Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 177 of 177
Like Tree27Likes

Thread: Since my silly ideas of trying to fit links to apprpopriate topics...

  1. #101  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I know you cannot see the relationship. Can't fix that for you.
    If you think that article supports your claim, how hard is it to provide evidence (a quote).
    What claim?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    But my point would be that dark energy may be the force that stabilizes dark matter and vica versa.
    Looks like a claim to me.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    But my point would be that dark energy may be the force that stabilizes dark matter and vica versa.
    Looks like a claim to me.
    I said it MAY be, not that I claim it is. The Nasa link pretty much says that some think that dark energy is something that is causing the Universe to expand, whereas gravity and it would seem chemical and dark matter seem to be causes of contraction. I do still think there is a balance of this going on, however it would seem that dark energy is presently causing a lot of expansion, and as the Nasa link provided, the expansion seems to be growing faster and faster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    I said it MAY be, not that I claim it is.
    Weasel wording. This is typical of a crank. Also the fact that he apparently doesn't read articles beyond the first sentence of the first paragraph.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Who said I am a "he?" Is it just because I do actually know some about science, which I do not think you do? C'mon and say something about or even pertaining to science. I dare ya!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    He or she, it doesn't matter. Cranks are sexless, they're just generic cranks.

    I do actually know some about science,
    Nothing you've posted supports that position.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    And your contributions are?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    I don't make up shit and say it's science.

    Another thing about cranks is they feel unsupported woo is a contribution.
    tk421, PhDemon and stonecutter like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    I don't make up shit and say it's science.

    Another thing about cranks is they feel unsupported woo is a contribution.
    Sorry if Nasa is not a good enough support for you, and I don't blame you for not saying anything you say has even anything to do with science as it doesn't. You just say dumb stuff that has no point to it. And you talk like a parrot that says "woo" because someone else as unknowledgeable as yourself said the word "woo" and thought they were cool for it. Also for the word "crank" - you just picked that up from someone who has nothing to say but to call other people stupid names.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Time for the trash.
    LuciDreaming likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Who said I am a "he?"
    Because female cranks are incredibly rare.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    The Nasa link pretty much says that some think that dark energy is something that is causing the Universe to expand
    Causing the expansion to accelerate to be precise.

    I do still think there is a balance of this going on, however it would seem that dark energy is presently causing a lot of expansion, and as the Nasa link provided, the expansion seems to be growing faster and faster.
    The overall density of the universe determines if it will continue expanding forever, or slow down and eventually start contracting. That was known before the discovery of dark energy. Initially it was thought that the universe would eventually contract, leading to a "big crunch" or "big bounce" model. Then further analysis suggested expansion was likely to continue. It now appears that not only will it continue, but it is accelerating.

    All this is known and understood. But it doesn't appear to bare much resemblance to what you were originally saying. Then you started bringing in things like dark matter forming black holes - which is, as far as we know, impossible. Maybe you are just very bad at expressing yourself.

    I'm just grateful you haven't tried to explain dark matter or dark energy by reference to the religious sites you linked in the OP.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    The Nasa link pretty much says that some think that dark energy is something that is causing the Universe to expand
    Causing the expansion to accelerate to be precise.

    I do still think there is a balance of this going on, however it would seem that dark energy is presently causing a lot of expansion, and as the Nasa link provided, the expansion seems to be growing faster and faster.
    The overall density of the universe determines if it will continue expanding forever, or slow down and eventually start contracting. That was known before the discovery of dark energy. Initially it was thought that the universe would eventually contract, leading to a "big crunch" or "big bounce" model. Then further analysis suggested expansion was likely to continue. It now appears that not only will it continue, but it is accelerating.

    All this is known and understood. But it doesn't appear to bare much resemblance to what you were originally saying. Then you started bringing in things like dark matter forming black holes - which is, as far as we know, impossible. Maybe you are just very bad at expressing yourself.

