Were the moon landings faked?

The whole general theory of relativity of Einstein would be destroyed it anti-matter would repel matter. It does not depend on some special property of the anti-matter that might cause it to repell matter. Mass changes space-time, and space-time tells mass how to move. Its just depends on the mass !

 

.

 

Yes, we did land on the moon and I know for a fact cause I saw it on tv when I was a kid

 

Well if matter and anti-matter did repel hypotheitcally it need not necessarily be due to a gravitational effect. It could have been due to some other asymmetry of course as far as im aware this has long since been largely disproven. Though the fact remains there must be some other difference between matter and antimatter that we do not yet kno of, or of course the big bang theory is flawed.

 

I don't agree with the big bang theory. Just because the universe is moving out doesn't prove that it started with an explosion.

I think it's always been and at this moment in time as we see it from earth its moving away from us, but I believe it's going through cycles like pulses. So it will eventually move towards us and away and back again, but over billions of years.
Thats the way I always thought of it even before this bang theory, and I'm no scientist, but thats how I see it.

After all the big bang is only a theory and not a fact, so my idea stands firm in my mind

 

Its true that the expanding universe doesnt prove that it started out at a point. However conversely its not illogical to see an explosion and assume that something exploded. Of course if the universe pulses then we need to find some force that would cause it to do this. What we do see is a background radiation that we see all around us from all parts of the sky this was a consequence of the big bang that was predicted long before it was found. This strongly suggests that not only was everywhere in the universe once n the same place but that there was a massive explosion. My personal opinion is that something like the big bang happened but I think we like to think we know a lot more about the details than we actually do.

 

whoa

Fat tony and the german love machine get it down on specifics of antimater..
kinky
Life is wonderfull

Occam


ps.. But may suggest .. As we dont know what mater is.. lets not get tied up with antimater.
If any dont agree.. well 'fat tony' give DEFINATIVE description of mater.

 

.

 

Yeah or Richard Feynman, he had a gift for explaining complex mathematics in normal language.

 

.

 

.

 

I use the Feynman lectures on physics all the time because I rekon its better than a lot of textbooks, 6 easy pieces is a great descriptive book avoiding mathematics.

 

Also much more fun to read than other textbooks because of his unique style which I like very much (even in the german translation its still very cool)

 

The last thing I read about it was that the expansion that started with the big bang is not going any slower as it would have to if there were some form of pulsation, but is actually ACCELERATING !

 

If this big ban theory is correct than it must mean there are other universes that started with a big bang. So the universe we are in is just our local universe, like a bubble and theres other universes floating around in empty space and expanding like ours.

I don't believe that before the big bang there was nothing. There can never be nothing because something cannot come from nothing. So thats why I think there are many of them, that is if the big bang theory holds water. It would mean there was no beginning, because the universes keep expanding, collapsing, big bang, expanding, collapsing etc. But many many universes going through this life cycle.
Maybe theres as many or more universes than there are galaxies.

So if this is true, the meaning of a "universe" will have to be changed from being the total matter in space, to
- a single mass which is only holding a local group of galaxies, (which is our universe as we see it today) and each universe is going through it's own life and death cycle.

A new name will have to be made to encompass all the universes. This new name will mean the ultimate "universe."

We have a name for our solar sytem, galaxy and now we need a name for our universe.
Than who knows maybe theres more 'ultimate "universes."

 

More recent experiements do suggest that the rate of expansion is indeed increasing thoguh astronomy is not my thing and I really dont keep up enough to know whether this will become the accepted view, although the data does seem to be considered solid.

As for multiple universes and other random hypothetical stuff read Breif History of Time.

 

I do have A Brief History of Time. Had it for years now but actually have never read it.
I guess I should dig it out and give it a look see. Maybe it WILL change my outlook on the big bang theory.

 

Well dont believe it because Stephen Hawking says so but it is a good overview of the ideas that are out there. You never know you might find something you like.

 

NO I won't believe it just cause Hawking says its so.
Maybe he might say things that are the way I see it, and explain it better. But he's not going to change my main perspective of things

 

.