Thread: What exactly is debate?

To me it's opposing opinions, different opinions, enlarging on what is said, add facts when possible, etc.

That applies to science too.

Why should any subject be forbidden in science? Isn't the idea, that you check everything first before coming to a conclusion?

How can you be sure that something is true if you accept the first idea that comes along as it fills in the gaps?

And if someone gets called an idiot along the way, so what? We're not little girlies who will cry into pink hankies if we find someone does not love us.

If limits are put on what you debate and how you debate, at what point is that no longer debate?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

To me it's opposing opinions, different opinions, enlarging on what is said, add facts when possible, etc.

That applies to science too.

Why should any subject be forbidden in science? Isn't the idea, that you check everything first before coming to a conclusion?

How can you be sure that something is true if you accept the first idea that comes along as it fills in the gaps?

And if someone gets called an idiot along the way, so what? We're not little girlies who will cry into pink hankies if we find someone does not love us.

If limits are put on what you debate and how you debate, at what point is that no longer debate?

It ceases to be a debate when one of the participants who does not really understand the subject matter refuses to acknowledge the responses and arguments of the other party, and stubbornly insists upon his own mistaken point of view.

Argument Clinic - YouTube

[QUOTE=Harold14370;290319]

Originally Posted by Cyberia

To me it's opposing opinions, different opinions, enlarging on what is said, add facts when possible, etc.

That applies to science too.

Why should any subject be forbidden in science? Isn't the idea, that you check everything first before coming to a conclusion?

How can you be sure that something is true if you accept the first idea that comes along as it fills in the gaps?

And if someone gets called an idiot along the way, so what? We're not little girlies who will cry into pink hankies if we find someone does not love us.

If limits are put on what you debate and how you debate, at what point is that no longer debate?

It ceases to be a debate when one of the participants who does not really understand the subject matter refuses to acknowledge the responses and arguments of the other party, and stubbornly insists upon his own mistaken point of view.

Tut Tut Harold, would you pose as an arbiter to address opinions contrary to your own.
Cyberia makes a valid contention, answer it with reason.
nokton.

Harold. Can you show me some examples of that where I have actually been proved wrong rather than just not parroting accepted dogma? Feel free to join the debates and prove I am wrong, which does not mean pointing to the wikipedia or other articles as others do.

To say that someone does not really understand the subject so has another point of view defeats the whole object of debate.

If we take cosmology for instance, it can be shown that it is based heavily on speculation and ideas and actually has almost no evidence to support it, despite baseless claims to the contrary.

If a few thousand years ago almost everyone thought the world was flat, that did not mean it was flat, though they could prove to their own satisfaction that it was. They did not have the whole picture which would have showed them wrong, as we still have gaping holes in cosmology which necessitates leaps of faith and which may be ultimately proved wrong.

So someone with different speculations and ideas on cosmology are not bucking accepted knowledge but merely putting their own speculations and ideas across.

You have to understand the difference between hard sciences like chemistry and soft sciences like cosmology. You cannot compare the two.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Harold. Can you show me some examples of that where I have actually been proved wrong rather than just not parroting accepted dogma?

You wrote:

Heat death relies on ever more dark energy so that it goes from the present 72% of the universe to almost 100% of the universe.

Speedfreek replied:

Cyberia, heat death does not require dark energy. Any scenario where Omega < 1 ends in heat death, it is the fate of a simple open universe.

This demonstrates that you do not even understand the theory that you constantly rail against. Will you admit this? Probably not. What is the point of debating with you?

Anything posted before, say, July is invalid, irrelevant, and/or not worthy of further commentary- do not ask Prince why.

So what is debate: "Formal argument between opposing points of view regarding a specific topic."

Is this hypothesis adequately defining said phenomenon?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

We're not little girlies who will cry into pink hankies if we find someone does not love us.

That's racist

A good debate generally has some grounding in factual content on which the two opposing camps would endeavour to erect their teetering edifice of half-truths, supposition and creative interpretation of their opponents' rebuttals.

When it's rubbish all the way down, what you have is more of a hold-my-breath-and-stamp-my-feet tantrum than a debate.

There's no harm in admitting you're wrong. I have deep respect for anyone who has mastered this skill. Especially given how little value is attached of late to personal responsibility and ownership, (in western culture).

It's our flaws that produce the greatest insights, not our congruences.

actually its sexist, and demeaning to everyone.

Originally Posted by rustypup

It's our flaws that produce the greatest insights, not our congruences.

Therefore most flawed should rule! Prince submits himself for nomination to Presidency of TSF on this basis!

Originally Posted by Cyberia

You have to understand the difference between hard sciences like chemistry and soft sciences like cosmology. You cannot compare the two.

Tough to find a control for double blind study involving cosmos.

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

Therefore most flawed should rule! Prince submits himself for nomination to Presidency of TSF on this basis!

"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." -- Douglas Adams

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

Therefore most flawed should rule! Prince submits himself for nomination to Presidency of TSF on this basis!

"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." -- Douglas Adams

So you agree? Is this technically "nomination" or "second" if so? British have it easy, head of state for life term, like Papa Doc in Haiti! No messy elections, Prince's kind of place!

Being Welsh, or from Wales anyway, does it ever bother you that Prince of Wales is NOT Welsh? Good news, neither is Prince!

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Harold. Can you show me some examples of that where I have actually been proved wrong rather than just not parroting accepted dogma?

You wrote:

Heat death relies on ever more dark energy so that it goes from the present 72% of the universe to almost 100% of the universe.

Speedfreek replied:

Cyberia, heat death does not require dark energy. Any scenario where Omega < 1 ends in heat death, it is the fate of a simple open universe.

This demonstrates that you do not even understand the theory that you constantly rail against. Will you admit this? Probably not. What is the point of debating with you?

Heat death is where dark energy is sufficient eventually to overcome the atomic force binding all matter so in the end there are just black holes and "loose atomic particles".

Without that. just sheer mass will generate pockets of heat, as in large planets. Jupiter for instance gives off more heat than it receives from the Sun and even now we know that there are many "Jupiters" out there. Living beings could survive on such a planet, away from the heat of any star. And without 100% DE, they are not just going to go away, ever! They are essentially eternal.

Considering what we now know of the universe, there could be trillions of trillions of such planets (as in heat sources) so hardly an equilibrium across the universe.

Your (and Speedfreeks's) answer is what one expects when people parrot banal dogma without thinking about it. Or understanding it.

Quoting dogma is not debate. Do you understand that?

Originally Posted by rustypup

Originally Posted by Cyberia

We're not little girlies who will cry into pink hankies if we find someone does not love us.

That's racist

Do you understand what the word racist means? Perhaps you meant sexist?

A good debate generally has some grounding in factual content on which the two opposing camps would endeavour to erect their teetering edifice of half-truths, supposition and creative interpretation of their opponents' rebuttals.

When it's rubbish all the way down, what you have is more of a hold-my-breath-and-stamp-my-feet tantrum than a debate.

There's no harm in admitting you're wrong. I have deep respect for anyone who has mastered this skill. Especially given how little value is attached of late to personal responsibility and ownership, (in western culture).

It's our flaws that produce the greatest insights, not our congruences.

Rather than for instance just saying Harold knows nothing about engineering (when he clearly does), I give reasons for what I say. If you look through my posts, I have explained why the big bang is speculation at best and nonsense at worst, giving links when i can.

I gave a link on another thread to a Horizon TV programme where learned people spoke about cosmology, and said that inflation and dark energy were unproven ideas needed to make the BB fit observations and maths, and even a teacher who taught it at university said she did not believe in it.

There is this band wagon nastiness about forums where someone lies to discredit a poster and then others repeat this lie and add to it to further discredit them.

If you know anything about cosmology, show me where I am wrong. Do not insinuate that I am wrong just because people who know as little as you do on the subject have said so.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

actually its sexist, and demeaning to everyone.

Do you deny that little girls do it and little boys don't?

How is it demeaning to anyone except maybe little girls, and since they do do it, are you saying that a little girl crying is demeaning?

That is the trouble with trying to censor people using "isms". They are just readily parroted phrases, and so not thought through.

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

Originally Posted by Cyberia

You have to understand the difference between hard sciences like chemistry and soft sciences like cosmology. You cannot compare the two.

Tough to find a control for double blind study involving cosmos.

That is the problem with most of cosmology. We are essentially studying a photo of the universe so we have no proof that any galaxy is actually moving according to the claimed redshift. Or even distant stars in our own galaxy.

We are told that matter appeared at above 3000.K and yet the highest temperatures we can detect nearly that far away are about 10.K.

No one knows what DM is or where it is but it does whatever is required of it and nothing else. No one knows what DE is either or how there is ever more of it.

And amazingly no one knows what space is either, though it too does whatever is required of it.

We cannot even be sure that gravity is exactly the same over all distances and sizes since we do not know what gravity is.

There are no such controls available which means that it is all speculation and ideas. Not science fact.

I have had people on other forums (science, etc) saying that there are no facts in science, but tell that to anyone who believes in the big bang.