    I'm just grateful you haven't tried to explain dark matter or dark energy by reference to the religious sites you linked in the OP.
    Well, they are not really religious sites, but be that as it may, yes it does appear that the expansion is accelerating and it may be because of dark energy. I said somewhere here that it seems to me to be something like anti-gravity. That got ridiculed by somebody if I remember correctly, but if it does act as some kind of expansion force, it does seem to have the opposite effect of gravity (I may be incorrect, but I think dark matter may be a form of gravitational pull) < That is where my hypothesis of balancing forces was derived from. Gravity is localized to dense mass areas, but so far it appears that dark energy is not.

    Does anyone know if there are supposed to be any links to any sort of teenie particles that may make up dark energy? Dark matter has been theorized to be made up of wimps which operate on the principle of the weak nuclear force I believe.

    Now, this may go over better on what you called my "religious" links, but Buddhism has for maybe over two thousand years had some interesting cosmology theories, one being that of oscillating Universes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    but Buddhism has for maybe over two thousand years had some interesting cosmology theories
    No it hasn't.
    Stop talking crap.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    The first time I got the idea about Oscillating Universes theory was when I was watching our 14th beloved Dalai Lama of Tibet in an interview. He was asked how the Big Bang theory fit with Buddhism. He did that deep laugh like he does and said that if it were a just one time big bang, then Buddhist thought would have to reconsider, but if we are talking about multiple big bangs then it would fit very well. That created a spark in my mind.

    This surprised me and I thought "If this is accurate, it make sense to me." Ancient thought in India at the time of Buddha postulated what must seem to be ridiculous time frames like billions and billions of years and space of incalculable vastness. Today most have come to accept that such time and space frames do indeed exist. There is no way that I know of for us to know if this present time of Universe expansion will last indefinitely but in time it would destroy the Universe as we know it.

    On the other hand if the expansion were to cease, we would likely go back to the way it was before the big bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Yeah, way to avoid the point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    The first time I got the idea about Oscillating Universes theory was when I was watching our 14th beloved Dalai Lama of Tibet in an interview. He was asked how the Big Bang theory fit with Buddhism. He did that deep laugh like he does and said that if it were a just one time big bang, then Buddhist thought would have to reconsider, but if we are talking about multiple big bangs then it would fit very well.
    In other words Big Bang and Buddhism have bugger all to do with each other.

    On the other hand if the expansion were to cease, we would likely go back to the way it was before the big bang.
    Or not.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Who said I am a "he?"
    Because female cranks are incredibly rare.

    I wonder why female cranks are scarce.
    Mayflow likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Yeah, way to avoid the point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    The first time I got the idea about Oscillating Universes theory was when I was watching our 14th beloved Dalai Lama of Tibet in an interview. He was asked how the Big Bang theory fit with Buddhism. He did that deep laugh like he does and said that if it were a just one time big bang, then Buddhist thought would have to reconsider, but if we are talking about multiple big bangs then it would fit very well.
    In other words Big Bang and Buddhism have bugger all to do with each other.

    On the other hand if the expansion were to cease, we would likely go back to the way it was before the big bang.
    Or not.
    See, the only interesting thing you said here (and it's a good point I think) is "or not"

    This is in my mind as well. Let's say the balance were to fall away from expansion and towards contraction. What changed it? And if it does change, may it not also change back? These as we know of now seem to be huge time frames.

    One of many more things that gives me pause to consider is the Dalai Lama's idea of space particles that may have preceded the Big Bang (One of multiple big bangs?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    See, the only interesting thing you said here (and it's a good point I think) is "or not"
    Is that because you can't respond to the other points or because you don't understand them?

    This is in my mind as well. Let's say the balance were to fall away from expansion and towards contraction. What changed it?
    Yeah, you seem to have missed that point too.

