Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 242 of 242

Thread: Another Brazen Attack Against the Big Bang!!!

  1. #201  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Kojax: In a finite universe; if you left earth in a straight path, you would eventually end up back at the earth, never having reached any kind of boundery. The larger the universe, the longer it would take you to end up back at the earth. In an infinite universe; if you left the earth, you would keep on going for ever and never end up back at the earth nor reach any kind of boundery. So in both cases there is no such thing as a boundery. A boundery by definition requires an "other side" of the boundery.
    I'm pretty comfortable with this explanation. In this case, there's no one boundary. What I'm hearing is that just as the International Date Line is a boundary of sorts for how far one can travel around the Earth, any arbitrary point could be considered the "edge" of the universe.

    I wonder if this arises partly from our perception of dimensions. It would be hard to explain to someone who only understood 2 dimensions how it is possible that the map just starts over when one reaches the edge.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If the scientific community is united behind the BBT for purely evidentiary reasons, then there's no need to brand anyone as a crackpot. The body of evidence would be so overwhelmingly in favor, that questioning it would border on the impossible. They'd be more than crackpots. They'd have to be nuts.
    There's nothing wrong with questioning a theory, but one must know what one is talking about in order to question it.
    I suppose the reason I'm wary of your thinking is because you seem to refer a lot more to one's credentials than to their actual ability or state of knowlege. I suppose my wariness is based on personal experience of dealing with credentialed individuals who didn't know what they were saying (in an absolutely provable sense).

    It's weird to me that you're so focused on this concept of a "crackpot". Nothing ever progresses without people stepping outside the bounds of credibility. If you stay inside the box, then you'll never leave it.
    That's woo-woo thinking.
    People who think like this are so quick to embrace the "woo-woo"'s after they're successful. Granted that there are about a hundred unsuccessful ones for every successful one, but still......

    This is sort of a double edged sword. On the one hand, we open the possiblity of what I like to call an "un-callable bluff" by asserting that the theory only makes sense after a tremendous amount of study and training. On the other hand, some claims actually require just that amount of study in order to be fully understood.

    It's hard to know which one we're looking at with the BBT. Is this science that has made itself un-disprovable, because any question of its accuracy can be resolved simply by adding a layer of complexity to the claim? (or revising the claim within the limits of its own ambiguity) Or is it simply a very complex claim, with only those layers that are necessary?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackson
    Shouldn't we expect some parts of the radiation to have traveled greater distances than other parts? (Which would shift it's wavelength) Shouldn't some parts of it have been emitted when the universe was at a different temperature than it was when other parts were emitted? Would those things just all ballance out?
    The CMBR is supposed to be emitted from the time when the gases transformed from a plasma to matter.
    The assumption here is that this transformation all happened all at one time,
    I think not. There would have to be a transition from the plasma to the
    matter form gradually to have a mix of boith plasma and matter radiation.
    So ny conclusion is that it cannot be a 'perfect' BBR curve..
    Cosmo; That was by *kojax*, followed a couple post later by my explanation under BBT. Very much what you said, but in layman's terms...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It was a good answer, too. If the transformation from plasma to ordinary matter happened within a short enough time span, then the amount of redshift would be minimal, or even negligible. I mean, the only way one part of the radiation can travel... say..... a million light years further than another part, is if the transition took a million years.

    Of course, if the matter was still hot (maybe not plasma anymore, but still hot), then it would continue emitting something, would it not? But I guess it wouldn't be continually re-absorbing the energy it released, so maybe that wouldn't go on for very long.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Forum Junior SolomonGrundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    232
    fun is fun until is no fun
    All word is searching for an answer and soon it will get it .
    Our solar system is like our planet it moves around the center of our galaxy . What we see here from erth makes us think that all things around us move apart for echother but in fact our solar sitem is moving on it eliptic course in our galaxy.
    Is not blood and magic is the reality
    Solomon Grundy
    In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I suppose the reason I'm wary of your thinking is because you seem to refer a lot more to one's credentials than to their actual ability or state of knowlege. I suppose my wariness is based on personal experience of dealing with credentialed individuals who didn't know what they were saying (in an absolutely provable sense).
    I never said anything about credentials.

