world to be entering a stage of collapse from nuclear war. He left the US because it'll be destroyed in the Great War. -- Paranoid Delusional is spot on.

Heck even Harold Camping realized oops I was wrong. Though he asked God to forgive his batshit crazy ideas so it's all good.

Quote:

If just one tenth of one percent of this bumbling, mumbling, stumbling presentation were true, the guy would have been quietly "disappeared" by a man with a loaded umberella over a decade ago.

By disappearing Stan the alien overloads would prove their existence. They aliens overlords are far smarter than that. The non-disappearence of Stan Deyo is indicative that aliens are controlling everything.

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Mar-2012 at 02:52 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Perhaps you missed all the musings about how "dirty" out solar system is from various scientific sources...? Remember, the vacuum has more energy than matter... 90% of the engergy of a proton comes from its empty space, not its quarks(/matter). Still not seeing how this supports your Air Bubble? If the energy is empty space and not matter and because air is matter then how does an Air Bubble exist? I get the article's magentic buble that would seem to apply to your explaination here. Still not seeing 'Air'? Quote: You still seem to be unclear about what gravity is. At the end of this post, I linked a video series. Watch it and keep in mind the bubble concept Einsteinin gravity is mass causing spacetime curvature. Quote: My argument about DARPA has always been that they dis-eminate alien technology to be reporoduced by private corporations Perhaps they do. Though I'd note someone quiting because DARPA was too applied for them doesn't in any way prove or disprove they're using alien technology. The statements had to evidenciary value to the 'alien reverse technology'. The videos seem to not be anything new? Haven't you told us all this already? I don't see them evidencing forces necessary. Sure sound waves can keep a bubble this doesn't mean the EM is anti-gravity. It's a different force, as currently understood. If they're 1 in the same we must show they are the same. A force counteracting another force doesn't mean the other force didn't exist. And yes sound waves can keep a bubble aloft. What' the force necessary? How much force exists to keep Saturn aloft? It should be predictable and measureable. Hopefully some evidence will happen someday to prove, or disprove, this postulate. Now getting back to the EM Theory. I don't see this answering the earth's movement. What we saw was a 'wave' of particles travelling with increased force (4x) and a different direction - this should change the waveform. Consider the differences of dropping a drop at 90 degrees versus 65 degrees. Consider the difference of a larger drop and a smaller drop. That would change the waveform (heck he showed you the diagrams of waveform change). This in turn should impact a planet in some manner would it not? It seems to me you claim EM moves the planets but then changing the EM 4 fold and a different angle, therefore a different wave) has no impact? QUESTION - Why does DARPA not reverse engineer Alien anti-gravity technology. It seems to me this would be a huge benefit to society. An anti-gravity car would be a huge benefit to society. We don't need roads so it eliminates large costs of production and maintenance. We could build force fields saving many lifes and many injuries from crash. DARPA would profit with trillions. Not only would they benefit from huge improvements to transportation, but this could improve motors overall. Which means they'd profit in most every device in our society today. Wow! Seems to me the DARPA which would profit enough to probably fund the whole of our society from this invention is really doing us a disservice (assuming they have such an animal.)

You always try to split things up and fail to see how things work together.

So if you has an ability to put pieces together instead of dissecting them, you'd realize from the NASA link and from my discussion about radiation pressure that the solar wind is making a bubble in space...and that the point at which the radiation pressure of space stops the solar wind is where the Voyager 1 craft was.

Now you see why General Relativity is 96-97% wrong outside of our solar system.

Because you dissect instead of step back, you will never get the bigger picture. Its becoming pointless to have conversations with you because you disect sentences when you should be consuming paragraphs...

@the Nimrod,

In your head you are always right.

@Lou

Quote:

You always try to split things up and fail to see how things work together.

I think you've noted a very significant approach difference between us. I'd put it another way - Lou's scientific rigor is lacking. I've noted before how you appear to not be interested in quantiative or qualitative measures. You've said as much yourself, albeit in slightly different way. To make a comparitive Lou's the guy that puts gas in the car, drives it, and calls it a car. BrianK does that but also has split things up - rebuilt engines and transmissions. Both have a degree of knowledge. Mine indeed isn't being satisfied with the surface details.

Going back to my question. Indeed when Lou says 'Air Bubble' and the scientists say 'Magnetic Bubble' I do ask what is the difference? Well the scientists measured the EM so they indeed know it's a magnetic field. Has Lou measured the Oxygen, Nitrogen, and other levels to fairly conclude it's air? I'd say just the opposite Lou tried to explain EM in a vacuum instead of focusing on the 'Air' he claimed.

So Lou is this really an 'Air Bubble'? If so how so? If not, it's okay to say you misspoke or misworded we are people afterall.


Quote:

you'd realize from the NASA link and from my discussion about radiation pressure that the solar wind is making a bubble in space

The discussion isn't about does the forest exist or not. It's about if it's about the type of forest. So again is this bubble Magnetic like NASA said or Air like Lou said?

