LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksJohn Mather and George Smoot won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics for work supporting the big bang theory:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...l_physics.html
My condolences to Mike NS....
cheers
October 3rd, 2006, 11:20 AM
John Mather and George Smoot won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics for work supporting the big bang theory:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...l_physics.html
My condolences to Mike NS....
cheers
The link quotes Per Carlson, the chairman of the Nobel committee for physics, that he would call their discovery the greatest of the last century.
I'd say the discovery of the DNA double helix pretty much pees all over the significance of any of their discoveries. But then again, I am a biochemist!
PS I know that we are talking about the nobel prize for PHYSICS here and that the DNA discovery has already been awarded the Nobel prize in medicine.
I'm just saying maybe he should have said 'the greatest discovery of the last century in physics', maybe he lacks the prespective to appreciate its relative significance to humanity.
Bravo to John Mather and George Smoot all the same!
October 5th, 2006, 12:25 PM
WilliOriginally Posted by william
John Mather and George Smoot won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics for work supporting the big bang theory:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...l_physics.html
My condolences to Mike NS....
cheers
The Nobel prise is nothing but a political donation to the winners. It involves the major researchers involved in science.
When Smoot referred to the COBE results as 'like God', shortly thereafter, there was an Earthquake in Kobe, Japan. Ha ha.
I just do not consider this to be 'just' a coincidence.
The BB'ers are good at linking coincidences in their theories.
Their prediction of the proposed temperature was off by from 3 to 7 degrees,
McKellers interstellar temperature of one molecule was determined to be 2K. This was back in 1940 and a much closer determination than the Gamow et al predictions. About ten years ahead of the Gamow et al prediction of this radiation that I consider to be nothing more than the 'Thermolized Equalibrium' temperature of the intergalactic gases, particles, dusts and molecules in a SSU.
In the BB scenerio, this temperature could not be so uniform because the 'sparcity of an expanding space in the short time of 13.7^9 years,
could not reach this equalibrium temperature that is currently determined.
NS
they can do stuff better with their asses than you can do with your head. They are much better than you will ever be. Stop bieng jealous and think you are something youre notThe BB'ers are good at linking coincidences in their theories.
Don.t worry Mike, I'm sure they'll be asked to hand it back before christmas, wait and see what's coming....
god just shut up or do better
billco......yeah, ha ha.
zelos.....are you worried that the BB may deflate like the baloon that it is?
Ha ha.
Hey, at one time they compared the BB to 'raisin bread'.
Well, at least you could eat it then. hs ha.
NS
NS
no, if a better theory comes i´ll accept it aswell. i just hate people like you and billco that thinks they are smart enough to falsefy a theory but stupid enough to not understand a shit about itzelos.....are you worried that the BB may deflate like the baloon that it is?
Quite spewing your filthy tongue on this thread.
I can smell your halitosis al the way here. Phew.
NS
maybe its a bit filthy but it isnt as filthy as you arefilthy tongue
If this thread remains as nothing more than a vehicle for taking snipes at Mike NS then I shall shut it down.
The choice is in your hands.
Ophiolite (wearing his moderator hat)
This hat ophiolite?
that must be it
Dare I say as a newcomer that most if not all of the threads in this 'science' forum seem to contain some animosity, "is this a five minute thread or the full half hour?"
People may feel passionate about science. That is a good thing. We do not wish to suppress that passion, but recognise that it may sometimes spill over into attacks on the individual rather than the idea. This is tolerated as long as it does not go too far. In my judgement this thread had become only about personal attacks.
In short, while we don't want the full monty, we also don't wish to constrict it too much.*
*Explanations of this multi-level pun available on request.
Thanks Ophi. I appreciate your muzzling of these vicious dogs that are not Americans promoting 'free speech' even though you are not an American. It seems the Europeans are more liberal about science.
To be honest about it, US science is also and not exactly a model for free speech, since they drove Halton Arp out of the US where he is now promoting his science from the Max Planck Institute in Germany.
