sci.physics.particle

On Feb 27, 1:11 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
> Do you buy into anything with sanity in it,Brad? lmao!
>
> Saul Levy
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:24:58 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
>
> wrote:
> >On Feb 26, 3:41 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
> >> You really are a total loon,Brad! lmao!
>
> >> I couldn't give a damn about NASA. Whatever gave you that idea? It's
> >> YOU and the WartPlugs who constantly repeat themselves over and over
> >> and over! What jerks that makes you look like! lmao!
>
> >> I use my REAL NAME, fool! IsBradGoofball your real name? lmao!
>
> >> Your continued harping on atheism (whatever kind) is getting even
> >> stupider! lmao!
>
> >> Fuck off, Mr. Goofball! lmao!
>
> >> Saul Levy
>
> >> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:46:50 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Feb 25, 11:14 am, Saul Levy wrote:
> >> >> Is all you can do,Brad, is repeat yourself endlessly? lmao!
>
> >> >> My kind? What kind is that? I'm not cutting out anything.
>
> >> >> You can stop referring to atheism. It's just plain stupid now.
>
> >> >> Saul Levy
>
> >> >Doesn't your pretend atheist God (aka NASA) or whatever government
> >> >agency of global domination faith tend to repeat their crap endlessly?
>
> >> >BTW, since yourself and others of your brown-nosed kind refuse to
> >> >place your real name along with whatever faith-based group makes you
> >> >into happy campers, the pretend atheism analogy so that you can fence
> >> >jump all you want is pretty much all that's left for the rest of us
> >> >village idiots to work with, in trying to figure out whatever's
> >> >actually in charge of your mindset and your private parts.
>
> >> >Why don't you stick with at least two or three of those faith-based
> >> >groups that don't continually piss you off. Most honest folks have
> >> >that one nailed down to just one or possibly two faith-based groups
> >> >they'll directly associate and/or interact with, because all the
> >> >others are just plain and simple dead-wrong about something that
> >> >doesn't sit well enough within their private mindset of whatever their
> >> >idea of faith is all about.
> >> >. -BradGuth
>
> >BradGuthand the God Hole
>
> >Of 3.56e80 m3 and supposedly only 1e80 atoms is suggesting that on
> >average we have far less than one atom per cubic meter. I don't
> >exactly buy into that low number because, so many new forms of red-
> >dwarf, brown-dwarf and possibly even black-dwarf stars as black holes
> >seem to be uncovered all the time as our technology improves and
> >intellectual scope takes such into account.
>
> >The complex soup of space is anything but a vacuum. The physical
> >vacuum seems entirely full of energy that's fluid and interactive, as
> >seen in the UV and night-vision or starlight video taken by various
> >shuttle missions, as well as by those of ISS using unfiltered camera
> >optics and having sufficient dynamic range (terrific FWC along with
> >minimal dark noise is what yields DR), and especially if shooting such
> >video at 1/16th second scan or exposure per frame is going to record
> >far more spectrum and of those weak photons, allowing the human eye to
> >see into this realm of space thought as being a vacuum.
>
> >Lets say for the argument/rant sake that we have 1e100 all-inclusive
> >stars within our ever expanding universe, including those newish of UV
> >+ and oldies of IR- status.
>
> >If on average there were only one photon/sec arriving per star into a
> >given ISM m3, as such this might rather easily suggest a population of
> >1e100 photons/atom if there were but only one ISM atom/m3.
>
> >As best we think we know about the ISM(inter stellar medium), for the
> >most part there's more than likely at least 100+ atoms/m3, and as I
> >might otherwise surmise there's also going to be well over 100e100
> >photons/sec/m3, if not several thousand e100s of those all-inclusive
> >photons/sec/m3 to work with, because that's the complex interactive
> >soup or elastic binder of what makes our universe tick.
>
> >On yet another universe soup/binder related topic, is to ponder as to
> >how big was the original BH(black hole) or GH(God hole) of our
> >universe:
>
> >If our sun is of the average at 2e30 kg, and if given 1e100 stars =
> >2e130 kg
>
> >2e130 kg compacted down to a thousand fold greater density than a
> >white dwarf isn't so terribly large, especially if the ultimate core
> >of that BH/GH was offering a good million fold more density than a
> >white dwarf, as such would make our initial BH/GH imaginable and thus
> >capable of being supercomputer simulated within a very 3D interactive
> >format.
>
> >There's no argument that such photons take the all-inclusive X-prize
> >for being the greater worth of what our universe is all about.
> >Unfortunately, our human vision isn't capable of directly interpreting
> >such because, it seems our visual perception isn't worth 0.0001% of
> >detecting what's out there in the supposed vacuum of space, and far
> >too many intellectual humans simply do not accept whatever good
> >physics and science detects because it's not of what their terrestrial
> >limited God permits.
>

Obvious errors corrected on behalf of my last paragraph, but then Saul
Levy is so all-knowing that nothing really matters, does it.

-
Sirius-B as a nearly earth-sized white dwarf offers an average density
of 1e9 kg/m3, so a thousand fold worth of 1e12 kg/m3 could become our
average God Hole density, with a nucleus core of perhaps 1e18 kg/m3 if
not greater, of which might suggest a fairly small GH that'll
represent the initial universe.

Of course this means there's far more to our complex universe than
meets the naked human eye, or even by way of the best instruments our
eyes can interpret.
-

In addition to Venus being so gosh darn nearby and very much alive and
kicking, our moon having been global warming us ever since the last
ice-age Earth will ever see, as well as our solar system headed back
towards Sirius, I'm still working on my God Hole(GH) theory, not that
your conventional BH, DM and DE don't exist as is.
. - Brad Guth