    One of many more things that gives me pause to consider is the Dalai Lama's idea of space particles that may have preceded the Big Bang (One of multiple big bangs?)
    Why?
    What makes you think his ideas have any validity?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Because unlike you he is smart.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Because unlike you he is smart.


    Assumptions again.

    How smart do you think someone needs to be to respond to more than one point in a post?
    I only ask because you don't seem to have reached that level yet.
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    I didn't see any other points worth my consideration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I didn't see any other points worth my consideration.
    Got it.
    You'd rather argue personalities than science.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Can someone with a mind come and discuss with me?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Yep. Confirmed.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Can someone with a mind come and discuss with me?
    I think before anyone will discuss anything with you you will have to learn how to discuss things. At the minute you are just rude to people who dont agree with you.
    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    I used to have a lot of Lucid dreams. Ah, the good old days! Do you lucid dream a lot and what happens in them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Does anyone know if there are supposed to be any links to any sort of teenie particles that may make up dark energy? Dark matter has been theorized to be made up of wimps which operate on the principle of the weak nuclear force I believe.
    Dark matter is generally assumed to be made up of some sort of particle, or family of particles, which has not yet been identified. These could be supersymmetric partners of some known particles (although they should be detectable, I think), sterile neutrinos, or something completely unknown.

    WIMP = weakly interacting massive particle, is a fairly generic description. It suggests that they (only) interact via the weak nuclear force.

    The important point is that by hypothesizing various ideas for the nature of dark matter, scientists are then able to test these ideas by making specific observations. (Unlike religion, for example.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Does anyone know if there are supposed to be any links to any sort of teenie particles that may make up dark energy? Dark matter has been theorized to be made up of wimps which operate on the principle of the weak nuclear force I believe.
    Dark matter is generally assumed to be made up of some sort of particle, or family of particles, which has not yet been identified. These could be supersymmetric partners of some known particles (although they should be detectable, I think), sterile neutrinos, or something completely unknown.

    WIMP = weakly interacting massive particle, is a fairly generic description. It suggests that they (only) interact via the weak nuclear force.

    The important point is that by hypothesizing various ideas for the nature of dark matter, scientists are then able to test these ideas by making specific observations. (Unlike religion, for example.)
    I am not into religion per se - such as dogmatic rituals and the likes. However I am very interested in the mind and the workings of the mind. I agree with what you posted here about dark matter and possibilities of what composes it - Am I correct in thinking you are insinuating wimps may be of differential orders? - That is to say that there may be some differing particles that are wimps? So that is why it is a generic reference?

    As much as physical physics intrigues me, the workings of the mind do so even more. I will go into more detail on that sometime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    As much as physical physics intrigues me, the workings of the mind do so even more. I will go into more detail on that sometime.

    If so, feel free to check out the Behaviour and Psychology sub-forum. The topics range from neurology to psychology and sociology.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    As much as physical physics intrigues me, the workings of the mind do so even more. I will go into more detail on that sometime.

    If so, feel free to check out the Behaviour and Psychology sub-forum. The topics range from neurology to psychology and sociology.
    Oh my gosh, thank you for the invite. Heh, I hope the time will not come for you to regret it!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I am not into religion per se - such as dogmatic rituals and the likes.
    But you do seem to have a problem separating imagination/fantasy/myth from science.

    That is to say that there may be some differing particles that are wimps? So that is why it is a generic reference?
    Pretty much. All that WIMP tells us is that they have mass and they interact only via the weak force. Neutrinos, for example, fit that description (but they appear tobe too light and too fast moving to account for dark matter). There may be others. Or, maybe they don't even interact via the weak force, in which case we may never be able to detect them directly.
    Mayflow likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I am not into religion per se - such as dogmatic rituals and the likes.
    But you do seem to have a problem separating imagination/fantasy/myth from science.

