michel123456

Sexual

castrated. (that was sarcasm) i don't understand the OP (Should violent criminals be castrated?) was about dogs or other animals like women? (that was sarcasm again) To me the OP'oster is an animal. (you know what it is)

t-t-t in the original in this under "humour" Featured, headline, humour » In any case, it is not speculation.

This is speculation.

But what caused the flash? The flash. I am tired. I quit.

Answer: from line 1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur " From this sentence PUFFF here is the Universe because there is no reason for it not to occur. But not exactly PUFFF because there is no temporal condition in your sentence, which means straightforward that the Universe has always been because "there is no reason for it not to occur" yesterday, the day before etc. billion & billion years ago or even TODAY or even in the future. So your sentence is an infinite pufffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff with no end in both temporal directions. That does not correspond to the BBT that happened only once (supposedly) at a specific time in the past. So you create line 2. "Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. " Here comes the "initiative". You introduce it to fit the BBT in such a way to explain that something triggered the BB, avoiding the infinite puffffffffffffffff of line 1. But then why do you keep line 1.? I think you need line 1. to explain everything "without initiative" then introduce "initiative" once everything exists. That's what I call contortion.

You are trying to make contortion with words in order to fit a prerequisite. It's obvious to me that a straightforward lingual theory is incompatible with the Big Bang Theory.

from here Why would the shadow of a space shuttle launch plume point toward the Moon? Followed by the explanation: Well that is all correct, except that the 2 terms " photogenic coincidence" and "the full moon happened to be" look misleading to me. The full moon is produced by the reflection of the light of the sun. It means that any object in the sky at that same instant at any random place (an airplane, a balloon, a bird) would produce a shadow pointing to the Moon. So the Moon didn't "happen to be there" in coincidence with the shadow. The shadow was "obliged" to point to the full Moon. Of course the shuttle was not "obliged" to take off at full Moon, but as I read the explanation it was somehow unclear. In any case there is no "photogenic coincidence". Right or wrong? the configuration is the following It is a law of perspective: all the parallel lines join to the same vanishing point. All rays of light in the sky join at the same point. That is the point where the Moon is lighted. I think.

I understand that nobody ever "experiences" time dilation. Time dilation is what one observes about someone else.

So following this it must be that 15 billion years ago there was a reason for not to occur.

Still looking and collecting sparse information this (from unreliable source) that is about the tray. When the tray explodes (flash) and produces a light brighter than the sun, there must be something going on. It is not the asteroid burning because it is asserted that falling meteors are cold. Make a google search about plasma explosion pictures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

That's what I knew. A field is a mathematical object.

releasing 30 times the hiroshima bomb?

But there was a plasma discharge. then maybe something more like a lightning ---------------- (edit) ionized gas is plasma.

haha, that would be for the geography section of this Forum. The black forest is in Germany. China is far from Poland. As much as I remember from history Poland has always been a rich country suffering from its neighbours , Germany and Russia. Don't underestimate Poland because it was under oppression till lately. ------------ as to the point: what is a field?

Wasted intellectual energy.

From a scientific POV you are going East in a time zone one hour earlier. You are getting closer 1 hour to your anniversary so you are getting older faster.

------------------- Still looking for info about the flash. found this: from the American Meteor Society frireballs FAQ under section 5. Can fireballs appear in different colors? (emphasis mine) Again I understand that the flash results from the explosion of ionized particles from the atmosphere. When googling about explosion of ionized particles the return is ionizing radiation Plasma discharge. With the following Ionizing radiation hazard symbol That reminds the reassuring russian announcement immediately after the fall that "radiations levels are normal" or something like that. So my question is: did the kinetic energy of the meteor trigger a natural thermonuclear reaction?

yes. The puzzling thing is that (between others) when you erase acceleration, observer B believes that observer A moves at 0.99C in the opposite direction. Only when acceleration is there one can discern who is moving related to whom. Also, acceleration is the necessary staircase that goes from one FOR to another. I know calculations become complicated but without acceleration there is no possible passageway. Imagine that observer B is orbiting the Earth at 0,99C, can you jump into his spaceship just like that?

Oh that's funny. I just noticed the missing H.

That reminds me an episode of looney tunes (was it the coyote and the road runner or bugs bunny?) where the main character is in a house falling from a cliff and steps out at the last moment before reaching the ground as if nothing happened, next to the crumbles of his house. ----------------- OK forget acceleration. So at the starting point and time T=0 you have an observer A on Earth (standing still) and an observer B traveliing at 0,99c. They both observe an object that for the observer A is 7 LY away and for observer B I guess is not. Right from the beginning they will disagree on observations.

All these examples are completely unrealistic and we get wrong conclusions from it. The traveler had to accelerate. acceleration is that thing that makes the transfer from earth's FOR to the traveler's FOR. in the examples there is no transformation from one FOR to the other and stating that the traveler goes at 0,99c 'instantly" is both unphysical, impossible and provokes misunderstanding. the same happens when stating that the traveler "stops" and looks back to Earth. there is deceleration in order to go back to Earth's FOR, otherwise he doesn't "stop".

A job? what is that? . . . . . says the Greek

Could we focus on this? That's an interesting idea.