    It's hard to know which one we're looking at with the BBT. Is this science that has made itself un-disprovable, because any question of its accuracy can be resolved simply by adding a layer of complexity to the claim? (or revising the claim within the limits of its own ambiguity) Or is it simply a very complex claim, with only those layers that are necessary?
    If the theory were not falsifiable, it wouldn't be good science. :-D
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Cosmo; That was by *kojax*, followed a couple post later by my explanation under BBT. Very much what you said, but in layman's terms...
    Yeah. I guess your right. I recognized that myself after reading it.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Kojax

    I agree with you refuting the BBT. It is amazing that so many educated scientists swallow the BBT.

    Regarding the CMBR, its redshift is supposed to be 1000. Ludicrous.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    That's the thing. I mean, I could accept it. I just want better evidence for it first. It frustrates me for the entire community to jump to a conclusion they can't verify, and then actually out members who manifest doubt.

    Any sensible scientist will have their doubts about something that hasn't been proven. Suggestive evidence does not equal proof. So, committing an entire community to a belief like the BBT that has not been proven is bad science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Kojax

    I agree with you refuting the BBT. It is amazing that so many educated scientists swallow the BBT.

    Regarding the CMBR, its redshift is supposed to be 1000. Ludicrous.

    Cosmo
    I became aware of the CMBR of having a redshift of 1000 that is not quite correct.

    The redshift applies to the light only since light is 'one' dimensional.

    On the other hand, I have discovered that the CMBR redshift is 3 dimentional. So it is expanding in the 3 spacial dimensions of x,y and z. So the CMBR is also expanding with the spacial dimensions.
    Therefore, it should be more applicable to call it a 'temperature' shift
    because the BB is expanding in all the 3 dimensions.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210 BIG BANG? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    24
    If all the materials in the universe are flying apart because of the BIG-BANG explosion then how come they have coalesced into clumps forming planets, stars and galaxies using the gravitaional force alone.
    Do you mean to tell me that the weak gravitational force is stronger than that of the force of a cataclysmic explosion?
    This is a ghastly contradiction and must be a terrible embarrassment to the scientific community. Perhaps no one thinks too much about it!

    Harry Schneider
    Harry Schneider
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211 Re: BIG BANG? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by harryschneider
    If all the materials in the universe are flying apart because of the BIG-BANG explosion then how come they have coalesced into clumps forming planets, stars and galaxies using the gravitaional force alone.
    Do you mean to tell me that the weak gravitational force is stronger than that of the force of a cataclysmic explosion?
    This is a ghastly contradiction and must be a terrible embarrassment to the scientific community. Perhaps no one thinks too much about it!

    Harry Schneider
    It should be more of an embarrassment to those who opine such things without understanding them.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Forum Junior SolomonGrundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    232
    Long live to blood and magic since that bringed us here all!
    hahahahaha
    Look in your mind and you will find the future and when you see it will the future be real?
    Want to understand more? well like some grand mind once said:" the answer is here near you in you all over is there so all you need is to be able to read it!"
    Solomon Grundy
    In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213 Re: BIG BANG? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by harryschneider
    If all the materials in the universe are flying apart because of the BIG-BANG explosion then how come they have coalesced into clumps forming planets, stars and galaxies using the gravitaional force alone.
    Do you mean to tell me that the weak gravitational force is stronger than that of the force of a cataclysmic explosion?
    This is a ghastly contradiction and must be a terrible embarrassment to the scientific community. Perhaps no one thinks too much about it!

    Harry Schneider
    It should be more of an embarrassment to those who opine such things without understanding them.
    I agree with Harry.
    Also, they say it was not an explosion, just an expansion of space. Ha ha.
    Well, they still did not answer as to what is the driver of this expansion if it was not an explosion?