    That is to say that there may be some differing particles that are wimps? So that is why it is a generic reference?
    Pretty much. All that WIMP tells us is that they have mass and they interact only via the weak force. Neutrinos, for example, fit that description (but they appear tobe too light and too fast moving to account for dark matter). There may be others. Or, maybe they don't even interact via the weak force, in which case we may never be able to detect them directly.
    Well not being able to separate science from fantasies and myths has never really been one of my weaker points as you would like to make such assertions of, but I think in my own life they they all weigh in and are granted equal access and importance in my mind. The world to me is very much multifaceted - I know enough of the gravity and chemical and dark matter stuff to make me happy for now, but this dark energy is still pure mystery. I love to pursue this (for now) -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    As much as physical physics intrigues me, the workings of the mind do so even more. I will go into more detail on that sometime.

    If so, feel free to check out the Behaviour and Psychology sub-forum. The topics range from neurology to psychology and sociology.
    On second thought, I did try to enter there once but my topic was closed because a duck quacked. I know, it made no sense to me either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    On second thought, I did try to enter there once but my topic was closed because a duck quacked. I know, it made no sense to me either.

    I covered that in post #2 and provided a possible solution in post #34.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    On second thought, I did try to enter there once but my topic was closed because a duck quacked.
    No, your topic was closed because it was bullshit.
    As stated by Adelady when she closed it.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Well not being able to separate science from fantasies and myths has never really been one of my weaker points as you would like to make such assertions of, but I think in my own life they they all weigh in and are granted equal access and importance in my mind.
    Well, thinking that fantasy has equal weight with objective data is a pretty poor starting point for someone with an interest in science.

    I also come from an engineering background. When I was responsible for test, I could not fall back on imagination or Buddha to justify committing millions of dollars in manufacturing costs. We had to present objective data and justifications based on it.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Well not being able to separate science from fantasies and myths has never really been one of my weaker points as you would like to make such assertions of, but I think in my own life they they all weigh in and are granted equal access and importance in my mind.
    Well, thinking that fantasy has equal weight with objective data is a pretty poor starting point for someone with an interest in science.

    I also come from an engineering background. When I was responsible for test, I could not fall back on imagination or Buddha to justify committing millions of dollars in manufacturing costs. We had to present objective data and justifications based on it.
    You didn't use any imagination or fantasy to achieve this? I find that hard to believe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    [QUOTE=Cogito Ergo Sum;542953]
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    On second thought, I did try to enter there once but my topic was closed because a duck quacked. I know, it made no sense to me either.

    Read the quack's post following this conversation. Going to that subforum would be pointless for me. The quacker would quack and my ideas closed. Again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    You didn't use any imagination or fantasy to achieve this? I find that hard to believe.
    Of course. And science is a creative exercise and requires great imagination. But it also knows that, by themselves, those things have no value. The value lies in the objective data.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    The quacker would quack and my ideas closed. Again.
    Yeah bollocks.
    Unless you think that the mods do as I say (which is easilt disproven because you're still here and still posting bullshit).
    Your thread was closed because it was meaningless.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    You didn't use any imagination or fantasy to achieve this? I find that hard to believe.
    Of course. And science is a creative exercise and requires great imagination. But it also knows that, by themselves, those things have no value. The value lies in the objective data.
    Ah, but who determines what is objective? Out of curiosity what is your field in the money making arena?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    The quacker would quack and my ideas closed. Again.
    Yeah bollocks.
    Unless you think that the mods do as I say (which is easilt disproven because you're still here and still posting bullshit).
    Your thread was closed because it was meaningless.
    Makes little sense. I posted a link to a course from a topnotch University free online about psychology on the psychology subforum. You whine and cry and report it and some mod closes it. OK, but that does not render it useless. It was still a good post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Makes little sense. I posted a link to a course from a topnotch University free online about psychology on the psychology subforum.
    One more time: the reason for it being closed was given.

    You whine and cry and report it and some mod closes it.
    It wasn't closed because I reported it. it was closed because it was a bullshit thread.

