I really enjoy watching the Hobba sucked into
fuckin the law of conservation of Mass/Energy
by mere peer pressure. That SOB is well
qualified to be an SS guard in a concentration
camp. We need followers like him for gun-
fodder in the next war, indeed maybe that's
why we have wars. Shoot the Dinks.
Truly Yours
Ken

From:	DavidBowman
Subject:	Re: What are Quasars made of?
Date:	22 Jan 2005 10:01:26 -0800

I'm thinking of you as a really smart hight school kid who thinks about
this stuff intensely and (as Master Yoda put it) "Never pays attention
to WHERE--HE--IS".

I was actually following you for a while, mapping crude convcepts into
something more likely to be real.

Then I bumped into:

> This is a-Wakeup-bell! The whole physics of that region needs to
be reworked.

Even Master Feynman didn't talk like that, and he really did rework
physics.

Look kid, I had lots and lots of formal training in astronomy. There
are no big bangs inside black holes or quasars or active galactic
nuclei.

But modulo the ego-outburst above , you have the right attitude for a
Scientist: intense. But there's one other attitude just as important!
The only thing that seperates someone who's trying to figure things out
from a crackpot is that the crackpot can't say "Oops, I was wrong".

God knows, I've said it to myself enough in MY life! (see the PS for an
example).

But you need to learn all about your field before you can "rework
physics"! Go to college and use the intensity to understand what other
intense people have figured out already.

THEN, maybe in 2030, people will call YOU Master Hollister!

Good luck,

=[ d

PS
Put down the keyboard and books, and fuck girls now, or I promise you,
you'll wish you had.
PPS if you're actually an angry old crank:
Blow me!

From:	Bill Hobba
Subject:	Re: What are Quasars made of?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:50:06 GMT

"Paul Hollister" wrote in message
news:cssa87$opm$1@news-nth.ocn.ad.jp...
> What are isolated quasars made of? Do you have any idea?
>
> Paul Hollister
> at http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com
>

Checked out your link. It stated: 'One of the greatest mysteries in the
universe is the Origin of Hydrogen.'. Weinberg describes how it came about
in his classic The First 3 Minutes. In what way is his explanation
unsatisfactory?

Bill

From:	Bill Hobba
Subject:	Re: What are Quasars made of?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:57:32 GMT

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
news:ijiId.128518$K7.53628@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Paul Hollister" wrote in message
> news:cssa87$opm$1@news-nth.ocn.ad.jp...
> > What are isolated quasars made of? Do you have any idea?
> >
> > Paul Hollister
> > at http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com
> >
>
> Checked out your link. It stated: 'One of the greatest mysteries in the
> universe is the Origin of Hydrogen.'. Weinberg describes how it came
about
> in his classic The First 3 Minutes. In what way is his explanation
> unsatisfactory?
>

I found the following nice link about it -
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/bbang.html. Now exactly
what part do you consider a mystery?

Bill

From:	Paul Hollister
Subject:	Re: What are Quasars made of?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:07:50 +0900

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
news:gqiId.128529$K7.42315@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
> news:ijiId.128518$K7.53628@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Paul Hollister" wrote in message
>> news:cssa87$opm$1@news-nth.ocn.ad.jp...
>> > What are isolated quasars made of? Do you have any idea?
>> >
>> > Paul Hollister
>> > at http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com
>> >
>>
>> Checked out your link. It stated: 'One of the greatest mysteries in the
>> universe is the Origin of Hydrogen.'. Weinberg describes how it came
> about
>> in his classic The First 3 Minutes. In what way is his explanation
>> unsatisfactory?
>>
>
> I found the following nice link about it -
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/bbang.html. Now exactly
> what part do you consider a mystery?
>
> Bill
>
>
The widespread acceptance of the single Big Bang theory has profoundly
affected the sequencing of events in the evolution of the universe. The a
priori acceptance of the preexistence of hydrogen has also had a profound
affect on scientific perceptions about galaxy evolution, such as the
relative ages of elliptical and spiral galaxies. Although hydrogen in
plasma, ionic, atomic and molecular form is clearly visible throughout all
space-time regions of the universe, scientists have stopped asking, and
stopped thinking, about where hydrogen comes from. The de facto acceptance
of hydrogen preexistence has also created a dilemma in which huge pieces in
the universe puzzle cannot be assembled into a seamless process that
accounts for atomic, stellar and galaxy evolution. Which came first, for
example, the galaxies or the stars? Nobody knows. Why did galaxies
divergently evolve into elliptical and spiral morphology? Nobody knows. What
are quasars made of and where did they come from? Nobody knows. Why are some
quasars located outside of galaxies and other quasars consistently located
in the nuclear center of galaxies? Nobody knows. Why are giant cosmic plasma
jets (the most powerful exploding forces in the universe) exploding out of
supermassive black holes (the greatest known gravitational densities in the
universe) in quasars and active galactic nuclei throughout all regions of
space-time in the surrounding universe? Nobody knows.