    Since the BBT sounds more like a 'creation' theory, than perhaps it applies to a 'pregnant' woman?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Junior SolomonGrundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    232
    And for today we have the story of BBT and the story of creation from the bible ... hmm o yes and a few points of view to verify if what we belive is true but no real facts ... so for now go tell your kids the BBT story before they go to bed , because that wat it is a story to make kids sleep.
    What if and why if ?
    No IF!
    So in this way the real facts will come out!
    Solomon Grundy
    In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215 Re: BIG BANG? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I agree with Harry.
    I suspected as much.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Unless someone brings some rigorous science into this disucssion, rather than sarcastic opinions and ill founded waffle, I shall move this to pseudoscience where it is less likely to frighten the children.

    The future is in your hands.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I shall move this to pseudoscience
    It should have been there in the first place. What's taken so long?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Forum Junior SolomonGrundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    232
    whenever i look at the sky i think of home ...
    My soul hurts and i pray to god to help me get over those days ...
    here are some problems in bing bang theory
    Horizon problem
    The horizon problem results from the premise that information cannot travel faster than light. In a universe of finite age, this sets a limit—the particle horizon—on the separation of any two regions of space that are in causal contact. The observed isotropy of the CMB is problematic in this regard: if the universe had been dominated by radiation or matter at all times up to the epoch of last scattering, the particle horizon at that time would correspond to about 2 degrees on the sky. There would then be no mechanism to cause these regions to have the same temperature.

    Flatness/oldness problem

    The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is an observational problem associated with a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric.The universe may have positive, negative or zero spatial curvature depending on its total energy density. Curvature is negative if its density is less than the critical density, positive if greater, and zero at the critical density, in which case space is said to be flat. The problem is that any small departure from the critical density grows with time, and yet the universe today remains very close to flat
    Given that a natural timescale for departure from flatness might be the Planck time, 10−43 seconds, the fact that the universe has reached neither a Heat Death nor a Big Crunch after billions of years requires some explanation. For instance, even at the relatively late age of a few minutes (the time of nucleosynthesis), the universe must have been within one part in 1014 of the critical density, or it would not exist as it does today.

    Baryon asymmetry
    It is not yet understood why the universe has more matter than antimatter
    It is generally assumed that when the universe was young and very hot, it was in statistical equilibrium and contained equal numbers of baryons and anti-baryons. However, observations suggest that the universe, including its most distant parts, is made almost entirely of matter. An unknown process called "baryogenesis" created the asymmetry. For baryogenesis to occur, the Sakharov conditions must be satisfied. These require that baryon number is not conserved, that C-symmetry and CP-symmetry are violated and that the universe depart from thermodynamic equilibrium
    All these conditions occur in the Standard Model, but the effect is not strong enough to explain the present baryon asymmetry.
    Solomon Grundy
    In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219 Re: BIG BANG? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I shall move this to pseudoscience
    It should have been there in the first place. What's taken so long?
    This is a legitimate concern. Solomon Grundy always just posts gibberish. If you move this thread just because of him, well, you'll end up having to move a lot of fairly decent threads too.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by harryschneider
    If all the materials in the universe are flying apart because of the BIG-BANG explosion then how come they have coalesced into clumps forming planets, stars and galaxies using the gravitaional force alone.
    Do you mean to tell me that the weak gravitational force is stronger than that of the force of a cataclysmic explosion?
    This is a ghastly contradiction and must be a terrible embarrassment to the scientific community. Perhaps no one thinks too much about it!

    Harry Schneider
    It should be more of an embarrassment to those who opine such things without understanding them.
    This objection can be addressed. The expansion of space put forth in the BBT is actually not very fast on a small scale level. Also, even in a normal explosion, some objects thrown around by it may still be traveling in roughly the same direction at roughly the same speed.

    The total speed 2 objects are traveling doesn't really matter. All that matters is if they're moving in different directions/speeds relative to each other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220 Re: BIG BANG? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Also, even in a normal explosion, some objects thrown around by it may still be traveling in roughly the same direction at roughly the same speed.