    OK, but that does not render it useless. It was still a good post.
    Still wrong.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Naw, I think it was closed because you reported it. You post really useless and dumb stuff, and I have yet to see otherwise, and you also are the crybaby type it seems. Now go cry to mommy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Ah, but who determines what is objective?
    I suppose the clever answer to that is: no one. That is the point. It is objective, not mind dependent. (Without getting into a tedious philosophical discussion about how we can know anything).

    If something can be measured by an instrument, it is objective. Someone's impression that A is bigger than B, or that X happened before Y, are not objective because those are observer dependent.

    Scientific data also has to be quantitative, rather than qualitative. So "bigger" or "before" also fail the test unless we can state precisely how much bigger or before.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,567
    Guys, does Mayflow remind anyone else of "pantodragon"? The cluelessness and childish trolling are very similar judging by the quotes in your posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Ah, but who determines what is objective?
    I suppose the clever answer to that is: no one. That is the point. It is objective, not mind dependent. (Without getting into a tedious philosophical discussion about how we can know anything).

    If something can be measured by an instrument, it is objective. Someone's impression that A is bigger than B, or that X happened before Y, are not objective because those are observer dependent.

    Scientific data also has to be quantitative, rather than qualitative. So "bigger" or "before" also fail the test unless we can state precisely how much bigger or before.
    I differ in this. Without quality, quantity is useless, but of course that is a subjective point of view. My world view is subjective, and I do not see how anything is objective unless it comes from a subjective viewpoint?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Guys, does Mayflow remind anyone else of "pantodragon"? The cluelessness and childish trolling are very similar judging by the quotes in your posts.
    Can you point me to some posts by him or her? It is ok if it is ones you want to trash because that appears to be all you know how to do. this relates to my post to strange about quality verses quantity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Guys, does Mayflow remind anyone else of "pantodragon"? The cluelessness and childish trolling are very similar judging by the quotes in your posts.
    I thought pantodragon was a sock puppet of Forrest Noble
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    My world view is subjective, and I do not see how anything is objective unless it comes from a subjective viewpoint?
    That's part of the reason you fail at science.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,567
    IIRC pantodragon was a pro-troll that joined and tried to get kicked off as many forums as possible. They even had a blog where they posted about their trolling. This jerk has a very similar style of posting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Guys, does Mayflow remind anyone else of "pantodragon"?
    I now seem to recall that pantodragon was female (and nuts).
    That may explain the query in post #105.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    My world view is subjective, and I do not see how anything is objective unless it comes from a subjective viewpoint?
    That's part of the reason you fail at science.
    Actually I am pretty good at science, and you are not. Tell me, challenge me on any scientific point whatsoever. You can't can you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Actually I am pretty good at science
    The 2 quotes of yours that I gave in post #35 show you're wrong.
    As do your posts in this thread and elsewhere.
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Read the quack's post following this conversation. Going to that subforum would be pointless for me. The quacker would quack and my ideas closed. Again.

    I beg to differ.

    That sub-forum is suited for discussions about the subjects as mentioned in post #130.
    If your thread contains a question that you do not know the answer to, and/or a statement that you want to discuss with other members (whilst related to the subject of the sub-forum), then it stands to reason that the thread will turn out fine.

    Threads are closed for a variety of reasons (including creating spam-like threads(*), cf. post #11).
    I have already given you the advice that, if you disagree with the action of the Moderator, you should send a message to the person in question.
    Arguments with other members will eventually boil down to mud-slinging contests.

    (*) In my opinion, it was not your intent to violate the Forum Guidelines.
    However, it would have been better if you constructed your thread as explained in the first paragraph and then added links to the relevant material.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Read the quack's post following this conversation. Going to that subforum would be pointless for me. The quacker would quack and my ideas closed. Again.

    I beg to differ.

