Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 108 of 108
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: the standard model

  1. #101  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by ray View Post

    ...I hope you can do your homework, and come back with something more sensible.
    Or that there is someone in this forum sensible like G.A.K , who is able to discuss my arguments.
    Well, Ray, it seems that in less than 24 hours you've managed to alienate not only those participating in this thread, but also those of us who are just lurking and reading these posts. That might be some kind of record.

    You may be waiting a long time to find someone else in this forum willing to discuss your arguments.

    Chris
    ray likes this.
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by ray View Post
    I do not need to do research, because I know physics an I ha a functioning brain and I recognize non-sense (with a hyphen) when I see it. Any school boy can disprove Hubble('s) flow ( I hope I got it right this time)
    Then perhaps you might be able to explain why Hubble's Law (which describes the Hubble Flow) is still accepted by modern scientists. It has been around for over 80 years, and nobody has shown it to be false. If any school boy can disprove it, why has nobody done so? (Read on for the answer)

    It is called a law because it is an observed relationship, like all scientific laws.

    Now then, shouldn't you have known that, seeing as you know physics and have a functioning brain and recognize non-sense (with a hyphen, no less! That must mean it makes even less sense than regular nonsense eh?) when you see it?

    Drop the attitude and your posts might be better received. For instance, try asking why things are thought to be the way they are, rather than immediately insisting it is all wrong, based on your own flawed understanding of the issue. That way, we can actually answer legitimate questions in a scientific manner, rather than having to start out correcting misconceptions presented with prejudice.

    I will give you a start - here are two pdf files, by the same pair of scientists:

    This is the easy version, with pictures:
    http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

    And this is the formal scientific paper that the above article was based on.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808v2
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; September 26th, 2011 at 02:41 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    ray
    ray is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    This is the easy version, with pictures:
    http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/p...DavisSciAm.pdf
    Hi speed,
    it is you who must change attitude, you attacked me in the first place. And I am not scared if you* threaten you'll not debate with me. The way you debate, it is not a big loss, I think I'll survive!
    Now , if you change your attitude, if you can, you can learn something.

    The point is that you should answer an argument with an argument, not with a link or a quote. That means you do not understand what you are talking about, you do not understand the link and think I'll be scared when I read the link , I will not understand it, and be silenced.

    You are wrong, I have read that link when you where in second grade. And it has already been quoted; (page 5, you read): it was an explosion of space itself
    I have rebutted that in one post and nobody responded, now you send me again there. Am I right when I say you don't know what you are talking about.?
    I said I have a few spare neurons, can you believe that space explodes just because that link says so?. If you do, it is your problem.

    Now do not give me a link, answer this:

    1) space cannot expand because it is not a medium, an aether, a gas: it is a property, like beauty.
    2) let's concede, for the sake of argument, that it CAN expand. Now, if it expands and when it is expanding it drags matter along, then this implies the reverse concept: motion would be impossible ,because matter would be stuck in space.

    So , some scientists ( if you are one) are gullible and believe pigs fly and repeat parrot-wise anything "authorities" say and then retract. Is it my fault?
    I have demolished Phisbang arguments and all he can say is : you are inventing physics. He should have quoted my arguments and demolished, shown they were false. He didn't, as he couldn't. If he had brought sound arguments, I would have conceded defeat and said: you are right, I was wrong. HE, and You, cannot do that not because you are proud, but just because you do not know what is right or wrong. You haven't a clue, because you don't know what you are talking about.
    now,
    Hubble formula [(if you want to call it law, you must say: Pythagoras law) is called law because they want to suggest that it commands something] calculates, defines the value of the observed relationship (that is the only thing you got right)between the radius of universe and the velocity of recession of bodies:

    The description of a phenomenon cannot be used as a cause for the phenomenon itself, can you understand that?

    Hubble law,formula describes (defines the value) of expansion of space between bodies, Hubble flow determines, causes the expansion itself =>
    it is the same as saying that: Newton law of gravity [ G* Mm/ R˛] defines the contraction of space between planets and that Newton flow is the cause of the contraction itself, of gravity

    (note *: if you agree with CSmyth, of course. The most brilliant contribution he offered to discussion is his granddaughter!.Probably she or his keyboard knows more. Chris , you are a living myth!)
    Last edited by ray; September 28th, 2011 at 04:06 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Science Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    29
    @ray - If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that space itself is a quality, or attribute, of something greater. May I ask what space is a property of? Are you suggesting our universe is part of a 'bigger picture'? This is the way I can best interpret your argument. This comes from my understanding that a property, in terms of science, is a generalised quality of something. So, are suggesting space is a property of something greater?

    For example, just as transparency is a property of pure water, space may be a property of something going on outside of our 'known universe'?

    I am simply not sure as to what you are arguing. If you are only arguing that space is a property, I am curious to know what you believe it is a property of.
    It is said that anticipation evokes happiness, so I say: look forward to every tomorrow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by ray View Post

    it is you who must change attitude, you attacked me in the first place.

    Re-read the thread. I gave answers without attitude, but you came back at me with attitude. You attecked me in the first place, not the other way round.

    Quote Originally Posted by ray View Post
    You are wrong, I have read that link when you where in second grade.

    You are wrong. I was in second grade more than 30 years before that article was written.