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

Originally Posted by rustypup

It's our flaws that produce the greatest insights, not our congruences.

Therefore most flawed should rule! Prince submits himself for nomination to Presidency of TSF on this basis!

I think you should be elected President of Greece. You can't do a worse job than the current President.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Heat death is where dark energy is sufficient eventually to overcome the atomic force binding all matter so in the end there are just black holes and "loose atomic particles".

Is this your theory or is it your interpretation of mainstream cosmological theory? If it is your interpretation of mainstream cosmological theory, please cite a source.

Without that. just sheer mass will generate pockets of heat, as in large planets. Jupiter for instance gives off more heat than it receives from the Sun and even now we know that there are many "Jupiters" out there. Living beings could survive on such a planet, away from the heat of any star. And without 100% DE, they are not just going to go away, ever! They are essentially eternal.

How do you know they give off heat? Did you go up there and stick a thermometer into Jupiter? What makes you think the source of heat is just sheer mass? Is it your experience that massive objects give off heat? How do you know that the heat is eternal? That sounds like some sort of dogma.

Considering what we now know of the universe, there could be trillions of trillions of such planets (as in heat sources) so hardly an equilibrium across the universe.

What does the number of planets have to do with equilibrium across the universe?

Your (and Speedfreeks's) answer is what one expects when people parrot banal dogma without thinking about it. Or understanding it.

Quoting dogma is not debate. Do you understand that?

Yes. That is why you are close to being banned permanently.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Heat death is where dark energy is sufficient eventually to overcome the atomic force binding all matter so in the end there are just black holes and "loose atomic particles".

Is this your theory or is it your interpretation of mainstream cosmological theory? If it is your interpretation of mainstream cosmological theory, please cite a source.

Using the failed Physbang tactics now, I see. You can give me sources for what you claim but in many cases I can show them to be wrong. That is the problem when you are dealing with speculation and ideas like cosmology.

Heat death is actually cold death as in all the universe being one temperature several degrees or less above absolute zero.

But how can this be when mass generates heat and we have planets and dwarf stars of five hundred or more kelvin?

There will be collisions too, between planets, stars and galaxies which also generate heat. Black holes are "messy eaters" and can lose 90% of the mass heading towards them. Practically this means that all kinds of matter can be ripped apart to fundamental particles which can ultimately provide the material for new stars since hydrogen is the easiest element to be formed from such particles.

Even our very widespread local group is held together gravitationally and is beyond the abilities of dark energy to break it up. One wonders if the lot were on a collision course before DE started trying to pry them apart?

How do you know they give off heat? Did you go up there and stick a thermometer into Jupiter? What makes you think the source of heat is just sheer mass? Is it your experience that massive objects give off heat? How do you know that the heat is eternal? That sounds like some sort of dogma.

Decades old news that Jupiter gives off more energy than it receives.

Very basic physics that if you squash something it gains heat, as in the same energy in a smaller area.

How can there be a heat death if heat is not eternal? Are you saying that theorists are wrong and that some day everything in the universe will be at absolute zero?

What we call heat is some form of motion. What happens when you throw an object in space?

[QUOTE]

Considering what we now know of the universe, there could be trillions of trillions of such planets (as in heat sources) so hardly an equilibrium across the universe.

What does the number of planets have to do with equilibrium across the universe?If you have endless trillions of planets and stars maybe several hundred degrees hotter than the background temperature of space, that is not a lot different from now, so hardly a heat death equilibrium.

Quoting dogma is not debate. Do you understand that?

Yes. That is why you are close to being banned permanently.

You are saying that I will be banned because I do not quote dogma like you and a number of others here?

Do you value Physbang and others because they can quote from the wikipedia and such sources?

If all people do on a science forum is exchange dogmatic views, such debates will be as dry as dust and utterly useless.

You still do not have a clue as to the meaning of the word "debate".


Debate | Define Debate at Dictionary.com


You still will not accept that there can be opinions opposite to your own. How can you be a moderator with such an attitude?

Duplicate post

In my view debate involves logical presentation of personal opposing views over others. If they hold any relation with validity than they are supposed to be accepted by all parties concerned.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Heat death is where dark energy is sufficient eventually to overcome the atomic force binding all matter so in the end there are just black holes and "loose atomic particles".

Is this your theory or is it your interpretation of mainstream cosmological theory? If it is your interpretation of mainstream cosmological theory, please cite a source.

Using the failed Physbang tactics now, I see. You can give me sources for what you claim but in many cases I can show them to be wrong. That is the problem when you are dealing with speculation and ideas like cosmology.

No, I will not let you get away with this. You said, incorrectly, that heat death requires dark energy, according to standard cosmological theory. That is wrong. How can you argue against a theory when YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT SAYS?

Heat death is actually cold death as in all the universe being one temperature several degrees or less above absolute zero.

But how can this be when mass generates heat and we have planets and dwarf stars of five hundred or more kelvin?

There will be collisions too, between planets, stars and galaxies which also generate heat. Black holes are "messy eaters" and can lose 90% of the mass heading towards them. Practically this means that all kinds of matter can be ripped apart to fundamental particles which can ultimately provide the material for new stars since hydrogen is the easiest element to be formed from such particles.

Even our very widespread local group is held together gravitationally and is beyond the abilities of dark energy to break it up. One wonders if the lot were on a collision course before DE started trying to pry them apart?

How do you know they give off heat? Did you go up there and stick a thermometer into Jupiter? What makes you think the source of heat is just sheer mass? Is it your experience that massive objects give off heat? How do you know that the heat is eternal? That sounds like some sort of dogma.

Decades old news that Jupiter gives off more energy than it receives.

So you are learning your physics from news reports? What I was trying to get you to say is that we know because we infer it from the infrared radiation emitted. Yet you reject the notion of inferring velocity of galaxies from the red shift.

Very basic physics that if you squash something it gains heat, as in the same energy in a smaller area.

And what happens when it squashes into the smallest possible volume? Where is its eternal energy?

You are saying that I will be banned because I do not quote dogma like you and a number of others here?

No, you will be banned because of your own dogma. Pseudoscientific dogma that you post incessantly and disruptively on science threads.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by rustypup

Originally Posted by Cyberia

We're not little girlies who will cry into pink hankies if we find someone does not love us.

That's racist

Do you understand what the word racist means? Perhaps you meant sexist?

Too subtle? *

i) Arbitrarily divide humanity into distinct groups. Masochists and people who agree with us, (good), and small - female - pink hanky owners, (bad).
ii) Make derogatory comments about the victim group.

Racist.

See. Not all debate has a point. When it boils down to silly semantics and our inbuilt inability to admit when we're wrong. Yay us.

*Actually, the comment was horrendously misogynistic, but pointing that out seemed both redundant and off-topic.

Also, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/ma...ence.html?_r=1

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

actually its sexist, and demeaning to everyone.

Do you deny that little girls do it and little boys don't?

How is it demeaning to anyone except maybe little girls, and since they do do it, are you saying that a little girl crying is demeaning?

That is the trouble with trying to censor people using "isms". They are just readily parroted phrases, and so not thought through.

Yes I do deny it. I happen to know a lot of men who have cried when they were dumped. Im saying the implication that anyone who does not agree with your position is a weak and emotionally fragile person that should not be interaction with the world is sexist, and that is the only way to interpret your wording.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

To me it's opposing opinions, different opinions, enlarging on what is said, add facts when possible, etc.

That applies to science too.

Why should any subject be forbidden in science? Isn't the idea, that you check everything first before coming to a conclusion?

How can you be sure that something is true if you accept the first idea that comes along as it fills in the gaps?

And if someone gets called an idiot along the way, so what? We're not little girlies who will cry into pink hankies if we find someone does not love us.

If limits are put on what you debate and how you debate, at what point is that no longer debate?

You interest me Cyberia, so much wisdom and reason fall on deaf ears. Your reason and logic is impeccable.
And your evaluation of the status quo is admirable.
You are correct on your points you make about debate, I understand your points, and agree with you.
But please Cyberia, don't put off by those who do not understand.
Respect.
nokton.

Originally Posted by nokton

Originally Posted by Cyberia

To me it's opposing opinions, different opinions, enlarging on what is said, add facts when possible, etc.

That applies to science too.

Why should any subject be forbidden in science? Isn't the idea, that you check everything first before coming to a conclusion?

How can you be sure that something is true if you accept the first idea that comes along as it fills in the gaps?

And if someone gets called an idiot along the way, so what? We're not little girlies who will cry into pink hankies if we find someone does not love us.

If limits are put on what you debate and how you debate, at what point is that no longer debate?

You interest me Cyberia, so much wisdom and reason fall on deaf ears. Your reason and logic is impeccable.
And your evaluation of the status quo is admirable.
You are correct on your points you make about debate, I understand your points, and agree with you.
But please Cyberia, don't put off by those who do not understand.
Respect.
nokton.

The "great minds" idiom has it's antithesis it seems.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Heat death is where dark energy is sufficient eventually to overcome the atomic force binding all matter so in the end there are just black holes and "loose atomic particles".

This is incorrect.

