Big Bang, or The Big Crunch?

Please, read the information at this Refrence link before continuing to read the rest of this message: http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html

Well, it's me again. The Flavored Coffee Guy, and oddly enough, again I believe that you are all wrong. There are several literal scientific proofs that could prove I am very right.

Now, if there is a super massive blackhole somewhere in the Universe, there is all of the potential of entire galaxies being drawn towards it. But, when we are all falling towards an object, or even falling to Earth, you experience no force except the wind against your face. Inside a plane, you would experiance zero gs. Assuming that the velocity of gravity equal to 1 g, is no different than 10 or 100gs, then as long as you are accellerating at a rate that is equal to the velocity of gravity within that field, you will feel zero gs because, you are falling.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/990924a2.html http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/hubble_UDF.html http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000104.html

It is possible that the gravity could cause a rate of accelleration that would cause time dialation. If our velocity and light cannot escape as a result of the gravitational field, it is possible that what appears to be the beginning is really the end. Once you are traveling faster than the speed time progresses in the opposite direction. If the whole Earth and Solar System were traveling back in time, it would only be appearent that we were still progressing forwards through it. That would be the shiptime experience of an accellerated atom experiencing more time in less of a second approaching light speed. The difference, that if the atom reaches a velocity that is faster than light, it reaches it's destination before the trip has ended and appears to be in two places at one time. Nearing the point it's velocity was beyond light speed, and arriving at it's destination at the same time.

If that velocity were much higher than light speed, then it could observe it's collision with a target days, weeks, or even millions or billions of years before it actually happened. No, that's not the big bang, it's the Big Crunch Theory, and if there is a gravity well so big that all of the known Universe would fall into it, we should be able to see it now.

On 30 Mar 2005 01:42:31 -0800, "The Flavored Coffee Guy" wrote:

How about posting this off topic shit in alt.sci.physics

Christopher ++++++++++++ "The best way to keep one's word is never to give it."

Napoleon Bonaparte

If the math works, we could all die a long long time ago.

Honestly, if you think about time and moving forward through it, and then consider Einstiens theory of relativity. Then you'd be forced to draw this conclusion. If in time an object is falling towards a gravitational body, should that object be one of a group, and that group accellerate beyond the speed of light, time would progress backwards. At this velocity everything that you would have observed falling into a super blackhole, would then appear to be exiting in all directions. From this point, you would only be able to ask yourself are we attracted, or is gravity so significant somewhere else in the known universe that we are attracted to it by gravity. We know that we couldn't see the black hole, nor the bottom of it, but we could determin if gravity as a force was strong enough to effect a large number of bodies in space. The great attactor, and the less attractor states that gravity in the local area is so significant that galaxies are moving.

We, already know a particle accellerated to a near light speed velocity will experience more time. This can be determined by accellerating particles and observing thier place on the radio table of elements. For example go to this link

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/h21.html http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

Tested facts. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0004226A-F77D-1D4A-90FB809EC5880000

More on Relativity http://www.umsl.edu/~fraundor/aps96n07.pdf

The illusion, is the big bang, but the fact is more likely the Big Collapse. Ironically, this could be a good thing. Now, if you look at the half life of the shortest lived particles, and how far the most energetic cosmic rays come from. Well, literally, the half life is a few millionths of a second, and yet it requires millions of years to travel from their source to Earth. So, a muon can make to Earth. Now, in a collider this shows that a muon can last allot longer at a much high velocity in respect to our point of view of time.

God, is associated to it all. If any findings show that the universe would last a day, year, or billion years longer, the whole universe actually complies. All you can do is deal with the fact that facts just line up in mathematics. If they derive a smaller particle or series of particles and they are stable at 1/100th or 1 billionth the particle size and the table of elements is fully represented, it will contract explosively and galaxies will appear. Quantum computers attempt to use on atom, and the universe is made of them. We have built vacumm tube computers, but scientists never anticpated that the vacumm of space in all of it's vastness was aware of anything, or had any measure of computing capacity. In comparison to the human mind, we are all dumb, and very. But, we can all benefit from the learning the unknown because, it's not so dumb to ignor improvement.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/04/10/new.matter/

On 4 Apr 2005 00:11:41 -0700, "The Flavored Coffee Guy" wrote:

Then tell the posters and lurkers in alt.sci.physics I'm sure they will tolerate trolls.

Christopher ++++++++++++ "The best way to keep one's word is never to give it."

Napoleon Bonaparte

It was crossposted.

On 5 Apr 2005 17:28:32 -0700, "The Flavored Coffee Guy" wrote:

Why. It's off topic with Friends.

Christopher ++++++++++++ "The best way to keep one's word is never to give it."

Napoleon Bonaparte