    Why are you trolling?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    ray
    ray is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by ray View Post
    space is a quantity and is formally defined byVIM3 as: a property of a substance, a body. that is mainstream science, you should know better
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidT View Post
    @ray - If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that I am curious to know what you believe it is a property of.
    hi, david, probably you read hastily, as I cannot imagine you do not know what mainstream science means. If you do not know VIM3, just check here :Physical quantity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by ray View Post

    The point is that you should answer an argument with an argument, not with a link or a quote. That means you do not understand what you are talking about, you do not understand the link and think I'll be scared when I read the link , I will not understand it, and be silenced.

    Wrong. I completely understand what I am talking about and I understand both the article and the contents of the paper. I posted it as it is easier than taking up a lot of space saying exactly the same thing in this thread. Actually, I was hoping that you would read it and be silenced, because you did understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ray View Post
    And it has already been quoted; (page 5, you read): it was an explosion of space itself
    I have rebutted that in one post and nobody responded, now you send me again there. Am I right when I say you don't know what you are talking about.?
    I said I have a few spare neurons, can you believe that space explodes just because that link says so?. If you do, it is your problem.
    You have rebutted nothing. The reason we did not respond is that, with your arrogant attitude, we cannot be bothered. It is obvious that you are not here to be educated, so why should we use the neurons required to answer you? If you search through some of my other posts, you will see than I am more than happy to answer people who have a genuine interest in cosmology, as long as they don't have a chip on their shoulder. Life is too short, so I choose who gets my full attention and who gets the brush off.

    This is what I am prepared to give you, right now. That particular quote in red is designed to get across the difference between an explosion of matter in pre-existing space, and the Big Bang which, in that context, should be thought of more like an explosion of space than an explosion in space. But it is all just an analogy for the mathematics presented in the formal paper.

    "Expanding space" is an analogy for what GR really says. It is a convenient way to explain a very complicated concept, but it is not the only way. In fact, it can lead to misconceptions in its own right, some of which you describe below. Here is another paper for you to peruse, which, if you do give it a proper read, will explain what I am saying here.

    [0707.0380] Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by ray View Post
    Now do not give me a link, answer this:

    1) space cannot expand because it is not a medium, an aether, a gas: it is a property, like beauty.
    That is not a question, so how can I answer it? Are you interested in how either general relativity or quantum physics deal with space?

    Quote Originally Posted by ray View Post
    2) let's concede, for the sake of argument, that it CAN expand. Now, if it expands and when it is expanding it drags matter along, then this implies the reverse concept: motion would be impossible ,because matter would be stuck in space.
    And rather than a question, we have another baseless assertion. The expansion of space has nothing to do with peculiar motion, which is motion through space. Just because nothing moves through space due to the expansion of the universe, it doesn't mean that nothing can move through space for other reasons, like acceleration/gravity. It is obvious that, rather than understanding physics, you don't even know the basics, and yet here you are, arguing against your own misconceptions once again.

    Quote Originally Posted by ray View Post
    So , some scientists ( if you are one) are gullible and believe pigs fly and repeat parrot-wise anything "authorities" say and then retract. Is it my fault?
    The whole of the above statement is your fault, as it is based in your own faulty thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by ray View Post
    I have demolished Phisbang arguments and all he can say is : you are inventing physics.
    He is correct. You do not know what the hell you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by ray View Post
    He should have quoted my arguments and demolished, shown they were false. He didn't, as he couldn't. If he had brought sound arguments, I would have conceded defeat and said: you are right, I was wrong. HE, and You, cannot do that not because you are proud, but just because you do not know what is right or wrong. You haven't a clue, because you don't know what you are talking about.
    No. Why should we have to go into lengthy and time consuming explanations every time some Tom, Dick or Harry comes along thinking he knows it all when he actually knows very little and then goes on to belittle the efforts of generations of scientists, and insults our intelligence in the process?

    Instead, you really should have a look at this thread:
    The basis of modern cosmology

    Should we have to say the same thing, over and over again?

    EDIT: It seems we do. I just looked at that thread, and see you have already posted in it and missed the point made in the OP entirely.
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; September 27th, 2011 at 03:10 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    ray
    ray is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    ....you haven't posted any science in this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    ...you need to learn to read..
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    ...1) I hope you enjoy your life of inventing physics.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    ...2) Big Bang theory, is more than a mere hypothesis because it stands as not merely the best explanation that we have for the observations that we have, but we can use detailed measurements of relevant observations that produce information about the relevant features of the theory.
    .
    All right, folks, I apologized with speedfreek as he was not the first one to attack, but PhysBang. Iam leaving discussion, but I thought corteous to say good-bye.

    If you agree I would like to take leave with a friendly joke, or rather thought experiment, that probably wil be more pedagogical than 1000 posts.
    1) I'd like to pick up your sarcastic challenge, Phys and show how easy it is to make a 2) better explanation of BB

    universe is not flat, Ω > 1, the ballon analogy fits perfectly: inflation radially , stretching without a center, universe finite and unbounded, equidistance from CMB, hubble formula perfect.

    Isn't it easy? isn't it better, isn't it perfect?
    answer seriously, please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. New CAFE standard
    By Bunbury in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 8th, 2011, 02:44 AM
  2. Makeover For The Big Bang Standard Model Of Our Universe
    By arKane in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: November 28th, 2010, 04:05 PM
  3. Problems with the standard model
    By Astronautilus in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 11th, 2010, 09:09 AM
  4. Standard deviation
    By thyristor in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 5th, 2009, 10:21 AM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: October 30th, 2008, 03:37 AM
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
  •