All that is required for heat death is a universe that expands forever. It does not require the rate of expansion to accelerate (dark energy), it only requires the expansion not to decelerate to a halt, which is what happens in an open universe with less than critical energy-density (i.e. if omega is < 1).

The only fate of the universe that requires dark energy (in the way you describe) is a "Big Rip" scenario. Perhaps you are confusing the two?

I can provide "non-dogmatic" sources (i.e. with derivations, rather than unexplained dogmatic assertions) for all my statements. Can you?

Harold14370.

No, I will not let you get away with this. You said, incorrectly, that heat death requires dark energy, according to standard cosmological theory. That is wrong. How can you argue against a theory when YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT SAYS?

Heat death is everything at the same temperature. That is not going to happen while the universe is full of massive objects. The only way to get rid of them is dark energy at almost 100% when even molecules can not join together.

Continuing to say that I don't know anything does not make your arguments right. It does however make them look desperate, like the kid whose only answer is: "You're wrong, so there!"

So you are learning your physics from news reports? What I was trying to get you to say is that we know because we infer it from the infrared radiation emitted. Yet you reject the notion of inferring velocity of galaxies from the red shift.

When I said that about Jupiter, I got it from a science journal in the mid-60's so the information nearly half a century old at least.

Yes, I know. A train goes past and we listen to it's whistle change pitch so therefore the big bang is true.

Nearly a decade ago, a scientist said he had found something receding from us faster than light. Instantly I knew what he had done. He had not allowed for a gravitational redshift, and you will get a large one if you measure photons from near a n SMBH, as in a quasar.

That turned out to be it and the "news" promptly vanished.

In a universe full of gravitational sources, to ignore them is like ignoring the Moon. And yet they do. We are told hat a photon travels a distance of ten billion light years and it was not affected in any way by a zillion gravity sources along it's path. It is also made of cream cheese (just as likely).

And what happens when it squashes into the smallest possible volume? Where is its eternal energy?

It still gives off heat.

As to eternal energy, energy is motion so cannot be lost. Just transferred.

No, you will be banned because of your own dogma. Pseudoscientific dogma that you post incessantly and disruptively on science threads.

Dishmaster accused me of similar LIES in PM's and I proved him wrong since he could not back up what he claimed about me.

How is answering the points made by Physbang and others on threads about the BB incessant? How is it disruptive? Yet again you prove you do not have the slightest clue as to what the meaning of the word debate is. Do you possibly have a North Korean dictionary you rely on? (Definition of debate: What the leader says it is.")

I can show that the big bang is wrong, and that is pseudoscience.

The singularity or whatever has no remotely credible origin. It is the stuff of fairy tales.

Inflation is just an IDEA invented because the observations and the maths did not work (watch the Horizon programme I linked to elsewhere instead of shouting lalalala, I can't hear you)

For expansion to work it needs four dimensions. Else we could trace the universe back to a point source. Evidence for a fourth physical dimension is....missing.

After gravity appeared (IDEA) and when matter appeared, end of the universe as it collapses into a big black hole. Basic physics.

Once again observations and maths were wrong so dark energy was invented. But there is no evidence that it exists, despite it supposedly making up nearly 3/4 of the universe.

Despite an infinitely hot start and matter forming at well over 3,000 K, the hottest area we have seen at such distances is about 10.K. Most of it is at 2.7K, the same as space away from stars in our neighbourhood, the same as Eddington said would be produced by starlight alone 85 years ago.

As starlight is endemic to an old universe, so microwaves are too. I have been reliably informed that stars produce microwaves.

And what is space that it can be stretched from quantum size to over a hundred billion light years across without being changed in any way? This is just another IDEA as we have no evidence that space can be stretched in any way, or even what it is. Like DM, it does whatever is required of it and that is all that is needed as far as some people are concerned.

As I have already said, redshifted photons can be explained away.

SMBH's were said not to form till 1,400 million years after the BB but we have discovered them at 770 million years, a two billion solar mass quasar) and better technology may find them a lot closer.

We have discovered galaxies at just 300 million years after the BB.

Time dilation only works out to six billion light years away so is an unknown effect which is not consistent with the BB which goes out to 13.7 billion light years away.

The BB failed the afterglow test, with 3 out of 4 galaxies looking like they were behind the CMB.

We have voids of 3,500 light years, whole walls of hundreds of millions of galaxies and so on which show the universe is anything but smooth.

We have the dark flow which shows objects moving at a uniform rate (so not a hidden SMBH) into an area a billion light years across, so the opposite of expansion is happening there.

And so on.

Perhaps you would like to answer these points without just pointing to the wikipedia or it's ilk, and explain why it is true? Excuse me if I do not wait for an answer in this life as I do not have too many decades to go.

Originally Posted by nokton

You interest me Cyberia, so much wisdom and reason fall on deaf ears. Your reason and logic is impeccable.
And your evaluation of the status quo is admirable.
You are correct on your points you make about debate, I understand your points, and agree with you.
But please Cyberia, don't put off by those who do not understand.
Respect.
nokton.

I'm not. That's why I started my own forum, where no moderator can ban me because he has no answers to the points I raise and because he does not like being proved wrong.

I have never come across such a group of hysterical and paranoid fools as on science forums. No creationist ever followed the bible with as much zeal as some of them follow every bit of unproven dogma about cosmology.

I can hear barking but I'm not sure if it is a distant dog or if it is coming from certain posters on this forum.

Cyberia.

KALSTER.

nokton.

The "great minds" idiom has it's antithesis it seems.

What a spiteful little boy you are Kalster. Stand at the back of the class. And don't pull any faces.

Speedfreek. If dark energy does not increase and the universe expands forever, local groups will still have sufficient gravity to hold them together. As will galaxies. Collisions cause heat. Moving through gravity fields causes heat. The Moon Io is a prime example. Basically anything not trapped inside a black hole is a potential heat source, and even black holes can cause new stars by ripping apart old ones and shredding them to basic particles which then form hydrogen and helium and later, new stars. And motion and life, which is not a definition of "heat death".

Non dogmatic sources as in you travelled with Dr Who to the end of the universe to prove what you say and you are not relying on the SPECULATIONS of others?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Harold14370.

No, I will not let you get away with this. You said, incorrectly, that heat death requires dark energy, according to standard cosmological theory. That is wrong. How can you argue against a theory when YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT SAYS?

Heat death is everything at the same temperature. That is not going to happen while the universe is full of massive objects.

Repeating that over and over again does not make it true. You said yourself that massive objects like Jupiter give off heat by collapsing. They cannot collapse forever.

The only way to get rid of them is dark energy at almost 100% when even molecules can not join together.

Continuing to say that I don't know anything does not make your arguments right. It does however make them look desperate, like the kid whose only answer is: "You're wrong, so there!"

So you are learning your physics from news reports? What I was trying to get you to say is that we know because we infer it from the infrared radiation emitted. Yet you reject the notion of inferring velocity of galaxies from the red shift.

When I said that about Jupiter, I got it from a science journal in the mid-60's so the information nearly half a century old at least.

So what?

Yes, I know. A train goes past and we listen to it's whistle change pitch so therefore the big bang is true.

Nearly a decade ago, a scientist said he had found something receding from us faster than light. Instantly I knew what he had done. He had not allowed for a gravitational redshift, and you will get a large one if you measure photons from near a n SMBH, as in a quasar.

What if it is not from near a SMBH, and why would galaxies farther away have more red shift?

That turned out to be it and the "news" promptly vanished.

Now you are making stuff up

In a universe full of gravitational sources, to ignore them is like ignoring the Moon. And yet they do.

Nobody ignored anything.

We are told hat a photon travels a distance of ten billion light years and it was not affected in any way by a zillion gravity sources along it's path. It is also made of cream cheese (just as likely).

Going past a gravity source does not affect anything. It blue shifts before it gets to the gravity source, then redshifts with the net result being nothing. This has been explained to you numerous times.

And what happens when it squashes into the smallest possible volume? Where is its eternal energy?

It still gives off heat.

This doesn't even make any sense. You said that it gives off heat because it is collapsing. That is true. There is no way for it to give off heat after that.

As to eternal energy, energy is motion so cannot be lost. Just transferred.

Correct. And after the energy has been transferred between objects, they achieve thermal equilibrium.

No, you will be banned because of your own dogma. Pseudoscientific dogma that you post incessantly and disruptively on science threads.

Dishmaster accused me of similar LIES in PM's and I proved him wrong since he could not back up what he claimed about me.

How is answering the points made by Physbang and others on threads about the BB incessant? How is it disruptive? Yet again you prove you do not have the slightest clue as to what the meaning of the word debate is. Do you possibly have a North Korean dictionary you rely on? (Definition of debate: What the leader says it is.")

I can show that the big bang is wrong, and that is pseudoscience.

You can show nothing. All you do is babble incoherently.

The singularity or whatever has no remotely credible origin. It is the stuff of fairy tales.

So what? Do you know what the origin of the universe is? No? Then shut up.