    That sub-forum is suited for discussions about the subjects as mentioned in post #130.
    If your thread contains a question that you do not know the answer to, and/or a statement that you want to discuss with other members (whilst related to the subject of the sub-forum), then it stands to reason that the thread will turn out fine.

    Threads are closed for a variety of reasons (including creating spam-like threads(*), cf. post #11).
    I have already given you the advice that, if you disagree with the action of the Moderator, you should send a message to the person in question.
    Arguments with other members will eventually boil down to mud-slinging contests.

    (*) In my opinion, it was not your intent to violate the Forum Guidelines.
    However, it would have been better if you constructed your thread as explained in the first paragraph and then added links to the relevant material.
    Dude, I stick to the simple truth. My topic was just meant to offer a free link to a free online course from a major University and the readers could have found other courses if they had wished to. Then it got reported as something bad and closed. There is no reason for me to post in a place that does that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    There is no reason for me to post in a place that does that.
    And yet you still do...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Dude, I stick to the simple truth. My topic was just meant to offer a free link to a free online course from a major University and the readers could have found other courses if they had wished to. Then it got reported as something bad and closed. There is no reason for me to post in a place that does that.

    I am aware of your intent, as you stated that clearly in post #3. Hence I said:
    In my opinion, it was not your intent to violate the Forum Guidelines.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    I wonder why female cranks are scarce.
    To be fair I think they are only scarce on science fora. The Secret Unicorn Forum seems to be full of them.
    Mayflow likes this.
    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Dude, I stick to the simple truth. My topic was just meant to offer a free link to a free online course from a major University and the readers could have found other courses if they had wished to. Then it got reported as something bad and closed. There is no reason for me to post in a place that does that.

    I am aware of your intent, as you stated that clearly in post #3. Hence I said:
    In my opinion, it was not your intent to violate the Forum Guidelines.
    Well I had no intent to violate anything and just thought I was offering something for someones to persue if they wished to.

    Still I really don't want to post on that subforum anymore after that. I come here with good intentions and all of a sudden get called crank, woo, and a whole bunch of other nonsense names. What the hell was that about?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by LuciDreaming View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    I wonder why female cranks are scarce.
    To be fair I think they are only scarce on science fora. The Secret Unicorn Forum seems to be full of them.
    Yes , but well most of these guys will never navigate there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by LuciDreaming View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    I wonder why female cranks are scarce.
    To be fair I think they are only scarce on science fora. The Secret Unicorn Forum seems to be full of them.

    I have checked that forum. I am unable to comprehend what I saw. Is it a spoof?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Still I really don't want to post on that subforum anymore after that. I come here with good intentions and all of a sudden get called crank, woo, and a whole bunch of other nonsense names. What the hell was that about?

    To be honest, I do not know.

    At this point, there is nothing to gain when you (or anyone else) continue to fuel the argument.
    It is (in my opinion) advisable to either send a message to a Staff member and explain the issue or to leave this thread for a while and partake in other, scientific discussions (if you want).
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by LuciDreaming View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    I wonder why female cranks are scarce.
    To be fair I think they are only scarce on science fora. The Secret Unicorn Forum seems to be full of them.

    I have checked that forum. I am unable to comprehend what I saw. Is it a spoof?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Still I really don't want to post on that subforum anymore after that. I come here with good intentions and all of a sudden get called crank, woo, and a whole bunch of other nonsense names. What the hell was that about?

    To be honest, I do not know.

    At this point, there is nothing to gain when you (or anyone else) continue to fuel the argument.
    It is (in my opinion) advisable to either send a message to a Staff member and explain the issue or to leave this thread for a while and partake in other, scientific discussions (if you want).
    I do not whine to mommy. I will leave that to the duckboy to do. On the other hand, the Unicorn forum by Lucid Dreaming is very interesting... Now we go down the rabbit hole
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Ok, that forum seems useless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I differ in this. Without quality, quantity is useless, but of course that is a subjective point of view. My world view is subjective, and I do not see how anything is objective unless it comes from a subjective viewpoint?
    And this is why you don't "get" science.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    I wonder why female cranks are scarce.
    I don't know. Interesting isn't it? It might just be that we mainly see "hard science" cranks here. The few female crackpots I have seen did seem to be more interested in crank-medicine and biology, rather than physics. Most of the male cranks are relativity or quantum theory deniers.