In what unfolds into an interesting story, I have come to realize that we
are witnessing the $B!H(Bbig bang$B!I(B process of hydrogen nucleosynthesis right in
front of our eyes, but the entire scientific world is blind to the
significance of what they are seeing because they are locked to the limits
of the Big Bang Theory and Space-Time Model of universe evolution.

Hydrogen is the only atom in the periodic table of atoms the origin of which
remains a mystery. From hydrogen onward, it is scientifically well
established that helium and atoms of higher atomic weight are formed by
nuclear fusion within the stars. I have demonstrated that hydrogen is formed
by an $B!H(BOngoing Big-Bang$B!I(B process that is visibly in evidence within the
supermassive $B!H(Bblack hole$B!I(B density inside each quasar and active galactic
nucleus throughout the surrounding visible universe. From what is
astoundingly clear physical evidence, I have demonstrated that each active
galaxy materializes and grows from inside outward according to a consistent
pattern of growth and evolution, which for the first time in history clearly
defines the mainstream sequence of galaxy evolution. From this dawn of
realization, recognizing that galaxies grow from inside outward into their
range of visible morphologies, I was able to assemble the array of galaxy
forms into precisely aligned interrelated stages of galaxy growth and
evolution. Through step-by-step analysis of galaxy structure, I was then
able to assemble the stages of galaxy formation that clearly reveal the
sequence of galaxy evolution, which extends as an uninterrupted continuum
all the way from quasar to irregular blue dwarf to elliptical to spiral
galaxy formation. This becomes readily evident when you realize that the
explosive plasma jets and resulting massive clouds of radio-emitting
particle mass issuing from quasars and active galactic nuclei are composed
of hydrogen in plasma and ionic form.

Paul Hollister
http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com

From:	Bill Hobba
Subject:	Re: What are Quasars made of?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:11:00 GMT

"Paul Hollister" wrote in message
news:cssn3h$9ko$1@news-nth.ocn.ad.jp...
>
> "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
> news:gqiId.128529$K7.42315@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
> > news:ijiId.128518$K7.53628@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >>
> >> "Paul Hollister" wrote in message
> >> news:cssa87$opm$1@news-nth.ocn.ad.jp...
> >> > What are isolated quasars made of? Do you have any idea?
> >> >
> >> > Paul Hollister
> >> > at http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com
> >> >
> >>
> >> Checked out your link. It stated: 'One of the greatest mysteries in
the
> >> universe is the Origin of Hydrogen.'. Weinberg describes how it came
> > about
> >> in his classic The First 3 Minutes. In what way is his explanation
> >> unsatisfactory?
> >>
> >
> > I found the following nice link about it -
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/bbang.html. Now
exactly
> > what part do you consider a mystery?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> The widespread acceptance of the single Big Bang theory has profoundly
> affected the sequencing of events in the evolution of the universe. The a
> priori acceptance of the preexistence of hydrogen has also had a profound
> affect on scientific perceptions about galaxy evolution, such as the
> relative ages of elliptical and spiral galaxies.

I have carefully gone over the linked timeline. Exactly where is the
preexistence of hydrogen assumed? - indeed it is not until the second last
phase than hydrogen actually forms - 7 earlier phases occurred. And if one
accepts inflation even earlier phases existed. The question would seem why
is there a slight excess of electrons over positrons. Modern theory points
to some kind of broken symmetry -
http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/Hawking/early_proto/weinberg.html

'The present gaps in our knowledge of the laws of nature stand in the way of
explaining the initial conditions of the universe, at 10-12 second after the
nominal beginning, in terms of the history of the universe at earlier times.
Calculations in the past few years have made it seem likely that the tiny
excess of quarks and electrons over antiquarks and antielectrons at this
time was produced a little earlier, at a temperature of about 1016 degrees.
At that moment the universe went through a phase transition, something like
the freezing of water, in which the known elementary particles for the first
time acquired mass. But we cannot explain why the excess produced in this
way should be one part in 1010, or calculate its precise value, until we
understand the details of the mass- producing mechanism'

Rest snipped
Bill

From:	Road Kill
Subject:	Re: What are Quasars made of?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:17:35 -0600

Paul Hollister wrote:

> The widespread acceptance of the single Big Bang theory has profoundly
> affected the sequencing of events in the evolution of the universe. The
> apriori acceptance of the preexistence of hydrogen

woa horsey! where did you get this? sounds like a rush to imagine to speed
to proclamation to me.

From:	George Dishman
Subject:	Re: What are Quasars made of?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:41:54 -0000

From:	DavidBowman
Subject:	Re: What are Quasars made of?
Date:	22 Jan 2005 10:12:04 -0800

I'm thinking of you as a really smart
high school kid who thinks about
this stuff intensely and (as Master
Yoda put it) "Never pays attention
to WHERE--HE--IS".

I was actually following you for a while,
mapping crude convcepts into
something more likely to be real.

Then I bumped into:

> This is a-Wakeup-bell!
>The whole physics of that region
> needs to be reworked.

Even Master Feynman didn't talk like that, and he really DID rework
physics!

Look kid, I had lots of
formal training in astronomy. There
are no big bangs inside black
holes or quasars, and the plasms jets emitted from active galactic
nuclei are not other universes, negative universes, inside-out
universes, new universes, ior whatever it was you were trying to say.

