Main Page | Report this Page
 
   
Science Forum Index  »  Astro - Amateur Forum  »  Decided to join the kooks (temporarily)...
Page 2 of 2    Goto page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
AustinMN
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:03 am
Guest
On Feb 22, 6:15 am, "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Quote:
AustinMN wrote:
By the time
one reaches the edges of our own galaxy (which actually takes up about
1/3 of the volume of the universe) the "either" is about as viscous as
grape jelly

If the galaxy rotated around the Earth once each day, simple
mathematics shows that it would need more than grape jelly to hold it
together.

I trust, then, that your theory doesn't just have the Universe smaller
than traditional models, but it also has the Galaxy smaller.

The galaxy is bigger, but the universe is smaller. The either has a
viscocity of grape jelly, but a tensile strength that is somewhat
higher, more like cotton thread.

Austin (still deliberately ignoring facts)
AustinMN
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:06 am
Guest
On Feb 21, 12:37 pm, andekl_no@saaf_spam.se (Anders Eklöf) wrote:
Quote:
AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Note for humor impared: The following is for entertainment only.
Those who take it seriously need serious help.

Here is my theory of the cosmos, devised to show that one does not
need to be a nutcase to come up with bizzare ideas:

The Earth does not move. The whole universe revolves around the earth
once a day. now the obvious question is "Why doesn't the universe fly
forcibly apart?"

The answer is that space is not really empty. There really is an
"either" out there that holds everything together. It is a superclear
(almost totally radiation-transparent), zero-mass material that has a
varying viscosity.

The viscocity of the "either" near earth is almost zero - so close to
zero that we can't detect it at all with things like satellites. But
it is enough to keep the solar system in place as it orbits the earth.

Oops! You're not a consistent kook Smile

The consistency of the either is variable.

Austin (always latch on to a key word out of context and ignore the
substance)
John Carruthers
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:56 am
Guest
AustinMN wrote:
Quote:
Note for humor impared: The following is for entertainment only.
Those who take it seriously need serious help.

Here is my theory of the cosmos,

I would dispute the lack of Goblins in your model as well as the fairy
dust anisotropy.
I would point out that your model falls down on the differing rates of
rotation for stars and the sun ?

JC (P.I.F.R.A.K.Q & Bar) Retd.
AustinMN
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:00 am
Guest
On Feb 23, 7:56 am, "John Carruthers" <joncarruth...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:
AustinMN wrote:
Note for humor impared: The following is for entertainment only.
Those who take it seriously need serious help.

Here is my theory of the cosmos,

I would dispute the lack of Goblins in your model as well as the fairy
dust anisotropy.
I would point out that your model falls down on the differing rates of
rotation for stars and the sun ?

JC (P.I.F.R.A.K.Q & Bar) Retd.

Such important details aren't realy relevant in the theory of
Irelevantivity.

Austin (still looney...I need a vacation...bad)
 
Page 2 of 2    Goto page Previous  1, 2   All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:16 pm