Inflation is just an IDEA invented because the observations and the maths did not work (watch the Horizon programme I linked to elsewhere instead of shouting lalalala, I can't hear you)

For expansion to work it needs four dimensions. Else we could trace the universe back to a point source. Evidence for a fourth physical dimension is....missing.

Once again you show that you know nothing about general relativity.

After gravity appeared (IDEA) and when matter appeared, end of the universe as it collapses into a big black hole. Basic physics.

Once again observations and maths were wrong so dark energy was invented. But there is no evidence that it exists, despite it supposedly making up nearly 3/4 of the universe.

Do you have a better theory to explain the motion of stars in galaxies? No? Then shut up.

Despite an infinitely hot start and matter forming at well over 3,000 K, the hottest area we have seen at such distances is about 10.K. Most of it is at 2.7K, the same as space away from stars in our neighbourhood, the same as Eddington said would be produced by starlight alone 85 years ago.

As starlight is endemic to an old universe, so microwaves are too. I have been reliably informed that stars produce microwaves.

And what is space that it can be stretched from quantum size to over a hundred billion light years across without being changed in any way? This is just another IDEA as we have no evidence that space can be stretched in any way, or even what it is. Like DM, it does whatever is required of it and that is all that is needed as far as some people are concerned.

As I have already said, redshifted photons can be explained away.

SMBH's were said not to form till 1,400 million years after the BB but we have discovered them at 770 million years, a two billion solar mass quasar) and better technology may find them a lot closer.

We have discovered galaxies at just 300 million years after the BB.

Time dilation only works out to six billion light years away so is an unknown effect which is not consistent with the BB which goes out to 13.7 billion light years away.

The BB failed the afterglow test, with 3 out of 4 galaxies looking like they were behind the CMB.

We have voids of 3,500 light years, whole walls of hundreds of millions of galaxies and so on which show the universe is anything but smooth.

We have the dark flow which shows objects moving at a uniform rate (so not a hidden SMBH) into an area a billion light years across, so the opposite of expansion is happening there.

And so on.

Perhaps you would like to answer these points without just pointing to the wikipedia or it's ilk, and explain why it is true? Excuse me if I do not wait for an answer in this life as I do not have too many decades to go.

Learn physics. Until you do, there is no sense anyone trying to explain anything to you.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

KALSTER.

nokton.

The "great minds" idiom has it's antithesis it seems.

What a spiteful little boy you are Kalster. Stand at the back of the class. And don't pull any faces.

Aw c'mon. It was done in good fun. I am not all nastiness and condemnation.

Originally Posted by Harold

Learn physics. Until you do, there is no sense anyone trying to explain anything to you.

QFT

I am somewhat fascinated by your inability to recognise how wrong and naively ad hoc most of your points are, while believing you have very strong points. You might even be flabbergasted by us not seeing things as you do. Nokton is different than you in this regard. He mostly has a single thing he sees as missing in evolution science and tries to make us understand his concern, while being unable to see our point of view. You mostly have this general crusade against what you see as people adhering to "the accepted dogma" without understanding the underlying science. Since you have been repeatedly demonstrating your own lack of understanding and seeming full trust in your warped and fantastic imaginations from this position of ignorance, I find it simultaneously funny, sad and exasperating. You seem to live in this fantasy where you really do have valid points to challenge the product of research by legions of fully trained professionals, while most often not understanding the state of research, the scientific method or even the most basic science concepts and having not conceded a single time that you have been mistaken, no matter how obvious it has been. As I have said before, this can only be because of a profound arrogance, coupled with some level of seeming pathological stubbornness. This is not simply a dig at you. It is really what I see when I look at your history on this forum.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Speedfreek. If dark energy does not increase and the universe expands forever, local groups will still have sufficient gravity to hold them together. As will galaxies. Collisions cause heat. Moving through gravity fields causes heat. The Moon Io is a prime example. Basically anything not trapped inside a black hole is a potential heat source, and even black holes can cause new stars by ripping apart old ones and shredding them to basic particles which then form hydrogen and helium and later, new stars. And motion and life, which is not a definition of "heat death".

Ahh, so you ARE confusing heat death with a "Big Rip" scenario, even if you don't understand that. I thought so.

Heat death is about maximum entropy. Incidentally, as well as occurring in a forever expanding universe, heat death also occurs in a closed, collapsing universe. You might try reading up on it.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Non dogmatic sources as in you travelled with Dr Who to the end of the universe to prove what you say and you are not relying on the SPECULATIONS of others?

Ahh, so you are confused as to the meaning of the word "dogmatic" too. Crazy stuff! Oh, and speculations are not dogmatic either - for something to be dogmatic is has to be beyond dispute but with no actual evidence to support it, which is never the case in cosmology.

To put words into your mouth, basically what you are saying is that regardless of any scientific or mathematical consistency, you hold all cosmology to be dogma unless we can go back in a time machine and get observational evidence! Good luck with that.

Harold

Repeating that over and over again does not make it true. You said yourself that massive objects like Jupiter give off heat by collapsing. They cannot collapse forever.

Actually it’s you repeating over and over that I am repeating over and over when I am not.

If I answer someone’s question, then it is down to the question what I reply rather than just repeating something I have said before.

I said sheer mass can produce heat, which is not the same as collapsing.

So what?

Quoting from a science journal is a bit different from quoting from the local newspaper.

What if it is not from near a SMBH, and why would galaxies farther away have more red shift?

Lots of SMBH’s about, at the center of galaxies and quasars. If you measure light coming from them rather than from a different part of a galaxy, you will get a high redshift because of the gravitational component.

The universe is full of gravitational sources. If light travels through a gravity field and has to do “work“ to do so, it is red shifted. The longer a photon has traveled, the more “work” it has had to do, so the more redshifted it is. So redshifting is still a measure of distance, but not recession in this case.

Now you are making stuff up

Unfortunately I don’t keep endless thousands of cuttings of news items from decades ago. I remember reading about intelligent signals from space. CTA109. It turned out to be the first pulsar. People do make mistakes.

Nobody ignored anything.

Find me an article on it.

Going past a gravity source does not affect anything. It blueshifts before it gets to the gravity source, then redshifts with the net result being nothing. This has been explained to you numerous times.

You mean like in this display?:


Magnetism Trick Looks Like Anti-Gravity [Video] - How-To Geek



Photons cannot redshift or blueshift in or from the direction of travel since to stretch them would mean parts of them would be going slower or faster than light speed, which is impossible. They are stretched sideways.

As they pass an object, there is a sideways pull on them. That is the one that matters as it pulls from all sides, trying to slow a photon down. Like in the magnetism trick. I have explained this many times only for people to say that the emission and target shifts cancel out, which is nothing to do with what I am saying.

This doesn't even make any sense. You said that it gives off heat because it is collapsing. That is true. There is no way for it to give off heat after that.

I said about matter collapsing where? Just mass pressing against mass gives off heat.

You can show nothing. All you do is babble incoherently.

Translation: Lalalala, I can’t hear you.

So what? Do you know what the origin of the universe is? No? Then shut up.

Translation: Stop saying bad things about the big bang.

Once again you show that you know nothing about general relativity.

A blank denial. Meaningless without evidence.

Do you have a better theory to explain the motion of stars in galaxies? No? Then shut up.

Yes I do. Every large thing (moons upwards) in the universe spins. I believe that this is due to gravity, that things are falling in an unknown direction. I have explained it more on my own forum where I have given my idea of what gravity is and how it works. The ten dimensional idea of gravity is possible but people have not thought it through to it‘s conclusion.

Learn physics. Until you do, there is no sense anyone trying to explain anything to you.

A ten year old could say this to Stephen Hawking or any other physicist with just as much sense as you here. Without you backing such a statement up with evidence, it is totally worthless.

Your post seems to be summed up by your words: “Shut up.”

KALSTER. Once again you (essentially) repeat that I know nothing and am too arrogant to learn and if only I'll follow the dogma, all will be well.

With slight changes I have had the same messages from christians quite a number of times.

I have shown some of the things wrong with the big bang and why I do not believe in it.

To me the only reason for believing in such an idea is a refusal to think about it and a bland acceptance of unproven dogma.

Which with minor changes I have said this to christians a fair number of times.

Feel free to show me where I am wrong instead of just saying that I am. And I don't mean just posting a pile of links, creationist style.

Speedfreek. You cannot have heat death while there are endless trillions of heat sources about hundreds of degrees above the background temperature. That will always occur while there are massive objects in the universe.

You might try thinking about it.

There are many things beyond dispute in cosmology. Look at what happens here when I try to debate the big bang. It is the same on all science forums, that they will not tolerate any criticism of the big bang. Even though it is no better than speculation in many parts.

I hold much of cosmology to be baseless dogma for reasons I have given above (Nov 5th post to Harold). I am not just denying it because I don't like it.

To me, if you are serious about science, and the big bang, then you must have answered all the points I raised and not just said that they are wrong because they disagree with accepted BB knowledge.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Harold

Repeating that over and over again does not make it true. You said yourself that massive objects like Jupiter give off heat by collapsing. They cannot collapse forever.

Actually it’s you repeating over and over that I am repeating over and over when I am not.