    The total speed 2 objects are traveling doesn't really matter. All that matters is if they're moving in different directions/speeds relative to each other.
    Horsepucky! The fact that objects are moving away from each other proportionally is hugely relative and defines cosmic expansion from normal explosions.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221 Re: BIG BANG? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Horsepucky! The fact that objects are moving away from each other proportionally is hugely relative and defines cosmic expansion from normal explosions.
    Q:
    The objects in an expanding space/explosion cannot be moving away proportionately equal because we are talking about 3 dimensional space, not 2 dimensional space as in the baloon analogy.
    In the 3 dimensional concept, the 'radial' velocity (straight line) would not be equal to the 'lateral' expansion that would have curvature and a different distance measurement relative to the radial objects.
    Technically speaking, all objects would be moving radially from a central point, but the objects in the radial direction would be separated frrom the lateral objects at slightly different distances IMO.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Unless someone brings some rigorous science into this disucssion, rather than sarcastic opinions and ill founded waffle, I shall move this to pseudoscience where it is less likely to frighten the children.

    The future is in your hands.
    For once your random typing has produced a worthy post now carry it out :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223 Re: BIG BANG? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Also, even in a normal explosion, some objects thrown around by it may still be traveling in roughly the same direction at roughly the same speed.

    The total speed 2 objects are traveling doesn't really matter. All that matters is if they're moving in different directions/speeds relative to each other.
    Horsepucky! The fact that objects are moving away from each other proportionally is hugely relative and defines cosmic expansion from normal explosions.
    I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I didn't want the thread moved to pseudo-science, so I was explaining to the other poster how it's possible for objects to be attracted by gravity even if there was a big bang.

    I used the example of an explosion because it's intuitive, and represents an even more extreme case of what he seemed to be saying.

    If the whole universe were one big explosion, even in the classic sense, the debris that make up our galaxy could just be a clump of matter that all happened to get thrown in about the same direction, at a near speed, which would still allow gravity to pull it together.

    I know the BBT predicts that "space itself" is what's expanding, so the objects that get carried by that expansion may not actually perceive themselves to have a velocity at all from it, because their speed relative to the space around them is not being changed by it. (Which is probably the more correct explanation.)


    OK.......... now that that's over....... I'm going to go back to ridiculing the theory again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224 Re: BIG BANG? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Q:
    The objects in an expanding space/explosion cannot be moving away proportionately equal because we are talking about 3 dimensional space, not 2 dimensional space as in the baloon analogy.
    I'm referring to non-Euclidean space.

    Technically speaking, all objects would be moving radially from a central point, but the objects in the radial direction would be separated from the lateral objects at slightly different distances IMO.
    And, they would all be moving at the same velocities or not? Would the distances between them remain unchanging?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225 Re: BIG BANG? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I know the BBT predicts that "space itself" is what's expanding, so the objects that get carried by that expansion may not actually perceive themselves to have a velocity at all from it, because their speed relative to the space around them is not being changed by it. (Which is probably the more correct explanation.)
    It is the distance to other objects that define the velocities between them, not the space in and around them.

    OK.......... now that that's over....... I'm going to go back to ridiculing the theory again.
    Sometimes, ridiculing is all we have.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226 Re: BIG BANG? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    [quote="(Q)"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I'm referring to non-Euclidean space.
    Is that the 'baloon' space? Please clarify.

    And, they would all be moving at the same velocities or not? Would the distances between them remain unchanging?
    Yes, but that would be relative to the starting point.
    The question here then, is does new matter keep being created in the central point or will it become a vacuum with all the matter leaving the central point of the beginning?

    The distances would of course, be increasing since they are all leaving just one central point. This increasing distance would be between the objects separating 'laterally' as portrayed in a baloon analogy.
    But what happens in the radial direction between the particles? Are they separating the same way in the radial direction as they are in the lateral direction?