Quote:

Its becoming pointless to have conversations with you because you disect sentences when you should be consuming paragraphs...

I dissect thoughts. When someone says that 'A' begets 'B' which means 'C' so we must conclude 'D' - each of those thoughts must be validated. We can't assume true and go on. It's why science demands rigor and Lou doesn't.

We see it pop up again and again - Lou shows us a bubble of water suspended by EM. Lou then concludes the same must be true of the planets. Though Lou fails to support this statement with qualitative or quantitiave evidence. Due to this lack of rigor you end up dealing in beliefs. So indeed I can see how you might be frustated when someone asks you to actually show your beliefs are true. As you say your construct is one of the big picture. You don't split it up and thusly your ideas lack the supporting details.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You always try to split things up and fail to see how things work together. I think you've noted a very significant approach difference between us. I'd put it another way - Lou's scientific rigor is lacking. I've noted before how you appear to not be interested in quantiative or qualitative measures. You've said as much yourself, albeit in slightly different way. To make a comparitive Lou's the guy that puts gas in the car, drives it, and calls it a car. BrianK does that but also has split things up - rebuilt engines and transmissions. Both have a degree of knowledge. Mine indeed isn't being satisfied with the surface details. Going back to my question. Indeed when Lou says 'Air Bubble' and the scientists say 'Magnetic Bubble' I do ask what is the difference? Well the scientists measured the EM so they indeed know it's a magnetic field. Has Lou measured the Oxygen, Nitrogen, and other levels to fairly conclude it's air? I'd say just the opposite Lou tried to explain EM in a vacuum instead of focusing on the 'Air' he claimed. So Lou is this really an 'Air Bubble'? If so how so? If not, it's okay to say you misspoke or misworded we are people afterall. Quote: you'd realize from the NASA link and from my discussion about radiation pressure that the solar wind is making a bubble in space The discussion isn't about does the forest exist or not. It's about if it's about the type of forest. So again is this bubble Magnetic like NASA said or Air like Lou said? Quote: Its becoming pointless to have conversations with you because you disect sentences when you should be consuming paragraphs... I dissect thoughts. When someone says that 'A' begets 'B' which means 'C' so we must conclude 'D' - each of those thoughts must be validated. We can't assume true and go on. It's why science demands rigor and Lou doesn't. We see it pop up again and again - Lou shows us a bubble of water suspended by EM. Lou then concludes the same must be true of the planets. Though Lou fails to support this statement with qualitative or quantitiave evidence. Due to this lack of rigor you end up dealing in beliefs. So indeed I can see how you might be frustated when someone asks you to actually show your beliefs are true. As you say your construct is one of the big picture. You don't split it up and thusly your ideas lack the supporting details.

It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out I was speaking relatively. I can tell you were that annoying kid that was always correcting people...

Yes, if it has 4 wheels and a seat and steering wheel its a car whether the engine is 100% electric or petroleum powered, its still a car.

More specifically, I called our solar system an air bubble because space is dusty.

Fluid dynamics better describes the universe. The universe as we know it is the result of a black hole jet. For instance, look at the accepted evolution of the universe.
Here is a black hole jetting... It's not the Big Bang, its the Big Ongoing....

FYI: Ether physics is making a comeback.

@Lou

Quote:

It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out I was speaking relatively. I can tell you were that annoying kid that was always correcting people...

Actually I was the the annoying kid that was always asking why. Which is why most of my toys were found in pieces. And as I learned and got better most were found reassembled and working sometime later. Then even better I combined broken toys to make new working toys. Asking how the components work is incredibly important in understanding how the mechanism as a whole works.

Quote:

Fluid dynamics better describes the universe. The universe as we know it is the result of a black hole jet. For instance, look at the accepted evolution of the universe. Here is a black hole jetting... It's not the Big Bang, its the Big Ongoing....

Always interesting postulates. To further this idea if the 'Big Bang' is a black hole it's likely we're part of a multiverse. We might not be able to directly observe the external multiverse but we do think we see things such as other universes bludging into ours.

On the 'Big Ongoing'. Such a shape would likely be impossible with the understood shape of our universe. The leading shape of the universe is thought be a flat sheet. The latest microwave probes indicate our universe is within +/- 0.5% of perfectly flat. So the lead candidate at present would be modeled by a flat sheet of paper that's infinite in length and width but has, relatively, no height. .. If that's so the Big Ongoing is out of the running.

Quote:

FYI: Ether physics is making a comeback.

Ether as a state of matter described by older civilizations is done. Part of the problem is the absoulute frame for reference model was clearly broken. Or simply - a geocentric universe around the earth was clearly dead. IMO, Bose-Einstein Condenstates is far more interesting and far more promising.

Last edited by BrianK on 19-Mar-2012 at 07:10 PM.