If I answer someone’s question, then it is down to the question what I reply rather than just repeating something I have said before.

I said sheer mass can produce heat, which is not the same as collapsing.

You said "Very basic physics that if you squash something it gains heat, as in the same energy in a smaller area." That is a dumb explanation. Putting heat into a smaller "area" does not "generate" anything. Besides, that is not how Jupiter generates heat. It is collapsing and releasing gravitational potential energy.
Your explanation violates the law of conservation of energy. Where ever did you get the idea that sheer mass can produce heat? I guess you will accuse me of dogmatism if I insist upon applying the principle of conservation of energy.

So what?

Quoting from a science journal is a bit different from quoting from the local newspaper.

Isn't that what you call "'parroting dogmatism"

What if it is not from near a SMBH, and why would galaxies farther away have more red shift?

Lots of SMBH’s about, at the center of galaxies and quasars. If you measure light coming from them rather than from a different part of a galaxy, you will get a high redshift because of the gravitational component.

The universe is full of gravitational sources. If light travels through a gravity field and has to do “work“ to do so, it is red shifted. The longer a photon has traveled, the more “work” it has had to do, so the more redshifted it is. So redshifting is still a measure of distance, but not recession in this case.

Can you show me the calculation that shows this? This is the old, debunked, tired light theory.

Now you are making stuff up

Unfortunately I don’t keep endless thousands of cuttings of news items from decades ago. I remember reading about intelligent signals from space. CTA109. It turned out to be the first pulsar. People do make mistakes.

Nobody ignored anything.

Find me an article on it.

Going past a gravity source does not affect anything. It blueshifts before it gets to the gravity source, then redshifts with the net result being nothing. This has been explained to you numerous times.

You mean like in this display?:


Magnetism Trick Looks Like Anti-Gravity [Video] - How-To Geek



Photons cannot redshift or blueshift in or from the direction of travel since to stretch them would mean parts of them would be going slower or faster than light speed, which is impossible. They are stretched sideways.

You think that redshifts and blueshifts cause a change in speed?

As they pass an object, there is a sideways pull on them. That is the one that matters as it pulls from all sides, trying to slow a photon down. Like in the magnetism trick. I have explained this many times only for people to say that the emission and target shifts cancel out, which is nothing to do with what I am saying.

This doesn't even make any sense. You said that it gives off heat because it is collapsing. That is true. There is no way for it to give off heat after that.

I said about matter collapsing where? Just mass pressing against mass gives off heat.

Since when?

You can show nothing. All you do is babble incoherently.

Translation: Lalalala, I can’t hear you.

So what? Do you know what the origin of the universe is? No? Then shut up.

Translation: Stop saying bad things about the big bang.

Translation: "I can't answer the question and don't know what the origin of the universe is, so I will just keep complaining."

Once again you show that you know nothing about general relativity.

A blank denial. Meaningless without evidence.

Do you have a better theory to explain the motion of stars in galaxies? No? Then shut up.

Yes I do. Every large thing (moons upwards) in the universe spins. I believe that this is due to gravity, that things are falling in an unknown direction. I have explained it more on my own forum where I have given my idea of what gravity is and how it works. The ten dimensional idea of gravity is possible but people have not thought it through to it‘s conclusion.

Things are falling in an unknown direction? Ridiculous.

Learn physics. Until you do, there is no sense anyone trying to explain anything to you.

A ten year old could say this to Stephen Hawking or any other physicist with just as much sense as you here. Without you backing such a statement up with evidence, it is totally worthless.

Your post seems to be summed up by your words: “Shut up.”

I didn't just say shut up, I said if you don't have your own better explanation, shut up. And you don't.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

KALSTER. Once again you (essentially) repeat that I know nothing and am too arrogant to learn and if only I'll follow the dogma, all will be well.

Not dogma, science. You misunderstand key areas and refuse correction. Ever heard of the scientific method? You keep harping on about dogma and equating the current state of knowledge and our rendition of it to creationism. It is a fucking disgraceful tactic and not winning you points with anyone. But you just love it that way, don't you? You get off on being the guy going against the current? Being the guy who always claims to know better? Laughable, truly.

I have shown some of the things wrong with the big bang and why I do not believe in it.

To me the only reason for believing in such an idea is a refusal to think about it and a bland acceptance of unproven dogma.

You have NOT shown it. All you have done is regurgitate old discredited stuff without understanding why it is no longer credible; hyped up alternative theories that do not enjoy as much evidentiary support, as equal or superior to those that are currently favoured; dreamed up grossly ignorant and woolly reasons why currently favoured theories must be false and hold on to these imaginings as unshakeable facts, despite direct contradiction by known science and opposing evidence.

Feel free to show me where I am wrong instead of just saying that I am. And I don't mean just posting a pile of links

We have been doing so for years! But you are incapable of learning anything if it contradicts something you have said before. Are you that insecure?

A few examples:

1)That magnetism trick you cite repeatedly has nothing to do with what you are trying to provide proof of concept for. I have tried to explain this to you more than once, but you simply shut yourself off to the plain truth and continue to peddle it as proof of a concept you have dreamt up out of nothing, specifically to support your presuppositions. Take a look at THIS. It happens due to Lenz's law, and works only because an induced current in the copper pipe creates an opposing magnetic field to the one that created it and slows the magnet's decent. It is NOT simply because the magnet exerts forces in multiple directions. You are plain wrong and 1 minute of Googling should have dissuaded you from using it, but all you saw was a magnet in a tube slowing down and you went with it without doing any proper research. This is typical of your whole approach.

You then further show an abysmal understanding of basic gravity concepts by saying photons are stretched to the side by gravity, even when it cancels out. Again, a few minutes of Googling would prove to you that it can't stretch anything, because the effect of two opposing but equal forces on any single point cancels out. This means there are NO net forces acting on that point. You must have a failing imagination, because running the mind experiment should prove it to you without problems, but somehow you just can't see this most basic of concepts. Newton's shell theorem has been explained to you, but you fail to grasp that as well. You can run the mind experiment with it as well. Anything placed anywhere within the uniform shell will have no net gravitational effect on it. It would be weightless. No matter how fragile it was, it would never be stretched. Is it really that difficult to understand?



2) Curvature and the big bang does NOT require a fourth physical dimension and does NOT require a point of origin. This is according to the very people who first came up with it. That you are incapable of fathoming such a thing with your limited understanding does absolutely nothing to it's credibility. All it does is lay bare for all to see your particular cocktail of arrogance, ignorance and stubbornness.
At one end you deny the maths responsible for the existence of the idea of curvature in 3D, then accept that same maths in order to posit that a fourth spatial dimension is needed for curvature, while at the same time not understanding the maths in the first place.
I can't claim to understand the maths, but when presented by the sheer volume of experimental confirmations of general relativity, I must accept it as very likely indeed. And when given the intuitively understandable analogy of the 2D surface of an inflating ball being analogous to the curvature of 3 spatial dimensions, I understand it as it was intended. You don't understand it and then work from that lack of understanding to try and discredit general relativity. This much is plainly evident to anyone who understands the basic concepts to a reasonable degree.

I wanted to tackle again your nonsense of photons not being able to stretch due to expansion, because it would violate SR, but I am not going to bother. You use bits here, discard other bits and invent wholly fictitious bits from within the same accepted theories in order to advance your crusade against the favoured theories, characterized by what you can imagine must be true, while what you can't, must be false and you do this from a position of very obvious ignorance. I am sure that the vast majority of readers can use you as an example of how not to think and not to behave, which is what makes conversing with you slightly worth our while. You continue to make a fool of yourself and so live up to the only use you have left on this forum.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Speedfreek. You cannot have heat death while there are endless trillions of heat sources about hundreds of degrees above the background temperature. That will always occur while there are massive objects in the universe.

You might try thinking about it.

And you might try thinking about whether there will always be massive objects in the universe (that aren't black holes). Yes, whilst there are stars and galaxies doing work, heat death cannot occur, but what about when all matter has been absorbed into black holes? What happens then? (hint: heat death occurs when those black holes evaporate, as we end up with a universe in thermodynamic equilibrium where no more work can be done.)

Originally Posted by Cyberia

There are many things beyond dispute in cosmology. Look at what happens here when I try to debate the big bang. It is the same on all science forums, that they will not tolerate any criticism of the big bang. Even though it is no better than speculation in many parts.

I said dogmatic statements are meant to be beyond dispute with no evidence to support them. We have evidence to support the Big-Bang, so it cannot be dogma.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Heat death is where dark energy is sufficient eventually to overcome the atomic force binding all matter so in the end there are just black holes and "loose atomic particles".

Is this your theory or is it your interpretation of mainstream cosmological theory? If it is your interpretation of mainstream cosmological theory, please cite a source.

Using the failed Physbang tactics now, I see. You can give me sources for what you claim but in many cases I can show them to be wrong. That is the problem when you are dealing with speculation and ideas like cosmology.

Using the failed Cyberia tactics now, I see: simply lying about things. You have never shown anything to be wrong. You have demonstrated time and time again a failure to understand basic physics. You fail to provide a source for any of your claims other than the Daily Mail and other dubious sources of information.