    These are just a few questions that the BBT has to answer to be realistic.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Can someone just sum up what was said in the last 15 pages? I'm too lazy to read them all.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    Can someone just sum up what was said in the last 15 pages? I'm too lazy to read them all.
    Sure. In summary, The Science Forum has no shortage of self appointed experts who have no training and do not understand the standard cosmological theories, but are absolutely certain that they are wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229 Re: BIG BANG? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I know the BBT predicts that "space itself" is what's expanding, so the objects that get carried by that expansion may not actually perceive themselves to have a velocity at all from it, because their speed relative to the space around them is not being changed by it. (Which is probably the more correct explanation.)
    It is the distance to other objects that define the velocities between them, not the space in and around them.
    What is space, but distance between objects? I'm not sure we're really saying two different things.

    If I said that "distance itself" is what's expanding, would it be more accurate?

    OK.......... now that that's over....... I'm going to go back to ridiculing the theory again.
    Sometimes, ridiculing is all we have.
    Questioning the assumptions that make up a logical claim is the only intelligent way to scrutinize it. The mistakes are rarely in the math itself.

    Human beings are actually really good at pursuing a logical point all the way to the end, once its set up. What they're often not very good at is coming up with a sound foundation before they build.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230 Re: BIG BANG? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    What is space, but distance between objects? I'm not sure we're really saying two different things.

    If I said that "distance itself" is what's expanding, would it be more accurate?
    Since we define "space" as the distance between objects, we can simply say space is expanding.

    Human beings are actually really good at pursuing a logical point all the way to the end, once its set up. What they're often not very good at is coming up with a sound foundation before they build.
    I have observed that constantly here.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Lol Harold.

    Isn't that what we come here to do?

    At least, I'm here in part because school here seems to detest science, and even when they do try to teach you science, it is utterly meaningless. Also because no one I know is 1/2 as intelligent as I am (Well, maybe a couple of my friends are close...) and nobody cares about science here!
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    Can someone just sum up what was said in the last 15 pages? I'm too lazy to read them all.
    Sure. In summary, The Science Forum has no shortage of self appointed experts who have no training and do not understand the standard cosmological theories, but are absolutely certain that they are wrong.
    Harold and Cold fusion

    If you included me in this summary, than I would like to say that I am a proud follower of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohrs sciences.

    So that excludes me from todays BBT promoters that requires me to be 'indoctrinated' in their 'power' educational system as a follower.

    Thank you but I prefer to educate myself with the pursuit of the truth rather than be 'force' fed with propaganda that I may diagree with.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    If you included me in this summary, than I would like to say that I am a proud follower of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohrs sciences.
    And you reject Einstein's theories?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    At least for me: I think that theories created by the scientists of the past should be followed to a certain extent, but should also be malleable. I see their ideas as being written on a block of hard clay, rather than a block of stone.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    If you included me in this summary, than I would like to say that I am a proud follower of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohrs sciences.
    And you reject Einstein's theories?
    Yes.
    Einsteins mass/energy formula is false.
    As I have criticized this before, I had said that only 'forces' create the energies.
    This is basic physics that was proven by experiments.
    I am sure you are aware of the Coulomb charges (forces) and their nature of attraction and repulsion?
    You must also be aware of the nature of the magnetic forces as well?
    The electric motors are a proof of this.

    Einstein also refuted Quantum physics. Do you agree with him on this issue?

    Einstein admitted himself that his 'curvature of space' in a static universe would cause it to collapse. He was right in that respect.

    But in a flat spasce SSU, there is no curvature. So there is no collapse.

    These are the reasons why I refute his very tiny tweaks that I believe can be 'spiritually' manipulated to influence the physical realm.
    Science may not accept this but I do.

    Cosmo

    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    At least for me: I think that theories created by the scientists of the past should be followed to a certain extent, but should also be malleable. I see their ideas as being written on a block of hard clay, rather than a block of stone.
    Do you think Einsteins theories should also be meallable?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Yes.
    Einsteins mass/energy formula is false.

    These are the reasons why I refute his very tiny tweaks that I believe can be 'spiritually' manipulated to influence the physical realm.
    Science may not accept this but I do.