I guess you should know him promoting the 'Anamolous Cosmological Redshifts. That refute 'expansion of space' as the CRS.
NS
Someone wrote a polemical article the other day calling for Robert Edwards to get the Nobel Prize in Medicine for the work he did (with the late Patrick Steptoe) in creating In-Vitro Fertilisation. This year's winners have made some discoveries about chemical action in cells which is good work, sure enough, but won't actually start having an impact on healthcare for another few decades (I forget the exact details of it). Whereas Edwards and Steptoe's work, vilified prior to fruition both inside and outside the scientific and medical professions, has transpired to bring happiness to thousands upon thousands of people, and to bring about the births of thousands who otherwise might never have been born. And isn't that the kind of thing the Nobel Prize was supposed to promote?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3093429.stm
NS Comment
All the articles I post are based on objective science such as the Conservation Laws, experiments and correctly interpretating the observations.
My SSU is a viable replacement for the fictitious BBU.
I solved the 'dark matter' problem.
I refuted the Einstein mass/energy' formula with the 'fission bomb' and his GR with the Zwicky gravity that GR cannot explain.
So do I deserve any awards? Ha ha.
I hated to have to 'brag' but I see no other alternative to get some credibility.
What do you think, Willi?
NS
every teen think tehy know all the answers but they never do. You have no degree, no understand, nothing to come with and yet you refute the most proved equation in the physics? it has been proved to be right so many timesI solved the 'dark matter' problem.
I refuted the Einstein mass/energy' formula with the 'fission bomb' and his GR with the Zwicky gravity that GR cannot explain.
yes, "The most stupid person on the planet" rewardSo do I deserve any awards? Ha
Hi Mike,
What do I think....
Hmmm...
Well, I think your hypotheses are good starting points but they simply don't hold up to further examination. You and I have debated a few points (e.g., neutron star stability and the feasibility of charged matter being the culprit of the MDM mystery). Most hypotheses ultimately fail, so there is nothing to feel bad about. But one of the most important aspects of science is being able to examine your own hypotheses and discarding them if they don't hold up. I think that instead, you have adamantly defended your ideas in light that they cannot be correct. I also think you have a bit of arrogance (I apologise, but that's what I feel). I also think that, while your hypotheses are good starting points, you have to carry the work a few steps further, which you haven't done. It simply is not science to state a "theory," demand that it is correct, and move on.
But...
this forum wouldn't be nearly as fun as it is without your contributions. For that, I thank you.
Cheers,
"willi"
Zelos,
what don't you understand about my request to desist with the persistent personal comments? They are becoming tiresome. Stop them.
Ophiolite
Willi
Thanks for your comment. Especially your closing remark.
It seems like science today, by the experts, demand some math to support theory.
Since I haven't learned calculus and do not need it, I see no real reason to use math to support a SSU or for sup;ort for 'separated electric charges' that were proved by a NASA x-ray telescope.
Complex math is a byproduct of research and experiments and is only needed for 'predicting' future events.
I have no reason to predict anything since a SSU is not an evolutionary reality.
Regarding 'dark matter', the relative strengths between the 'separated electric charges' and the gravitational forces is enormous.
So the difference here is an obvious solution to the DM problem.
It took years for Kepler and Newton to finalize their formulas for the planetary motions. So I give them the credibility they deserve.
Other than that, I will rely on research, experiments and observations for my science.
NS
THANKS OPHIE
NS
ok, i just get mad on KNS persons like mike who refuse things they dont understandwhat don't you understand about my request to desist with the persistent personal comments? They are becoming tiresome. Stop them.
this is about "Mather and Smoot" and my hat is off to them for in their award for "advancing the theory of BB". i have read this paper and suggest anyone responding to m-ns also do so. there is nothing in the study that i can find, enhancing any theory, much less one by their mentor, Edwin Hubble. if you look at the images said to have come from COBE, you will see a remarkable similarity to that of the "Hubble" and the definitions or conclusions they conceived are no different than those of Edwin, after his land telescope observation much earlier. there is an agreement, but no advancement, unless you somehow qualify the equipment, which i suggest is a small version of the "Hubble" and neither as advanced as the land telescope used in the original building of this theory; or is that what we are to believe.
