Spyman

But you replied to my post.

Ignored by your own previous request since you don't want to waste time learning... The diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs or 93 billion light-years, the entire Universe is likely much bigger. (There is no limit on the rate of expansion so the distance between two remote galaxies can increase at more than lightspeed.) The definition has already been made, se my post #14.

You are severly limiting your ability to understand science with your faith and thats fine, but we are free to choose a different path.

The Big Bang theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations. (Based on the best available measurements as of 2010.)

The Crookes radiometer, also known as the light mill, consists of an airtight glass bulb, containing a partial vacuum. Inside are a set of vanes which are mounted on a spindle. The vanes rotate when exposed to light, with faster rotation for more intense light, providing a quantitative measurement of electromagnetic radiation intensity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer

I have noticed this on another forum and suspect it is spammers or their bots testing/probing out the cite in question. At one particular forum in my home country it was evident that the posters didn't understand the language and several of those I found seemed to be exactly identical or duplicates of other posts in the thread or from other threads. That forum is now heavily attacked by foreign spammers.

Any progress on this? Right now it doesn't even seem to show on the members profile page that they are banned. Maybe they could be placed in a usergroup with it's own "Banished" title similar to what experts and moderators have under their avatar but with skulls instead of stars or alternatively that at least their ordinary user title should change to "Banished". (Other titles might also be needed for suspensions and similar lighter/shorter regulations.)

Photons can not be stationary and persons can not travel with lightspeed, but to answer your question a photon one meter behind another photon will never be able to catch up and interact with the one ahead.

Do You Think You May Have Found a Meteorite? Meteorites have several distinguishing characteristics that make them different from terrestrial (Earth) rocks. You can use this list to guide you through them. Usually, meteorites have all or most of these characteristics. Sometimes, detailed chemical analyses need to be done, but only on rocks that meet all these characteristics. http://epswww.unm.edu/iom/ident/index.html

I think the interaction between the disc and the magnetic field will provide friction and resist the spinning.

"The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists."

It might have been said to you in several different threads already, but I think it needs to be repeated again: According to Relativity BOTH energy and mass warps spacetime equally. So due to conservation laws it is not possible to instantaneously remove a source of gravity from a location, even if all mass in a supernova explosion would be converted to energy in one single event, all that resulting light would still have the same gravity as the mass had before and then gravity would decrease gradually as the photons starts to radiate away with the speed of c. However that is not what you was asking about and not the reason for why I asked how the star disappeared. The rate of how fast mass/energy are accumulated/dispersed is not the same as which speed the change itself is spreading with. As I understand relativity the propagation of the change is moving outward from the source with c but the slope of the change doesn't change with distance, it remains constant. If a star varies its output with regular intervals then the frequency of the twinkles is measured to be equal for a close and a distant observer, but if the star would suddenly change the interval frequency then the closer observer would measure this change before the distant one. Likewise if the observers had sensitive enough equipment they could measure how the gravity decreases in steps with the same interval as the light twinkles and agree on the frequency but disagree on the time when the change of interval did happen. So if we assume that we could remove a star instantly then I think a distant observer would measure a normal gravity and light from this star until the abrupt change would arrive, were both gravity and light would vanish simultaneous and equally instantly as the star was removed.

AFAIK the hypothetical Tired Light has been ruled out by the scientific consensus and if you have a new concept for how light might age then it's probably best to discuss your idea in the Speculations subforum. "Today, tired light is remembered mainly for historical interest, and almost no scientist accepts tired light as a viable explanation for Hubble's Law." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

Does the star disappear successively as 1...0.7...0.5...0.2...0 or instantly as 1...0 ?

First off, the Event Horizon have a radius so there is volume inside it with enough room for particles, theoretically there can be huge supermassive Black Holes with less density than air. Secondly, a Singularity at the center of Black Holes is likely only a limit of were General Relativity breaks down and a quantum gravity theory is needed, there might not be a Singularity there. Third and last, according to General Relativity energy also warps spacetime, so a Black Hole could consist solely of trapped photons, since photons are bosons they are excluded from the Pauli Exclusion Principle. So I think yes, it could be possible that some still unknown process converts matter entering Black Holes.

General Relativity

Despite its invisible interior, a black hole can be observed through its interaction with other matter. A black hole can be inferred by tracking the movement of a group of stars that orbit a region in space. Alternatively, when gas falls into a stellar black hole from a companion star, the gas spirals inward, heating to very high temperatures and emitting large amounts of radiation that can be detected from earthbound and Earth-orbiting telescopes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole It is now widely accepted that the center of every or at least nearly every galaxy contains a supermassive black hole. The close observational correlation between the mass of this hole and the velocity dispersion of the host galaxy's bulge, known as the M-sigma relation, strongly suggests a connection between the formation of the black hole and the galaxy itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

When we observe very distant objects the light reaching our instruments are very old, since it takes time for light to travel across vast lengths, as such we are observing objects as they were in the remote past and what happened back then. I am not aware of observations were the rate of time is different due to the age of the Universe when the light was emitted versus now when the light is recieved. How would the Universe pass the critical density and begin to contract? AFAIK, the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. There are theories of a previous Universe contracting in a Big Crunch before it became a Big Bang in ours: The Big Bounce is a theorized scientific model related to the formation of the known Universe. It derives from the cyclic model or oscillatory universe interpretation of the Big Bang where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

Do you understand the concept of Density ? The Black Hole mass is NOT a max limit of mass, it is a ratio limit of mass per size. A Black Hole that eats a body of a certain mass gets more massive by the same amount it swallows. Black hole + mass1 = a Black hole that is mass1 bigger/heavier than before Black hole + Black hole = a Black hole with twice the mass it had before Different Black Holes have different mass and sizes just like stars and planets. Why would the measurement of very massive objects be considered meaningless?