    But I get the impression that even amongst things like the "Shakespeare didn't write the plays" conspiracists, females are relatively rare. Maybe they are just too damned sensible.
    LuciDreaming likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    I wonder why female cranks are scarce.
    I don't know. Interesting isn't it? It might just be that we mainly see "hard science" cranks here. The few female crackpots I have seen did seem to be more interested in crank-medicine and biology, rather than physics. Most of the male cranks are relativity or quantum theory deniers.

    But I get the impression that even amongst things like the "Shakespeare didn't write the plays" conspiracists, females are relatively rare. Maybe they are just too damned sensible.

    I agree with those observations. Even the crank list and list of Internet kooks on RationalWiki do not contain more than 10 famous female cranks.
    This could be an interesting subject of study in the field of psychoceramics.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    But I get the impression that even amongst things like the "Shakespeare didn't write the plays" conspiracists, females are relatively rare. Maybe they are just too damned sensible.
    Oh, I don't know. The anti-vaccinationists are pretty off the wall, and a lot of them are women. Sensible isn't part of their vocabulary.

    If you want hard science cranks, there are a few women climate science denialists and pseudo-sceptics. Jo Nova being the most notable current one in Australia. And Judith Curry is fairly strange - she openly welcomed a few science weirdos onto her blog when she started it. One was an iron sun proponent and another careened wildly from garbled perpetual motion to incoherent centrifugal force without noticing what he was doing and there were a couple of other non-climate cranks as well - and she thought that was OK. (I gave up after a very short while. Especially when I read her incoherent reply to my email suggesting that she needed to mop the floor a bit. I think it was something along the lines of "all voices should be heard" or some other such guff.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    "Dr." Gillian McKeith?
    "All the energy a plant ever needs is contained in the seed". Er... okay.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    I wonder why female cranks are scarce.
    maybe for reasons you do not see them on youtube trying to kill themselves with dare devil stunts. they are smarter than us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    "Dr." Gillian McKeith?
    "All the energy a plant ever needs is contained in the seed". Er... okay.
    She is nuts, as Ben Goldacre says "Gillian McKeith, or to give her her proper medical title, Gillian McKeith..."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,567
    You may find this amusing, it is an article by a favourite fellow misanthropist writer of mine reviewing McKeiths TV show

    'Might I suggest a new makeover show called Get A Grip' | Culture | The Guardian
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    You may find this amusing, it is an article by a favourite fellow misanthropist writer of mine reviewing McKeiths TV show

    'Might I suggest a new makeover show called Get A Grip' | Culture | The Guardian

    I particularly liked this piece:
    Quote Originally Posted by Article
    "My primary reason for developing this Love Bar is that it serves as a platform, like a stage, to garner your attention, and then to be able to communicate my message of unconditional love... love your partners in life, your neighbours, and especially your enemy. When you can finally love your foe or even the faceless stranger a yonder, then and only then will you elevate your physiology and your soul."

    In other words, it's Snickers for arseholes.

    I can only dream of such eloquence.
    LuciDreaming likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,567
    I liked
    A quick look at Dr Gillian's official website reveals two interesting things. Firstly that she's incapable of smiling naturally on camera (the rictus grin in her official photo makes her look like she's trying to poo out a pine cone - which, given her diet, she probably is). And secondly that she has her own range of holier-than-thou Dr Gillian health food snacks, including a "Living Food Love Bar" which will "nourish libido energy and feed love organs". Yes, feed love organs. I'm not sure you're supposed to put it in your mouth
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    I fear my topic has strayed.

