north

what have I to prove then ?

the classic model may not , but what about today Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I had this discussion on another site and they reject the Black-hole theory what of before the BB though ? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedyou guys haved moved my thread interesting from Cosmology to speculations what do you fear ?

The standard BB model defines the pre-bigbang state as being... nothing... no energy, no matter, no space-time. do all meanstreamers think this..

no , and to quote from my physics dictionary ; " The microwave background radiation ( 60cm-0.6mm ) is that of a black-body radiator at a temperature of 2.76 kelvin. it is believed to consist of photons remaining after the universe had cooled appreciably , after the big-bang, and having insufficient energy to undergo interactions . It is thus considered evidence for the BB theory. The microwave background has a constant strength in all directions ( i.e. it is isotropic ) ; this indicates that the universe is expanding at a uniform rate and also that different parts of the universe had the same same initial temperature " above now you know get a dictionary it is very , very useful in thinking upon things such as this topic I know I have about 10 dictionaries on various ologies

and we go on and on about the problems of using microwave evidence for the support of the BB theory but does mainstream astronomy and astrophysics get it , is the question ? I doubt it

energy/matter shapes and contours space think three dimensions , 360 degrees

until we can at least eliminate 10,000 galaxies ( three dimensionaly) as the sourse of microwave radiation we can't use microwave radiation as evidence of BB theory

but is Mercury actually doing so is there physical dynamic evidence for what you suggest ?

Originally Posted by north I didn't check as of yet so are saying that NASA has eliminated ALL sources of microwaves from beyond say 3-4 galaxies away from us ? thats new I asked NASA how many galaxies they have eliminated as a source of microwaves , and the said , besides are own galaxy , maybe two or three , no more they havn't eliminated more than two or three galaxies because they don't have the capability!! so supporting BB with WMAP is an extremely weak argument if not really pointless of course not many people know this

because of the gravity by the sun surely the gravity by the sun is strong enough to eventually draw in Mercury and Venus is it not ?

space ends at the edge where energy/matter is no longer created

why doesn't Mercury simply fall into the sun ? eventually ?

I didn't check as of yet so are saying that NASA has eliminated ALL sources of microwaves from beyond say 3-4 galaxies away from us ? thats new I asked NASA how many galaxies they have eliminated as a source of microwaves , and the said , besides are own galaxy , maybe two or three , no more

no above means that I have already answered the response

I hate to repeat and disagree with you but how could any " bit " exist without space though ? you see space " allows " for the existence of things any thing space gives " room " into which a bit or thing can manifest its self into

" above " is in reference to my first response in post # 22

the thing is about WMAP is that the microwave back ground radiation is only local for there is only so many galaxies , which admit microwave radiation , which can be eliminated from being any source of microwave radiation I know beacuse about two years ago I asked NASA this direct question and there are very few galaxies , very few

I don't quite get you here so are you suggesting a quantization of force with no mass ? just asking

I disagree too keep an open mind is important peer reviews and the physics community can be politically motivated therefore bias

no this is not what I'm saying space by its very nature will have a geometry(s) associated within it . it is SPACE after all it just that you can't use space in and of itself by itself to change the geometry of a particular angle the angle can only be changed by calculation agreed above again above my claim is not based on logic but reason again above Martin I see your point but what Einstein didn't include was the WHY the WHY being while the geometrics said this or that and then came to a conclusion he forgot or didn't include or couldn't include( because of the knowledge then known ) the physical dynamics of objects and their interactions, which is the essence of the geometrics for the most part Einstein was right he just did not understand fully WHY he was right for instance can we fully explain beyond geometrics why Mercury does what it does ? not that I know of

the difference between you and I is this ; for me energy and/or matter bends because of the energy/matter in that space for example the suns atmosphere for you however ; light is curved by gravity and as you say manifests by curving space-time but since neither space nor time has any substance associated with it , light cannot be bent because of space-time that is the difference between me and you

space could be created lately it come to my awarness that mainstrem astrophysics has now come around to , looking at the Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven where galaxies , new made galaxies , are formed and pushed out by older galaxies about time really

ah I see and good night

no need to teach , I've taken logic 101 yrs ago just explain where your coming from well does A represent and what does B represent to you this is important

explain how so ?