Bob Cain wrote in
:



Uncle Al wrote:

It propagates until it is absorbed. An expanding universe cancels
Olber's Paradox.

Was it justified away when the universe was considered
static? If so, how so?


Bob

We all know that you are an arrogant asshole and that you think that you
have something valuable to say on a wide variety of topics. Nonetheless,
there's a good reason why no one bothers to reply/respond to most of your
posts, such as the one above. Give it some thought. (Hint: the problem is
at your end).

"your lover" wrote in message
news
Bob Cain wrote in
:



Uncle Al wrote:

It propagates until it is absorbed. An expanding universe cancels
Olber's Paradox.

Was it justified away when the universe was considered
static? If so, how so?


Bob

We all know that you are an arrogant asshole and that you think that you
have something valuable to say on a wide variety of topics. Nonetheless,
there's a good reason why no one bothers to reply/respond to most of your
posts, such as the one above. Give it some thought. (Hint: the problem
is
at your end).


The reddening of starlight due to dust is very well understood. Expansion of
the universe is not needed to mitigate Olber's paradox. If you need some
references of absorption by dust, let me know.

Clay

Light comes out of matter
And it goes back in

The Big Bang was of matter first. Then light came out.

Clay S. Turner wrote:

The reddening of starlight due to dust is very well understood. Expansion of
the universe is not needed to mitigate Olber's paradox. If you need some
references of absorption by dust, let me know.

Yes, I'd appreciate that. I remember being taught that at
equilibrium every photon absorbed was re-emited so that the
flux would be the same as if there were no dust. If that's
wrong I would like to understand why.


Thanks,

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Light comes out of matter
And it goes back in

The Big Bang was of matter first. Then light came out.




Hmm, I thought only God, if he/she/it exists, could possibly know this for
certain.

There are, of course, arguments to support the theory that mind is the basis
of all things, not matter.



Gareth.

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Light comes out of matter
And it goes back in

The Big Bang was of matter first. Then light came out.


Does your cart drag the horse?

I think it;s time to drag out the one about "Decartes before the horse"

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:19:58 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

The reddening of starlight due to dust is very well understood. Expansion of
the universe is not needed to mitigate Olber's paradox. If you need some
references of absorption by dust, let me know.

Yes, I'd appreciate that. I remember being taught that at
equilibrium every photon absorbed was re-emited so that the
flux would be the same as if there were no dust. If that's
wrong I would like to understand why.

No clue why this appears in r.a.p. but my understanding
is that the microwave background radiation seen between
the stars at a coupla Kelvin happened when equilibrium
was established.

I've recently heard amazingly long time frames for this,
but my memory must've been affected by the three nights
camping on Still Creek.

100,000 (current) years? Must be the campfire smoke...

Good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Yes, I'd appreciate that. I remember being taught that at
equilibrium every photon absorbed was re-emited so that the
flux would be the same as if there were no dust. If that's
wrong I would like to understand why.


No clue why this appears in r.a.p.

Because my personal stalker, Gary Sokolich, always using new
names to avoid filtering, appends his sick venom to my
postings anywhere they might appear in usenet and crossposts
it everywhere I have a presence. This one came from
sci.physics, sorry for the intrusion.

but my understanding
is that the microwave background radiation seen between
the stars at a coupla Kelvin happened when equilibrium
was established.

My question pertains to the old infinite, static universe.
In that kind of universe there is no background radiation
from a big bang event but rather an infinite amount of time
has allowed for an equilibrium to be reached where the dust
has been raised to a temperature such that its radiation
equals its absorption. In that case, it would scatter but
not diminish the photon flux that arises from the generating
bodies and Olber's paradox should obtain, i.e. every bit of
our sky's area should be as bright as the surface of a star
because every line outward ends at one eventually.

I'm wondering how (if?) that paradox had been resolved in
the kind of universe we were once thought to inhabit. It's
not relevant, just of historical interest.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

I say matter is first because light would only
make particle anti paticle pairs equally

Light comes out of matter.
Let there be light.

The universe wasn't created by a mindless lump.

It started with a buildup of energy.
You want to know why?
Because if it was a mass singularity its
gravity would be infinite without possibility
of expanding or inflating.

Thats a dead end

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
I say matter is first because light would only
make particle anti paticle pairs equally

Light comes out of matter.
Let there be light.