All science is speculation and ideas. You have failed to understand this in the slightest. You have failed to understand that there is significant difference between different particular speculations and ideas in science.

Harold14370. You are thinking of stable objects on Earth. In space such masses rotate fairly fast and have gravity fields. Both of these are extra sources of energy so not closed systems as in conservation of energy. Example again. The moon Io which is constantly heated by gravity tugging at it.

Parroting dogma is not about quoting single facts but about just taking a whole subject on board and repeating it wholesale without giving any thought to it.

Calculations as in those that show the big bang is true, or that superstrings are true, or that supersymmetry is true, or that the Higg's boson exists, etc even though all are just ideas without evidence? Maths just produces a better class of idiots.

We know photons redshift under the effects of gravity. We know thew universe is full of gravitation sources. It's as simple as 1+1.

Isn't the tired light idea about losing energy through hitting particles in space, absorption and emission? I suppose it must go on a lot but not enough to account for redshifts in general.

No, but I think the idea of stretching space may rely on photons changing speed. If it can affect photons, surely it must affect gravity (whatever that is) too?

Translation: "I can't answer the question and don't know what the origin of the universe is, so I will just keep complaining."

Is this yourself that you are talking about because it does not make sense otherwise?

"Ridiculous"? Didn't the wiki have any ready made answers?

If you allow that gravity is (say) ten dimensional, would you recognise the way an object falling from higher dimensions to lower dimensions occurs? A 3D object cannot twist through other dimensions but in space all large objects rotate and would collapse towards their own center if they could, which I think is the nearest we can get to seeing it happening.

You say "shut up" because you are intolerant and you do not want debate on certain subjects like the laughably wrong big bang idea. I get the same reaction sometimes when I show creationists they are wrong.

KALSTER. Again you claim I am wrong (without any evidence) and then insult me. Your tactics are (unrepeatable) disgraceful to use your own gutter words.

Once again you babble that I am wrong without giving any evidence whatsoever so excuse me while I totally ignore you.

1. Insults, insults, then the gravity cancels out. Duh, no it does not. The universe is not a uniform gravity tube. The fact that a wall of galaxies are pulling us from 147 million light years away proves you wrong. Where do you say it's opposite number is?

Magnetism works like gravity so in that example, you would say that the magnetism cancels out so any object dropped through that tube would fall unaffected.

2. Denial, then waffle. Explain how the BB works in 3D and show me where the origin point of everything was to prove you are right. You again claim I don't understand, which is a very poor way of debating which means you think you are infallibly right so I must be wrong.

You were going to explain about photons but did not. Ha ha. I was going to explain the secrets of the universe but I don't think I'll bother.

More insults. Yawn. So immature.

Speedfreek. Why should everything be absorbed by black holes in a continually expanding universe? That would only happen in a "small" closed universe where eventually the paths of all matter would cross that of black holes.

Evidence to support the BB as in dogma? Redshifted photons are assumed to be due to recession. There are no actual movies to prove it and no other explanations are considered. Just about everything else in the BB can be questioned, and much of it dismissed as just ideas and even impossibilities. The fact that it has no credible origin, coming from an impossibility should tell any thinking person that it is wrong.

It would be more realistic to claim it started from a point producing matter and energy (in realistic degrees) and spread out from there, producing ever more matter and energy over a wider area, covering maybe a hundred million light years which then expanded from that point. The single infinitely dense and hot point is not credible.

PhysBang. I see you decided to jump on the band wagon and just babble that I am wrong without producing any evidence.

I explained why I think the BB is wrong. Why not show my "errors and lies" to show that you have some idea of what you are talking about?

Do you?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Redshifted photons are assumed to be due to recession. There are no actual movies to prove it and no other explanations are considered.

It is a lie to say that no other explanations are considered. There are many papers out there that have considered other explanations. Every paper related to the recent physics Nobel prize considers other explanations. Thank you for so obviously demonstrating your willingness to lie.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Redshifted photons are assumed to be due to recession. There are no actual movies to prove it and no other explanations are considered.

It is a lie to say that no other explanations are considered. There are many papers out there that have considered other explanations. Every paper related to the recent physics Nobel prize considers other explanations. Thank you for so obviously demonstrating your willingness to lie.

Once again. Show me these papers.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Once again. Show me these papers.

OK. So we've established that you have some kind of mental problem: you claim to know the content of contemporary cosmology, yet you are completely ignorant of any papers, even those specifically recommended to you more than once.

You can start here: http://supernova.lbl.gov/pubs.html


I recommend that you start with the papers from 1998 and move onwards, though you may want to look especially at the references to papaers in which estimating reddening is discussed.

The following paper is important for consideration of certain types of alternative redshift explanations: Timescale Stretch Parameterization of Type Ia Supernova B-Band Light Curves, Goldhaber, G., et al., ApJ, 558, 359 (2001).

Papers from another major team are here: Cosmology with Supernovae: The High-Z Supernova Search High-Z SN Search

Originally Posted by Cyberia

The single infinitely dense and hot point is not credible.

Once again, the singularity represents the point where our theory ceases to work, it is not meant to represent reality, and nobody in science thinks otherwise. The theory DOES NOT SAY the universe was all contained in a singular, infinitely dense and infinitely hot "point". The theory makes no statements at all about the conditions in the universe at t=0. The universe is UNDEFINED at t=0.

How many more times do we have go over this?

Magnetism works like gravity so in that example, you would say that the magnetism cancels out so any object dropped through that tube would fall unaffected.

Oh for god sake. I have had enough of this guy.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Harold14370. You are thinking of stable objects on Earth. In space such masses rotate fairly fast and have gravity fields. Both of these are extra sources of energy so not closed systems as in conservation of energy. Example again. The moon Io which is constantly heated by gravity tugging at it.

No, I am thinking of the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which always hold true. Everyone understands this except for crackpots like perpetual motion machine inventors. If the moon Io is constantly heated by gravity, then it must be taking rotational kinetic energy from Jupiter by interaction of tidal forces. This will not last forever.

Parroting dogma is not about quoting single facts but about just taking a whole subject on board and repeating it wholesale without giving any thought to it.

The principle is the same whether we are discussing one fact or a hundred facts. You read and accept the information about Jupiter radiating heat without ever asking how astronomers know it is true. But, when the same astronomers say the galaxies are receding, you want proof, like motion pictures showing the motion of the galaxies. This is because you think heat from Jupiter fits your pseudoscientific eternal universe theory, and receding galaxies do not.

Calculations as in those that show the big bang is true, or that superstrings are true, or that supersymmetry is true, or that the Higg's boson exists, etc even though all are just ideas without evidence? Maths just produces a better class of idiots.

We know photons redshift under the effects of gravity. We know thew universe is full of gravitation sources. It's as simple as 1+1.

So you know that light coming from a gravity well is redshifted, but you don't know that light going into a gravity well is blueshifted. More selective filtering of information to fit your pseudoscientfic theory.

Isn't the tired light idea about losing energy through hitting particles in space, absorption and emission? I suppose it must go on a lot but not enough to account for redshifts in general.

No, but I think the idea of stretching space may rely on photons changing speed. If it can affect photons, surely it must affect gravity (whatever that is) too?

Translation: "I can't answer the question and don't know what the origin of the universe is, so I will just keep complaining."

Is this yourself that you are talking about because it does not make sense otherwise?

No, I am talking about you. I asked you what you think is the origin of the universe. You had no answer. You think that going on the attack and complaining about the big bang theory will make everybody forget that you don't have an answer. It is always somebody else that has to have the answer about the origin of the universe, never yourself.

"Ridiculous"? Didn't the wiki have any ready made answers?

If you allow that gravity is (say) ten dimensional, would you recognise the way an object falling from higher dimensions to lower dimensions occurs? A 3D object cannot twist through other dimensions but in space all large objects rotate and would collapse towards their own center if they could, which I think is the nearest we can get to seeing it happening.

This is just word salad. You have no idea whether an object can fall from a higher dimension, or even what a higher dimension is.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Once again. Show me these papers.

OK. So we've established that you have some kind of mental problem: you claim to know the content of contemporary cosmology, yet you are completely ignorant of any papers, even those specifically recommended to you more than once.

You can start here: Supernova Cosmology Project

So now to try and make your arguments look somehow credible, you have given up on calling me a liar and am now claiming I have a mental problem.

How low can you stoop in trying to pretend that you have a clue as to what you are talking about? I'll check out your other posts to see.

I looked at the link you gave and it is just people looking at the same old, same old. I'll try writing this slowly so you can understand. Where are the papers where people consider alternate theories to the BB? You do understand that alternate is not the same old, same old, don't you?

I recommend that you start with the papers from 1998 and move onwards, though you may want to look especially at the references to papaers in which estimating reddening is discussed.

Once again, links to VALID papers?

The following paper is important for consideration of certain types of alternative redshift explanations: Timescale Stretch Parameterization of Type Ia Supernova B-Band Light Curves, Goldhaber, G., et al., ApJ, 558, 359 (2001).