    Either way my course ins astrophysics stars tomorrow. Going to be interesting...

    Background for first lesson is:

    BACKGROUND

    In each section of the course we will provide summary notes. These are not a replacement for the lesson, but should allow you to quickly go back and pick up key facts and equations from the lesson, without watching all the videos again.
    NOTES

    Distances and Sizes

    One way to measure distances is if you know the size of an object. If you can then measure its apparent angular size, you can work out the distance:


    Given the geometry above, and if Dr, (almost always the case in astronomy), then
    r=θD
    as long as θ is measured in radians (a radian is 180π degrees).
    Angles in astrophysics are often so small that even a degree is too large a unit to be convenient. We typically use arcminutes (one arcminute is 1/60 of a degree) and arcseconds (one arcsecond = 1/60 of an arcminute = 1/3600 of a degree).

    Fluxes and luminosities

    Luminosity L is the total amount of power put out by some object, and is measured in Watts. Flux f is the power we receive at our telescope, per unit collecting area, and is measured in Watts per square metre. They are related by the equation:
    f=L4πD2
    where D is the distance to the emitting object.

    Spectra and the Doppler Effect

    A spectrum is a graph of flux per unit wavelength plotted against wavelength. It will often show emission or absorption lines due to particular elements.
    If an object is moving towards or away from you, these spectral lines will be moved in wavelength away from their normal wavelength λo. If you observe a line at wavelength λ, you can define a redshift z as:
    z=λλ0λ0
    If this shift is due to the doppler effect, and the velocity v<<c (velocity much less than the speed of light - nearly always true), then:
    z=vc
    To measure a redshift, you will need to know what lines to expect, and what their wavelengths are in the laboratory. The following graph shows you some of the typical lines you would see in a star or galaxy. Note that not all stars will show all these lines, and there are a variety of other lines that in certain stars can be strong. The C-H line is due to vibrations in the chemical bond linking carbon to hydrogen in molecules.

    Hubble Law

    Assuming that the brightest star in every galaxy had about the same luminosity (not a good assumption), Edwin Hubble calculated their relative distances. He found that the distances correlated with redshift. Everything was moving away from us and the speed correlated with how far things were from us.
    The standard explanation is that space itself is expanding. Objects are not moving - they are just being carried apart by the expansion of space.
    This means that unless more matter is created, the density of the universe must continuously go down (same amount of matter spread over more space). The alternative is that more matter is appearing out of nowhere - this is called the “steady state theory”.
    The “Steady State Theory” predicts that the universe should always look the same. We actually observe, however, that the universe was different in the past (we can see the past by looking a distant objects). Quasars were more common and the microwave background emission comes from a time when space was opaque.

    This should fit in well with the discussion started on the stand alone physics forum about questioning the beginning.

    BTW ignore the h stuff in brackets. Looks like some html stuff - probably headers that the forun can't interpret. I'm in a online computer science course too. I apparently have some work cut out for me to do. Good!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,567
    More from Charlie Brooker, on Science:

    Charlie Brooker's screen burn | Television & radio | The Guardian

    I particularly like:

    Darwin's theory of evolution was simple, beautiful, majestic and awe-inspiring. But because it contradicts the allegorical babblings of a bunch of made-up old books, it's been under attack since day one. That's just tough luck for Darwin. If the Bible had contained a passage that claimed gravity is caused by God pulling objects toward the ground with magic invisible threads, we'd still be debating Newton with idiots too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. What could fit inside a Buckyball?
    By Daecon in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 27th, 2014, 12:28 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 12th, 2011, 08:26 PM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 12th, 2010, 06:29 PM
  4. Thinking of majoring in the sciences--- will I fit in?
    By GwinnettTom in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 24th, 2009, 11:54 AM
  5. Does this quote fit me?
    By Quantime in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 6th, 2007, 06:14 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •