Slashdot Mirror
New Sharpened Images From Hubble Telescope Contradict Post-Big Bang Theories (nasa.gov)
An anonymous reader quotes NASA:
By applying a new computational analysis to a galaxy magnified by a gravitational lens, astronomers have obtained images 10 times sharper than what Hubble could achieve on its own. The results show an edge-on disk galaxy studded with brilliant patches of newly formed stars... The galaxy in question is so far away that we see it as it appeared 11 billion years ago, only 2.7 billion years after the big bang... The resulting reconstructed image revealed two dozen clumps of newborn stars, each spanning about 200 to 300 light-years. This contradicted theories suggesting that star-forming regions in the distant, early universe were much larger, 3,000 light-years or more in size. "There are star-forming knots as far down in size as we can see," said doctoral student Traci Johnson of the University of Michigan, lead author of two of the three papers describing the research.
Meaningless. Spacetime expanded from it. Time is from it. The only source or cause of the big bang is that which is beyond space and time.
By definition.
Gaussian is not a term. And poles form from electric currents running in circles, so you have to have an electric ring first. You do not have one, therefore there is no pole.
Your poles do not create energy. They cannot create universes either. Because to exist they need electric ring currents, requiring electrical charges from particles to be moving and constrained by matter in a dense state.
Without any constraining matter the poles neither form nor could they increase in strength, because to increase in strength would require more ring currents in a higher density and greater constraint.
Converting to radians still does not get rid of pi, since pi is the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle and this is still relevant because the current depends on the linear motion velocity of the charge and it's distance, both related to each other not by radians but by pi.
Your claims about stationary/moving magnetic fields shows you do not know the first thing about magnetism nor what you're trying to say here. Magnetic fields, stationary or not, contain a field and that field contains energy. Moving the magnetic field does not produce extra energy. And movement makes no sense without another reference point, which your lame half-baked (no, not even half-baked, completely unleavened) hypothesis refuses to actually exist.
Eddy currents do require a medium. The charge carrying particles themselves. You're getting the EM-wave (photon) mixed up with magentic poles and currents. Yet again demonstrating how little you comprehend about the field on which you're pontificating.
The bit you're ending on is plain mathturbation and does neither fit observation nor have any causation or mechanism to take place and explains nothing.
Over all 0/10. If it were possible to give you negative out of ten, I would.