I say if we go too far we'll hit a big glass sphere. Let there be Bach.

jb

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:26:45 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

Because my personal stalker,

Reminds me that the only remaining non-Fassbinder
wacko Artsy-Fartsy movie left on my to-see list
is the Tarkovsky _Stalker_ because i saw Antonioni's
_Red Desrert- this past week. The greatest movie
rental in the human universe AFAIK is in PDX off
Burnside between 9th and 10th, just up the hill
from the Thai Peacock, my favorite Thai food joint.

$3.50 to rent _The Red Desert_; they have *everything*
that you can't find back here in the sticks; all in
maybe 400 square feet of store front. Gotta love it.



but my understanding
is that the microwave background radiation seen between
the stars at a coupla Kelvin happened when equilibrium
was established.

My question pertains to the old infinite, static universe.
In that kind of universe there is no background radiation
from a big bang event but rather an infinite amount of time
has allowed for an equilibrium to be reached where the dust
has been raised to a temperature such that its radiation
equals its absorption. In that case, it would scatter but
not diminish the photon flux that arises from the generating
bodies and Olber's paradox should obtain, i.e. every bit of
our sky's area should be as bright as the surface of a star
because every line outward ends at one eventually.

I'm wondering how (if?) that paradox had been resolved in
the kind of universe we were once thought to inhabit. It's
not relevant, just of historical interest.

Should I interpret this to mean an alternative hypothetical
where the coupla K background radiation doesn't appear?

So, does your question also imply something about the
observed (red shifted) expansion of space? If it's over
my head, feel free to ignore me.

Thanks for any fun stuff,

Chris Hornbeck

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Should I interpret this to mean an alternative hypothetical
where the coupla K background radiation doesn't appear?

The old one before Hubble saw the universe expanding and
before Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the CMB you
mention.

So, does your question also imply something about the
observed (red shifted) expansion of space?

No, it has to do with an observation made long ago by Olber
under the assumptions of the old model. See:

http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...nal/olbers.htm


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

Because my personal stalker, Gary Sokolich, always using new
names to avoid filtering, appends his sick venom to my
postings anywhere they might appear in usenet and crossposts
it everywhere I have a presence. This one came from
sci.physics, sorry for the intrusion.

Don't mention it; now we have new loonies to enjoy.

My question pertains to the old infinite, static universe.
In that kind of universe there is no background radiation
from a big bang event but rather an infinite amount of time
has allowed for an equilibrium to be reached where the dust
has been raised to a temperature such that its radiation
equals its absorption. In that case, it would scatter but
not diminish the photon flux that arises from the generating
bodies and Olber's paradox should obtain, i.e. every bit of
our sky's area should be as bright as the surface of a star
because every line outward ends at one eventually.

I'm wondering how (if?) that paradox had been resolved in
the kind of universe we were once thought to inhabit. It's
not relevant, just of historical interest.

As I recall, it wasn't resolved, and it worried people. So they just chalked
it up as an unsolved problem.

Peace,
Paul

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


Because my personal stalker, Gary Sokolich, always using new
names to avoid filtering, appends his sick venom to my
postings anywhere they might appear in usenet and crossposts
it everywhere I have a presence. This one came from
sci.physics, sorry for the intrusion.


Don't mention it; now we have new loonies to enjoy.

I must admit to being entertained by it and somewhat
disappointed when days go by without his psychopathic
endearments but I doubt others share my entertainment.

I'm wondering how (if?) that paradox had been resolved in
the kind of universe we were once thought to inhabit. It's
not relevant, just of historical interest.

As I recall, it wasn't resolved, and it worried people. So they just chalked
it up as an unsolved problem.

That's what I thought too but a respected poster on
sci.physics indicated otherwise and I'd like more info.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
The universe wasn't created by a mindless lump.

It started with a buildup of energy.
You want to know why?
Because if it was a mass singularity its
gravity would be infinite without possibility
of expanding or inflating.

Thats a dead end


If you have something to say, say it. My own opinion is that the universe
wasn't 'created' at all, just because humans make things as a way of coping
with the world doesn't mean that the universe is a reflection of the
creative process. Artists create, Moms and Dads create, there is no reason
to believe that the universe is a product of the same animal urge.

jb

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
I say matter is first because light would only
make particle anti paticle pairs equally

When you say equally, to what accuracy do you know this?

Light comes out of matter.
Let there be light.

Who created the Creator?

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
The universe wasn't created by a mindless lump.

I agree, there is no Creator.

It started with a buildup of energy.

Energy? Didn't your earlier post say you didn't believe it was a sea of
photons?