Papers from another major team are here: Cosmology with Supernovae: The High-Z Supernova Search High-Z SN Search

And how is this an alternate theory?

In 1998, along with another team, the Supernova Cosmology Project, we uncovered evidence that the Universe is accelera

ting as it expands

The man is a 100% big banger.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Cyberia

The single infinitely dense and hot point is not credible.

Once again, the singularity represents the point where our theory ceases to work, it is not meant to represent reality, and nobody in science thinks otherwise. The theory DOES NOT SAY the universe was all contained in a singular, infinitely dense and infinitely hot "point". The theory makes no statements at all about the conditions in the universe at t=0. The universe is UNDEFINED at t=0.

How many more times do we have go over this?

Till you get it right. At t plus the smallest possible amount of time we have infinitely hot and infinitely dense, so what are you trying to hide about what was before that? Was it an ice cube which suddenly became super hot and super dense?

For the BB to be credible, it has to have a credible origin. Otherwise you might as well say god made it. Maybe he did because there is no other even remotely credible way the big bang could have happened other than by the use of godly magic.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Magnetism works like gravity so in that example, you would say that the magnetism cancels out so any object dropped through that tube would fall unaffected.

Oh for god sake. I have had enough of this guy.

Anger and theatricals are not arguments. Come back tome when you learn how to debate.

[QUOTE=Harold14370;291620]

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Harold14370. You are thinking of stable objects on Earth. In space such masses rotate fairly fast and have gravity fields. Both of these are extra sources of energy so not closed systems as in conservation of energy. Example again. The moon Io which is constantly heated by gravity tugging at it.

No, I am thinking of the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which always hold true. Everyone understands this except for crackpots like perpetual motion machine inventors. If the moon Io is constantly heated by gravity, then it must be taking rotational kinetic energy from Jupiter by interaction of tidal forces. This will not last forever.

Who says? Why does every large body (from moons upwards) in the universe spin? I think it is a natural thing to do with mass and gravity in which case it is there forever. If you have another explanation of why things rotate, I'll be glad to listen to it.

Parroting dogma is not about quoting single facts but about just taking a whole subject on board and repeating it wholesale without giving any thought to it.

The principle is the same whether we are discussing one fact or a hundred facts. You read and accept the information about Jupiter radiating heat without ever asking how astronomers know it is true. But, when the same astronomers say the galaxies are receding, you want proof, like motion pictures showing the motion of the galaxies. This is because you think heat from Jupiter fits your pseudoscientific eternal universe theory, and receding galaxies do not.

Heat from Jupiter would be measuring infra-red radiation, maybe microwaves, etc. If you are saying that they are not down to heat, you need to provide another explanation for them. I cannot think of any.

No one has a clue as to what space is and the idea that it can expand from quantum size to present size, and be solid enough to take whole galaxies with it as it expands is totally ridiculous. If aliens ever visit Earth, they will fall over laughing at such an idea and then leave again, saying we are far too primitive for contact.

Calculations as in those that show the big bang is true, or that superstrings are true, or that supersymmetry is true, or that the Higg's boson exists, etc even though all are just ideas without evidence? Maths just produces a better class of idiots.

We know photons redshift under the effects of gravity. We know thew universe is full of gravitation sources. It's as simple as 1+1.

So you know that light coming from a gravity well is redshifted, but you don't know that light going into a gravity well is blueshifted. More selective filtering of information to fit your pseudoscientfic theory.

Yet again!!!!!!!

I have explained this many times only for people to say that the emission and target shifts cancel out, which is nothing to do with what I am saying.

No matter how many times in a thread I post this, people still have no ability to understand it and claim I missed it out and don't realise it. If only you were half as smart as you think you are.

Isn't the tired light idea about losing energy through hitting particles in space, absorption and emission? I suppose it must go on a lot but not enough to account for redshifts in general.

No, but I think the idea of stretching space may rely on photons changing speed. If it can affect photons, surely it must affect gravity (whatever that is) too?

Translation: "I can't answer the question and don't know what the origin of the universe is, so I will just keep complaining."

Is this yourself that you are talking about because it does not make sense otherwise?

No, I am talking about you. I asked you what you think is the origin of the universe. You had no answer. You think that going on the attack and complaining about the big bang theory will make everybody forget that you don't have an answer. It is always somebody else that has to have the answer about the origin of the universe, never yourself.

I have given ideas about how I think the universe may have started before. But I admit they are just ideas. People like yourself think of the big bang IDEA is a holy cow and that it is infallibly true and when someone like myself points out the gaping holes in it, you treat it as blasphemy and heresy, that I am cursing your god. So the hate mongering starts.

It's an IDEA and if you cannot explain why I am wrong, it is because it is an IDEA. I do not need to offer an alternate theory to show that it is wrong on so many levels.

"Ridiculous"? Didn't the wiki have any ready made answers?

If you allow that gravity is (say) ten dimensional, would you recognise the way an object falling from higher dimensions to lower dimensions occurs? A 3D object cannot twist through other dimensions but in space all large objects rotate and would collapse towards their own center if they could, which I think is the nearest we can get to seeing it happening.

This is just word salad. You have no idea whether an object can fall from a higher dimension, or even what a higher dimension is.

Word salad is a detestable term used by people without a clue. It is supposed to shut people up with the inference that you actually know what you are talking about so I must be wrong.

Every dimension builds on what has gone before, like a block of flats building on each floor below it. Except that with dimensions, we only have three occupied so there is a natural process for something to fall before it's 3D structure meets another 3D structure. Not the best of explanations but should things are difficult to explain to someone who will not listen.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Who says? Why does every large body (from moons upwards) in the universe spin? I think it is a natural thing to do with mass and gravity in which case it is there forever. If you have another explanation of why things rotate, I'll be glad to listen to it.

You have now abandoned even the pretense of science and are out of the realm of pseudoscience and into pure fantasy. There is another explanation, but you will not be glad to listen. You will just call it dogma.

Heat from Jupiter would be measuring infra-red radiation, maybe microwaves, etc. If you are saying that they are not down to heat, you need to provide another explanation for them. I cannot think of any.

It could be heat from the sun.

No one has a clue as to what space is and the idea that it can expand from quantum size to present size, and be solid enough to take whole galaxies with it as it expands is totally ridiculous. If aliens ever visit Earth, they will fall over laughing at such an idea and then leave again, saying we are far too primitive for contact.

That is an "appeal to incredulity" fallacy. This type of fallacy is often employed by creationists.

Yet again!!!!!!!

I have explained this many times only for people to say that the emission and target shifts cancel out, which is nothing to do with what I am saying.

No matter how many times in a thread I post this, people still have no ability to understand it and claim I missed it out and don't realise it. If only you were half as smart as you think you are.

If no one else can understand what you are saying, you should seriously consider whether you are actually making sense.

I have given ideas about how I think the universe may have started before. But I admit they are just ideas. People like yourself think of the big bang IDEA is a holy cow and that it is infallibly true

It takes a special kind of crazy to make a statement that anyone can disprove just by scrolling a few lines up in the same thread, where it is explained that "the singularity represents the point where our theory ceases to work, it is not meant to represent reality"

Word salad is a detestable term used by people without a clue. It is supposed to shut people up with the inference that you actually know what you are talking about so I must be wrong.

Every dimension builds on what has gone before, like a block of flats building on each floor below it. Except that with dimensions, we only have three occupied so there is a natural process for something to fall before it's 3D structure meets another 3D structure. Not the best of explanations but should things are difficult to explain to someone who will not listen.

Word salad is used to describe the nonsensical babble of some mentally ill patients who think they are making perfect sense while no one else can understand what they are trying to say. If the shoe fits....

Originally Posted by Cyberia

You have to understand the difference between hard sciences like chemistry and soft sciences like cosmology. You cannot compare the two.

Why not? All sciences are complemented, so trying to understand all sciences can give you a richer understanding.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Cyberia

The single infinitely dense and hot point is not credible.

Once again, the singularity represents the point where our theory ceases to work, it is not meant to represent reality, and nobody in science thinks otherwise. The theory DOES NOT SAY the universe was all contained in a singular, infinitely dense and infinitely hot "point". The theory makes no statements at all about the conditions in the universe at t=0. The universe is UNDEFINED at t=0.

How many more times do we have go over this?

Till you get it right. At t plus the smallest possible amount of time we have infinitely hot and infinitely dense, so what are you trying to hide about what was before that?

Again, you make another incorrect statement about the theory.

At t plus the smallest possible amount of time we have finite density. Where t > 0, we always have finite density.

Why do you continue to repeat the same fallacy?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

I looked at the link you gave and it is just people looking at the same old, same old. I'll try writing this slowly so you can understand. Where are the papers where people consider alternate theories to the BB? You do understand that alternate is not the same old, same old, don't you?

I write that you have a mental problem because you have a mental problem: you want the universe to be like the fantasy world in your brain and you want to claim special knowledge about physics and the contents of physics papers without actually reading any physics papers.

In the papers that I gave you references too, alternative theories are considered. You merely assume that they are not because you do not like the conclusions of the papers.