No need to be angry
He think that Einstein is wrong, and he is right, dispite that he don't know anything in math.
That's make my days
PS : I also post my wrong theories in astronomy, but I don't take seriously my self.
Jackson
I recall reading that Hubble, himself, refused to accept the idea of an expanding space.
Powerdoc
Does your theory refute Einstein and give the reasons for doing so?
I cite two reasons for refuting Einstein.
The fission bomb refutes his mass/energy formula and the galactic cluster enhanced gravity (I call Zwicky Gravity) that does not comply to Einsteins Newtonian gravity bending of space.
Zwicky gravity is from 10x to 20x times greater that Newtonian gravity.
So, this extra strength of ZG would warp space far in excess of Einsteins tiny bending of NG's effect on space.
That convinces me that Einsteins 'space curvature' is not applicable to a SSU. In other words, 'space is FLAT.
Incidentally, Einstein believed in a static (flat space) universe. You know the rest of this history.
NS
fission does not refute E=MC², its only in your cerebrum it does but not in physicsThe fission bomb refutes his mass/energy formula and the galactic cluster enhanced gravity (I call Zwicky Gravity) that does not comply to Einsteins Newtonian gravity bending of space.
once agian just becuase there is math that we cant see doesnt meen its not there, we are still looking for a complete answer there
yes, he said "my life biggest misstage" and also, the space is FLAT in its natural conditionIncidentally, Einstein believed in a static (flat space) universe. You know the rest of this history.
The fission bomb does refute the mass/energy formula because the energy released is from the potential energy contained by the supposed strong force.
There was NO mass conversion here.
NS
Zelos,
You have to get out of that borg cube more often and step into reality, I have been following your replies and I have notice your filthy language when you post.
Show some respect and you will respected.
This should be a place where we can all learn, teach and share views and opinions amongst all of us otherwise people will just leave and let me tell you that there are alternatives…
Anyway enough said.
yes there is, been calculated and observed thou to the isotopes massesThe fission bomb does refute the mass/energy formula because the energy released is from the potential energy contained by the supposed strong force.
There was NO mass conversion here.
if you are really 88 year olds dont you think the case can be that your a bit out of date?
i do have a sharp toungeI have been following your replies and I have notice your filthy language when you post.
respect is nothing you get, its something you earn, stupidity doesnt deserv to be respectedShow some respect and you will respected.
yes, but the person should realise when they are over proved and their ideas are wrong. of course ideas are welcome for fun, but when the possibility of it is 0 they should say something like "ok this doesnt seem to wrok, it was fun but not possible"This should be a place where we can all learn, teach and share views and opinions amongst all of us otherwise people will just leave and let me tell you that there are alternatives
I'm a little curious as to what age has to do with knowledge or understanding of stuff billions of years in the making.
respect is earned and should be; maybe some consideration of some one, willing to offer opinions differing the accepted and if nothing else giving cause for thought. isn't that what the study of space science is all about.
As an exercise Zelos, consider how much respect you have earned through your postings on this forum. Is it a lot? A little? None? More than anyone else?
Perhaps you don't care. (I think you do.) As a second exercise consider how you might have acquired more respect by altering the character and content of your posts.
I agree that stupidity doesn't deserve respect. (Did I mention that I think persistently making posts that lack correct spelling, sentence structure, grammar and vocabulary, to the point where they are often unintelligible, is stupid?)
ive learned my entire life to not care. lets not go in why but ive learned not to care about what people think. So no i dont carePerhaps you don't care. (I think you do.)
| « Joseph Priestly experiment gone haywire... | The Big Bang » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