    Cosmo

    .
    And, that's a wrap.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Yes.
    Einsteins mass/energy formula is false.
    As I have criticized this before, I had said that only 'forces' create the energies.
    This is basic physics that was proven by experiments.
    I am sure you are aware of the Coulomb charges (forces) and their nature of attraction and repulsion?
    You must also be aware of the nature of the magnetic forces as well?
    The electric motors are a proof of this.
    You are aware that Einsteins equation has been proven right by quite a few people?
    create energies? energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed so ney, it hasn't been proven nor ever will be

    Einstein also refuted Quantum physics. Do you agree with him on this issue?
    Not everyone is right 100% of the time

    These are the reasons why I refute his very tiny tweaks that I believe can be 'spiritually' manipulated to influence the physical realm.
    Science may not accept this but I do.
    hmmmm, can youi kill me from where you are then?
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Einsteins mass/energy formula is false.
    As I have criticized this before, I had said that only 'forces' create the energies.
    What are the forces that create the energy in a nuclear bomb? Spiritual manipulation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    create energies? energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed so ney, it hasn't been proven nor ever will be
    (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmo
    ]Einstein also refuted Quantum physics. Do you agree with him on this issue?
    Not everyone is right 100% of the time

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    These are the reasons why I refute his very tiny tweaks that I believe can be 'spiritually' manipulated to influence the physical realm.
    Science may not accept this but I do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    hmmmm, can youi kill me from where you are then?
    I am not a predator.
    This would not constiture a 'tweak'.
    I have personally witnessed events that have proven the effects of spirit in the physical realm. Believe me.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Einsteins mass/energy formula is false.
    As I have criticized this before, I had said that only 'forces' create the energies.
    What are the forces that create the energy in a nuclear bomb? Spiritual manipulation?
    The 'fission' bomb is fired by an ordinary explosion that creates a lot of free neutrons that blast the plutonium by fragmentation. This separates the complex nuclei into separate particles that extend outside the range of the 'strong' force with its very short range..
    Result?
    The coulomb repulsive force than completes the explosion with its tremendous repulsion to create complete fission.

    So the SF is broken and the coulomb force finishes the expolsion.
    This energy was 'latent' energy contained by the SF.
    And in this process, there would be a mass gained, buy really, their is no mass gained because the original fusion did not create any loss either.
    The apparent mass losses are the result of measuring the masses as 'inertial' by their trajectory through a fixed magnetic field. The meassured 'inertial masses' have different intrinsic magnetic field patterns of their own to create these apparent mass losses during fusion. This is my opinion.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    kojax; BBT, explains CRB was from a result of cooling, to the point of allowing formation of matter. * Black Body* is a phase, saying a perfect distribution or radiated energy that happened at that time, into whatever the size of the Universe was. Its said the Universe was very young, 300 Million to a billion years old, depending on the author and I have seen estimates that the U was about 1/1000 the current size. This then infers that all matter that formed can give off detectable temperatures, from this radiation. Matter is particles (very small) which is measured or estimated is said to give that temperature. Larger matter, would and does give off much higher rates of energy, indicating higher heat. If we could measure the temperature of distant particles, as we do light (from long ago) the temperatures should be accordingly warmer.

    You have been offered an opinion, that whats at the edge of or on the other side of this edge is of no value or meaningless. I would suggest what is of either, is very important to the BBT (Subject of this thread).
    Under BBT its said, NOTHINGNESS existed outside the singularity and there had to be some form of containment field. What ever that field was, material or otherwise should still exist if expansion is continuing as would the nothingness the universe is expanding into.

    In another post, I alluded to molecular motion, which is said to cease at absolute zero. Add to this that all matter is in a constant decay. Physics tell us, under normal conditions, all basic elements are stable and have no half life or cannot go back to what formed them. Just as Nucleosysthisis tell us elements cannot exits in temperatures above a certain temperature, usually said 8-10 B/D/K, wouldn't it be possible matter at not quite 0/D/K, would lose molecular motion, dissolving or just disappearing.

    No matter other than stars form. The heat, pressures and velocities said required could in fact reverse this process, which Hydrogen would be the first element produced. For the record, planets, moons and all the little stuff are remnants or debris from the stars formation.
    Have bumped this thread back to the top, for the two new members who ask questions covered by many on page 13 and below....
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •