Sorry for the absence of the links
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap971022.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990222.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980216.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap951022.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970617.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap971027.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020506.html
fireworks:
http://www.pyrotech.com/images/tree_s.jpg
galactic red shift:
http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm
the Big Bang:
http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm
the Doppler effect:
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/Doppler/Doppler.html
Compton effect:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0813121.html
painting themselves into an ever more precarious corner:
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9806/05/neutrino.breakthrough/index.ht
ml
The physical universe began:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/04/13/big.bang.collision/index.html

--- In useyourbrain@y..., "thebbius1" <thebbius1@y...> wrote:
> I think you're right on target. I don't have any other explanation
> for that, and more than someone can claim to know what God is
> thinking. Just call it faith, speculation, a sense of the possible.
I
> don't know. But I thank you for the vote of confidence. Really, I
> know I'm no genius, far from it. I just have a vision I wanted to
> share and thought the I Internet might be just the thing to reach
the
> people I want to share it with. As far as I'm concerned; science is
> putting entirely too much faith in the Big Bang theory, and
ignoring
> too many contradictory findings. One of the biggest being colliding
> galaxies:
> Example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc, etc. Anyone who has ever seen
the
> explosion of fireworks knows that objects emerging from the center
of
> an explosion diverge further apart; they don't turn and head
towards
> one another from a different vector, unless there were several Big
> Bangs and they were coming from different directions already.
> So when Edwin Hubble, for whom the Hubble space telescope is named,
> first discovered galactic red shift, and it was suggested that a
> movie played in reverse would converge on a central point, the Big
> Bang theory was born. Scientists are attributing red shift to the
> Doppler effect, but I believe it has more to do with the Compton
> effect, like driving in a fog and the farther away a car is the
> harder it is to see the tail lights. But this type of universe
would
> look as if distant galaxies are standing relatively still or moving
> towards one another like fish in an aquarium. But, this is of
course,
> only speculation.
> I just feel that scientists are painting themselves into an ever
more
> precarious corner, vindicated by silly statements like, "The
physical
> universe began not with a primordial Big Bang but with a monumental
> collision with another universe" AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE??!!
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> --- In useyourbrain@y..., "loverlovesu_2" <loverlovesu_2@y...>
wrote:
>
> > i think i understand what you mean. but how would you protect the
> > object that you don't want to disappear from disappearing? maybe
> this
> > could be done by projection, but the failure to this may be high.
> > there are still so many questions that we haven't answered that i
> > think are possible inside of labs. like beyond space, what is
> there?
> > if you get rid of space as it is then what becomes? if there is
> > nothing then nothing could enter it since it regects the matter
> that
> > comes near it. i think that black holes will hold the key to new
> > insight. new dimensions isn't necessarily crazy to think about.
it
> > just isn't realistic right now. but so many other things have
been
> > proven to exist many years after being thought of. it's hard to
> > forget about the wild ideas of today because of this. i'm
rambling
> i
> > know but you've made me think. maybe you will be the next genius
to
> > give us a gift. back to my original thought, i just don't see how
> it
> > would be possible to erase everything to nothingness without
> > destroying the people that are traveling since space must be
> present
> > to keep them alive. am i on the track of where you were going
with
> > this?
> >
> >
> > --- In useyourbrain@y..., "thebbius1" <thebbius1@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In useyourbrain@y..., "loverlovesu_2" <loverlovesu_2@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > > i just finished reading from your web page. the theories that
> you
> > > > have seem beneficial although maybe needing more time to
> master.
> > i
> > > > wanted to know what you thought about this. if time were to
> bend
> > > > around the ship rather than the ship moving around in space,
> why
> > is
> > > > it that there is no reaction to the world around us? i see
> where
> > > you
> > > > have the theory of another dimension. but to travel through
> > another
> > > > dimension, wouldn't it mean that the craft would just blink
in
> > and
> > > > out rather than darting across the sky? i'm not trying to
make
> > your
> > > > work into nothing. i think you have a very intellectual way
of
> > > > looking at these things. i just wanted to know what your
> answers
> > to
> > > > these questions might be.
> > >
> > > Hi, thank you for your reply. I agree it does need some more
> work,
> > > and at this time the designer, Zzamian, and the file are in
> > Atlanta.
> > > We need to get together with the Flash 4 program in order to
edit
> > it.
> > > We'll get together in a few months.
> > > What you say is most likely correct about a ship darting into
> and
> > > out of another dimension. However, I see a possibility that
there
> > can
> > > be a neutral state; one in which there is an interaction with
our
> > > world and another dimension. It may be that such a fine razor's
> > > edge
> > > between here and there may be a variable value that can be
> > accurately
> > > adjusted depending on the needs of the mission/ship/crew. I was
> > > trying to invoke a sense of the lack of inertia, which would
> surely
> > > be deadly at such speeds. In changing from the dimension of
> > > `there'
> > > to ours `here'; it may be a natural phenomenon that light
> > > will be
> > > emitted in varying intensities.
> > > As for the non-interaction; I assume that to be only in a
> > > gravitational, thermodynamic way. Surely there is no way to
> remove
> > > oneself from the Universe, and there will always be some type
of
> > > interaction even if its effects cannot be completely realized:
> > >
> > > All things by immortal power,
> > > To each other linked are,
> > > That thou canst not stir a flower
> > > Without troubling of a star.
> > >
> > > One thing that I would like to include in the edit of my web
> site
> > > is what I consider to be a central theme that I inadvertently
> > > omitted.
> > > If light can be the natural maximum speed limit, it does not
> mean
> > > it cannot be exceeded by unnatural means. Also since light is
the
> > > natural maximum speed, there should also be a natural - 0 -
> speed.
> > To
> > > orbit the sun in one year, we need to travel through space at
> > > something like 64,000 miles per hour! But that speed is
measured
> by
> > > our relative position to `fixed' points in space. How could
> > > we
> > > measure our relative speed through space without them?
Visualize
> > > this: we're screaming along at 64,000 MPH and suddenly all
other
> > > objects disappear; what would we measure our speed against? We
> are
> > > the only thing in space. That's why I believe space is the key
> > > here;
> > > against space, there can be no measurement of any velocity
> > > whatsoever. What difference would it make if we were going
64,000
> > MPH
> > > or - 0 -? This is what I mean by natural - 0 – speed; space is
> > > such a
> > > pure medium that there can be no measurement of any velocity.
> > > It's
> > > not like moving against water in a river.
> > > What do you think?
> > > THE Big Bang Is Unprovable Speculation
> > > Gary