You want to know why?

Yes.

Because if it was a mass singularity its
gravity would be infinite without possibility
of expanding or inflating.

You cant prove this is the case.

Thats a dead end

Ok. I agree.

Bob Cain wrote in
:



Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Yes, I'd appreciate that. I remember being taught that at
equilibrium every photon absorbed was re-emited so that the
flux would be the same as if there were no dust. If that's
wrong I would like to understand why.


No clue why this appears in r.a.p.

Because my personal stalker, Gary Sokolich, always using new
names to avoid filtering, appends his sick venom to my
postings anywhere they might appear in usenet and crossposts
it everywhere I have a presence. This one came from
sci.physics, sorry for the intrusion.

snip...snip (all irrelevant)

Bob

I just did a couple of quick searches in Google groups going back about
four years, and it would appear that it is Bob Cain who has been stalking
Gary Sokolich, not vice versa. Apparently Bob Cain has a grudge against
Gary Sokolich, but posting lies won't change the Google record.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:50:27 GMT, Sam Smart wrote:

I just did a couple of quick searches in Google groups going back about
four years, and it would appear that it is Bob Cain who has been stalking
Gary Sokolich, not vice versa. Apparently Bob Cain has a grudge against
Gary Sokolich, but posting lies won't change the Google record.

X-Complaints-To:
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.

Chris Hornbeck

Sam Smart wrote:

I just did a couple of quick searches in Google groups going back about
four years, and it would appear that it is Bob Cain who has been stalking
Gary Sokolich, not vice versa. Apparently Bob Cain has a grudge against
Gary Sokolich, but posting lies won't change the Google record.

Gary counts on no one having any interest in checking his
bull**** out and believes repetition will make his claim
stick. Stereotypical psychopathic calculation.

His first post in this sad cross-thread clearly tells the
truth of the matter.

And that's enough out of me on the matter.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:39:22 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

So, does your question also imply something about the
observed (red shifted) expansion of space?

No, it has to do with an observation made long ago by Olber
under the assumptions of the old model. See:

http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...nal/olbers.htm

I'd of course heard of Olber's paradox, but the links here
are spectacular. The comments in the gravitational paradox
link seem to explain how "Newtonian" Einstein was better
than some books.

The thermodynamic paradox page did seem to stray, but was
still very entertaining. Much thanks!

Not the slightest clue about your question, though. Way
over my head.

All the best,

Chris Hornbeck

I'll repeat what I said then.

The universe wasn't created by a mindless lump.
It took an energy buildup!

Bob Cain wrote in
:



Sam Smart wrote:

I just did a couple of quick searches in Google groups going back
about four years, and it would appear that it is Bob Cain who has
been stalking Gary Sokolich, not vice versa. Apparently Bob Cain has
a grudge against Gary Sokolich, but posting lies won't change the
Google record.

Gary counts on no one having any interest in checking his
bull**** out and believes repetition will make his claim
stick.

The Google Groups record makes the claim stick, and your lies won't change
the record no matter how may times you repeat them.


Stereotypical psychopathic calculation.


Yet another pathetic attempt to transfer your own mental disorders to
someone else.



His first post in this sad cross-thread clearly tells the
truth of the matter.

A lying scumbag like you wouldn't know truth if it stared you in the face.


And that's enough out of me on the matter.
Bob

At least we can agree on something.

Chris Hornbeck wrote in
:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:50:27 GMT, Sam Smart wrote:

I just did a couple of quick searches in Google groups going back
about four years, and it would appear that it is Bob Cain who has been
stalking Gary Sokolich, not vice versa. Apparently Bob Cain has a
grudge against Gary Sokolich, but posting lies won't change the Google
record.

X-Complaints-To:
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.

Chris Hornbeck


Complain all you want, asswipe. But, you're one dumb **** if you think
that easynews is going to cancel my account just to passify a bunch of
whining pussies like yourself over a mere handfull of posts that "you"
don't like. Even if they did, just how long do you think that it would take
me to set up an anonymous account with another usnet provider? So, why
don't you just **** off, kiss my ass, get a reality check and start minding
your own businees. And while you are at it, wipe the brown streak off your
nose that you got while you were sliding it up and down Bob Cains butt
crack.

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'll repeat what I said then.

You always do. No matter what any one says back to you. You don't even come
close to learning. I doubt you are intelligent life....

The universe wasn't created by a mindless lump.

But I thought you were a creationist?

It took an energy buildup!

Bravo.