But modulo your minor ego-outburst , you have the right attitude for a
Scientist: intense!

But there's one other attitude just as important!
The only thing that seperates someone who's trying to figure things out
from a crackpot is that the crackpot can't say "Oops, I was wrong".

God knows, I've said it to myself enough in MY life! (see the PS for an
example).

But you need to learn all about your field before you can "rework
physics"! Go to college and use the intensity to understand what other
intense people have figured out already.

Good luck,

=[ d

PS
Put down the keyboard and books, and fuck girls now, or I promise you,
you'll wish you had. You want to be Master Hollister, not Master
Bates.

From:	Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Subject:	Re: What are Quasars made of?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:10:46 +0200

............ ...For the time being, Quasars are the most distant as
the most brightest objects in the universe. However, the brightest Quasar
usually shines 1.5 quadrillion times what does the brightness of the Sun.

............ ...Therefore, Quasars are Quasi-Stellar Radio Sources as
are the most mysterious objects. However, they are not a stars, whether
they can be the cores of a Young Galaxies, definitely as a matter a
fact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.............. ...

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!

"Paul Hollister" kirjoitti viestissä
news:cssa87$opm$1@news-nth.ocn.ad.jp...
> What are isolated quasars made of? Do you have any idea?
>
> Paul Hollister
> at http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com
>
>

From:	oookhc at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: What are Quasars made of?
Date:	22 Jan 2005 14:30:01 -0800

You might try
http://www.ScienceOxygen.com/astronomy.html

It does not provide the answer directly .
It is with a collection of links on this field.
You might as well just start from there...

From:	jgreen at seol.net.au
Subject:	Re: What are Quasars made of?
Date:	22 Jan 2005 21:01:15 -0800

DavidBowman wrote:
> Okay, I'm thinking of you as a really smart
> high school kid who thinks about
> this stuff intensely but (as Master
> Yoda put it) "never pays attention
> to WHERE--HE--IS".
>
> I was actually following your rap for a while,
> mapping interesting concepts into
> something more likely to be real.
>
> Then I bumped into:
>
> > This is a-Wakeup-bell!
> >The whole physics of that region
> > needs to be reworked.
>
> Even Master Feynman didn't talk like that, and he really DID rework
> physics!
>
> Look kid, I took LOTS of
> astronomy classes. There
> are no big bangs inside black
> holes or quasars, and the plasms jets
> emitted from active galactic
> nuclei are not other universes,
> negative universes, inside-out
> universes, new universes,
> or whatever it was you were trying to say.
>
> But modulo your minor ego-outburst , you have the right attitude for
a
> Scientist: intense!
>
> But there's one other attitude just as important!
> The only thing that seperates someone who's trying to figure things
out
> from a crackpot is that the crackpot can't say "Oops, I was wrong".
>
> God knows, I've said it to myself enough in MY life! (see the PS for
an
> example).
>
> But you need to learn all about your field before you can "rework
> physics"! Go to college and use the intensity to understand what
other
> intense people have figured out already.
>
> Good luck,
>
> =[ d
>
> PS
> Put down the keyboard and books, and fuck girls now, or I promise
> you,you'll wish you had. You want to be Master
> Hollister, not Master Bates.

.....and don't be confined to thinking in terms of minimum possible
sizes!
Neutrinos might be quite large compared to their components :-)
Hydrogen is probably produced by the combining of "very small"
particles, which may or may not have an EMR signature by which they
reveal themselves to us by present techniques.
NB: All EMR particles have mass, and therefore have their velocities
altered by gravity. When slowed/stopped from their emission speeds,
there is the window of opportunity for them to recombine, and build
back up to H

Jim G
c'=c+v

From:	DavidBowman
Subject:	Re: What are Quasars made of?
Date:	22 Jan 2005 14:20:18 -0800

Okay, I'm thinking of you as a really smart
high school kid who thinks about
this stuff intensely but (as Master
Yoda put it) "never pays attention
to WHERE--HE--IS".

I was actually following your rap for a while,
mapping interesting concepts into
something more likely to be real.

Then I bumped into:

> This is a-Wakeup-bell!
>The whole physics of that region
> needs to be reworked.

Even Master Feynman didn't talk like that, and he really DID rework
physics!

Look kid, I took LOTS of
astronomy classes. There
are no big bangs inside black
holes or quasars, and the plasms jets
emitted from active galactic
nuclei are not other universes,
negative universes, inside-out
universes, new universes,
or whatever it was you were trying to say.

But modulo your minor ego-outburst , you have the right attitude for a
Scientist: intense!

But there's one other attitude just as important!
The only thing that seperates someone who's trying to figure things out
from a crackpot is that the crackpot can't say "Oops, I was wrong".

God knows, I've said it to myself enough in MY life! (see the PS for an
example).

But you need to learn all about your field before you can "rework
physics"! Go to college and use the intensity to understand what other
intense people have figured out already.

Good luck,

=[ d

PS
Put down the keyboard and books, and fuck girls now, or I promise
you,you'll wish you had. You want to be Master
Hollister, not Master Bates.