FYI, another "science, please, wake up, you are in the Matrix" thread, with a 'Mayan' catastrophe, hollow Earth, big eyed aliens and much much more...

Discovery of new molecule can lead to more efficient rocket fuel Trinitramid – that's the name of the new molecule that may be a component in future rocket fuel. This fuel could be 20-30 percent more efficient in comparison with the best rocket fuels we have today. The discovery was made at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Sweden. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-12/src-don122210.php

I never said someone religious can't contribute to science, I said a religious newspaper article is not evidence of scientific consensus. This is what your link says: If the universe is expanding, then at some time in the past, it must have started from a single point. Astronomers call this point "the big bang" - the universe began when it was compressed into a single point, very dense and very hot. http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/basic/universe/ IMHO, I think you are interpreting the text to literally, the point we get by extrapolating backwards in time is the Big Bang event but that doesn't mean that such a point really did exist. At best you can claim to have a scientific link speculating about the origin, that is still no evidence of either the beginning or of scientific consensus. But HEY did you read what your link says on page five: (If you click on the [NEXT] button four times.) The Big Bang The term big bang implies an explosion somewhere in space, with particles flying through space away from the explosion. If this were true, then with respect to the site of the explosion, the fastest-moving particles will have traveled farthest. If you plot the speed of the particles against the distance they have traveled, you will get a straight line. But this picture is NOT the concept behind the big bang. The explosion model is actually more complex than the big bang model - you need to say why there was an explosion at that point and not some other point; what distinguishes the galaxies at the edge as opposed to closer to the center, etc. In the big bang picture, all locations and galaxies are equivalent - everybody sees the same thing, and there is no center or edge. http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/basic/universe/ This is clearly NOT consistent with what you have said so far. AND I SAID: There is no scientific consensus determining that the Universe have orginated from a singularity and that the Big Bang theory don't contain any claims of such. No it doesn't since the Big Bang theory doesn't speculate about how the Universe orginated or its earliest state. The main purpose of my links was to show you and others that what I am saying is not my personal opinion and instead that it is the official scientific consensus. Fine, as from this post you will be on my ignore list.

First of all, I am not going to accept a religious newspaper article as evidence of the scientific consensus, if anything it's proof of your ignorance. (The article seems to be trying to unite the Qur'an with a Big Bang creation of the Universe.) Secondly, my point was and still is that the very early Universe are still unknown and thus you can't claim that speculations of those parts are determined as scientific facts, my links was intended to show that it is speculation and thats all. Thirdly, the Big Bang theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations as of today and that is quite a bit more than unsupported speculations. As I said already back in post #6, you either don't have sufficient understanding of the Big Bang theory to be able to accurately describe it and you are happily filling up the gaps in your knowledge with imagination or you are contesting scientific consensus and spouting speculations as if they are determined facts. Anyone reading through this thread can see that what you are saying are NOT consistent with the Big Bang theory as described in Wikipedia, which is clear evidence of you either not understanding the theory or by intention are spouting misleading information or are constesting scientific consensus. At first I actually thought you only were misinformed and that supporting you with knowledge would help, but now it doesn't seem like you want to learn, you stubbornly cling to your delusional version in faith and refuse to admitt that you are wrong. Tell me steevey, is there any point at all in continuing to argue with you and try to help with actual scientific information or is it only a waste of my time?

Nobody is saying that spacetime is shrinking but if our meterstick would be shrinking then it would also look like if spacetime is expanding. If the scale of the equipment receiving would be smaller than the scale of the equimpment emitting a lightray, then the light would appear redshifted compared to equal size. We don't know if spacetime on large scales are curved, measurements of curvature reveals a nearly flat geometry but the precision of our observations are not good enough to rule out whether space is closed, flat or open.

The reason all planets lie on the same plane is because they all formed from the same flat disc of matter whirling around its center. Outer Planet Orbits This shows the relative sizes and positions of the orbits of the planets farther from the Sun than Earth. All the planets have orbits that are ellipses with the Sun at one of the foci, and the ellipses are in different planes. However, in a perspective view of the orbits such as this one, only Pluto has a noticeably noncircular orbit that lies in a different plane from the other planets. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?IM_ID=175 The Solar System formed from the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud 4.568 billion years ago. This initial cloud was likely several light-years across and probably birthed several stars. As the region that would become the Solar System, known as the pre-solar nebula, collapsed, conservation of angular momentum made it rotate faster. The centre, where most of the mass collected, became increasingly hotter than the surrounding disc. As the contracting nebula rotated, it began to flatten into a spinning protoplanetary disc with a diameter of roughly 200 AU and a hot, dense protostar at the centre. At this point in its evolution, the Sun is believed to have been a T Tauri star. Studies of T Tauri stars show that they are often accompanied by discs of pre-planetary matter with masses of 0.001–0.1 solar masses, with the vast majority of the mass of the nebula in the star itself. The planets formed by accretion from this disk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system