Harold14370.

You have now abandoned even the pretense of science and are out of the realm of pseudoscience and into pure fantasy. There is another explanation, but you will not be glad to listen. You will just call it dogma.

Failure to answer noted.

It could be heat from the sun.

Since they say it is more energy than it gets from the sun I would say not.

That is an "appeal to incredulity" fallacy. This type of fallacy is often employed by creationists.

Failure to answer noted.

If no one else can understand what you are saying, you should seriously consider whether you are actually making sense.

It is not a failure to understand so much as a refusal to even consider what I say. So you cannot provide answers, as we see by the general lack of actual answers to anything I post. Without insults, some here would be lost for words.

It takes a special kind of crazy to make a statement that anyone can disprove just by scrolling a few lines up in the same thread, where it is explained that "the singularity represents the point where our theory ceases to work, it is not meant to represent reality"

For singularity, substitute the word "god". An origin that is not remotely credible tends to leave whatever follows as laughable.

Word salad is used to describe the nonsensical babble of some mentally ill patients who think they are making perfect sense while no one else can understand what they are trying to say. If the shoe fits....

It is also used on forums by people who have nothing but denial to try and hide their ignorance.

It answers no questions and is merely a childish insult.

Originally Posted by esejimmy

Originally Posted by Cyberia

You have to understand the difference between hard sciences like chemistry and soft sciences like cosmology. You cannot compare the two.

Why not? All sciences are complemented, so trying to understand all sciences can give you a richer understanding.

With chemistry you can demonstrate what you say in a lab to be provably true.

Cosmology is mainly speculations and ideas and relies on repetitions of fallacies, but even if it were true, it cannot be demonstrated to be true.

SpeedFreek.

Again, you make another incorrect statement about the theory.

At t plus the smallest possible amount of time we have finite density. Where t > 0, we always have finite density.

Why do you continue to repeat the same fallacy?

If it exists, then it must be t plus something. At t = 0 there was nothing, which would have stayed that way forever. No time means nothing ever happens. It could have only changed by something new being introduced, as in maybe god sticking his finger into the singularity and busting it?

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by Cyberia

I looked at the link you gave and it is just people looking at the same old, same old. I'll try writing this slowly so you can understand. Where are the papers where people consider alternate theories to the BB? You do understand that alternate is not the same old, same old, don't you?

I write that you have a mental problem because you have a mental problem: you want the universe to be like the fantasy world in your brain and you want to claim special knowledge about physics and the contents of physics papers without actually reading any physics papers.

Let's face it. You don''t know any science so you just insult me to try and hide your own ignorance. Yawn.

In the papers that I gave you references too, alternative theories are considered. You merely assume that they are not because you do not like the conclusions of the papers.

Another example of ignorance, used by creationists. Point to a load of papers and say the answer is in there somewhere, and it is down to you to find it and prove me right.

Duh!

Originally Posted by Cyberia

SpeedFreek.

Again, you make another incorrect statement about the theory.

At t plus the smallest possible amount of time we have finite density. Where t > 0, we always have finite density.

Why do you continue to repeat the same fallacy?

If it exists, then it must be t plus something.

Yes, and at t plus something, the universe cannot have infinite density. Nobody is claiming otherwise, except for you in your earlier statement.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

At t = 0 there was nothing, which would have stayed that way forever. No time means nothing ever happens. It could have only changed by something new being introduced, as in maybe god sticking his finger into the singularity and busting it?

Heh, you just don't seem to understand the notion that terms like "forever" or "nothing ever happens" cannot apply. You do not seem to understand how ludicrous it is to say "no time means nothing ever happens". How can terms like "ever" or "forever" be applied when there is no time in which to apply them?

You are saying that if time did not exist, it would not have ever (a measure of time) existed. It would have "not existed", forever (which is a measure of time). This is completely nonsensical, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

It could be heat from the sun.

Since they say it is more energy than it gets from the sun I would say not.

"They say." Is that all you know about it? Why do you believe "them" in this case, but not in all cases?

That is an "appeal to incredulity" fallacy. This type of fallacy is often employed by creationists.

Failure to answer noted.

A fallacious argument does not need an answer other than to point out the fallacious nature of the argument.

If no one else can understand what you are saying, you should seriously consider whether you are actually making sense.

It is not a failure to understand so much as a refusal to even consider what I say. So you cannot provide answers, as we see by the general lack of actual answers to anything I post. Without insults, some here would be lost for words.

There is no possible way to answer word salad.

SpeedFreek.

Yes, and at t plus something, the universe cannot have infinite density. Nobody is claiming otherwise, except for you in your earlier statement.

So you are saying that the BB came from a credible source where temperatures and pressures were just very high but within the realms of physics? That there was no previous points which physics cannot explain?

If there is no time, nothing will ever happen and there is no space for it to happen in. Basic cause and effect.

You cannot have a singularity (or whatever) just suddenly appearing and becoming unstable and inflating and expanding. That is magic. Not science.

Harold14370.

"They say." Is that all you know about it? Why do you believe "them" in this case, but not in all cases?

The BB relies on a number of ideas which are not remotely credible, one of which is space expanding infinitely. A minute's thought on the idea shows how crazy this is, and that it is in no way substantiated. Yet it is the cornerstone to expansion.

A fallacious argument does not need an answer other than to point out the fallacious nature of the argument.

This is just hand waving to avoid answering a valid point.

If you believe space can expand, you need to explain what space is, to show that it is a material and to show that it can expand from quantum size to present size without changing any way. Which no one has done because it is the stuff of fairy tales. It is the elephant in the room that all astronomers ignore to try and keep the BB idea afloat.

"Word salad" is just a bad mannered way of admitting you have no answers so you just dismiss it. Any little child can use such an expression in such a way.

If I think someone is wrong, I will explain why. If you cannot explain why, then it is just a belief that they are wrong and nothing more.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

If I think someone is wrong, I will explain why.

Oh, really? You have just dodged the question about heat from Jupiter, and you have ignored my point about argument from incredulity. Then you made another fallacious argument from incredulity.

Did you explain how higher dimensions can "fall" into lower dimensions? No you did not. You made a ridiculous analogy about upper stories of a building falling onto lower stories.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Let's face it. You don''t know any science so you just insult me to try and hide your own ignorance. Yawn.

...

Another example of ignorance, used by creationists. Point to a load of papers and say the answer is in there somewhere, and it is down to you to find it and prove me right.

Duh!

I tried to hide my own ignorance by making claims and providing easily accessible scientific papers to support these claims. Claims about these same scientific papers.

You have claimed that no alternatives to cosmological redshift are ever considered in contemporary cosmology. I provided you with a host of papers where alternatives are considered in almost every paper. It would be hard to pick one that doesn't.

But you don't even have the courage or ability to try. So you continue to lie about the science.

But, specific examples? OK, Here's a good one: Timescale Stretch Parameterization of Type Ia Supernova B-Band Light CurvesThe whole paper is about why cosmological redshift is a good explanation for the data and tired light models don't fit at all.

Cyberia, it's clear that you are simply trying to appear smarter to the people who might be here that are ignorant of the actual science.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

SpeedFreek.

Yes, and at t plus something, the universe cannot have infinite density. Nobody is claiming otherwise, except for you in your earlier statement.

So you are saying that the BB came from a credible source where temperatures and pressures were just very high but within the realms of physics? That there was no previous points which physics cannot explain?

No, that is not what I am saying, as you well know. I am saying that we can define time all the way back to t=10^-43 seconds. As things stand, we cannot define time before then. The mathematics points us towards a singularity at t=0, but current science only gets us back as far as t=10^-43 seconds, when the universe was incredibly hot and dense. From there, forwards in time, the universe expands and cools.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

If there is no time, nothing will ever happen and there is no space for it to happen in. Basic cause and effect.

You cannot have a singularity (or whatever) just suddenly appearing and becoming unstable and inflating and expanding. That is magic. Not science.

That might have seemed like magic a century or so ago, but since then we discovered that at the quantum level things do "suddenly appear from nothing". We also have evidence that "cause and effect" aren't quite so straightforward at the quantum level. (Virtual particle pair creation, Quantum entanglement, Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser etc.)

Perhaps the universe was "initiated" in a similar way to how things work at the quantum scale, which is why we think we need a theory of quantum gravity in order to find out more about the origins of our universe. Until then, we are stuck with a singularity where our theory breaks down, and everyone in science hopes that is not the final word on the subject!

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Very basic physics that if you squash something it gains heat, as in the same energy in a smaller area.

Here, perhaps, is the root of your problem: you know things without understanding them.
If there is the same energy present, as you say there is, then the heat of the object has not been increased, only its temperature has. If you confuse temperature and heat, then your other misinterpretations of reality become more understandable. However, while your second statement was wrong, your first statement was correct: squashing something will increase the amount of heat in it. Work is being done to cause the squashing and some of that work is converted to heat. I suspect the same confusion of terminology and interpretation is embedded in all your thinking and accounts for your bizarre, unsubstantiated ideas.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you are wrong?