Do you know what Erwin Hubble thought of "Hubble Law"?
"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."
-Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947
He probably got that impression because structures like NGC 7603, NGC 4319, and many others make it very clear gravitation is a contributing factor to redshift. NASA decided to cover up that fact by doctoring images of NGC 4319 to deny that truth rather than adjust theory to accommodate observation [true story... -ridiculously shady!!!].
There is an issue with galactic rotation that BBT addresses by fabricating "dark matter"... Actually, the real issue is the density of the universe has to be a very specific value for the theory to work. The observed density, "Omega", was 2%~3% what it "should" be. So, for BBT to work at all, it simply had to pull a lot of matter and energy straight out of its ass. The galaxy rotation issue gave BBT theorists good reason to fabricate physics because spiral galaxies rotate faster than gravity alone can account for. Plus, it turns out if you fabricate enough "dark matter", pick exactly how and where you distribute it to best accommodate these intellectually dishonest simulations, you can mimic the angular velocity of spiral galaxies reasonably well. They too are shady because their physics doesn't lead to the simulations' starting conditions; they build fantasy then let their equations play with it.]
You should discount BBT in an instant given the simple observation that this universe has more than one force! All BBT knows is gravity. All it thinks about is gravity, the weakest force of them all. And when it's insufficient to explain observation, it just fabricates more gravity to make it all better. Um BBT, how about incorporating known physics into your models? You know, like electromagnetism / plasma physics? This universe is, 99.999+% plasma! Might be wise to include its behavior into our models of the universe!
Observe: (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plasma-universe.com%2Fimages%2F1%2F16%2FPeratt-galaxy-simulation.gif&hash=67aa455a9e9a050c0ab6277cb35c8206376c435f)
^That's pure plasma physics! ...and those angular momentum values are consistent with galaxy rotation. Dark matter is a blatant lie. It is willful ignorance. It is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
BBT is not enlightened, it's inept. Do you know how to determine if theories are worthy? They make predictions that we can then test. BBT has never made an accurate prediction. NEVER! Ever, nada, zip, zilch, none. Is this a surprise to anyone? Do you think you can take the weakest of all forces, pretend it's the only force, build a "universe" with it, then assume you're gonna have a perfectly accurate picture? I should hope not. What I love best about BBT is how it cannot explain accretion discs at all, yet assumes them in their models because their so ubiquitous in the universe. They're ubiquitous because they're a plasma physics phenomenon! Solar systems, spiral galaxies, all of the universe's accretion discs are actually against the laws of physics put forth by BBT. BBT hates to admit they ignore the physics of plasma in favor of fabricating BS physics, then turn around and "borrow" plasma physics structures anyway (because the physics of their theories cannot build them on their own).
BBT is the story of fabricating physics when you should be paying attention to existing / known physics. NGC 7603 and many others deny doppler "expansion". So much for dark energy! Thus a fair amount of that mass needed to make Omega = ~1 is compromised. Furthermore, plasma physics says we don't need to dark matter to account for galactic motions. Galaxies are plasma! Surprise! --plasma physics along with gravitation explains their motions perfectly! This, of course, removes the dark matter fantasy and now BBT is left with an omega value that proves its own inconsistency.
There's a place for BBT! It's right next to Platomic Solids and their epicycles on the shelf of failed science.
You're pretty big on assertions, pretty thin on actual substantive argument. Simply attacking the basics of current cosmology without offering a satisfactory alternative is a waste of everybody's time. One of the reasons for BBT is a simple application of Occam's razor. Your ideas add extra layers of complexity without adding any extra explanative power. I call BS.
Quote from: Bluenose on March 19, 2018, 10:30:50 PM
You're pretty big on assertions, pretty thin on actual substantive argument. Simply attacking the basics of current cosmology without offering a satisfactory alternative is a waste of everybody's time. One of the reasons for BBT is a simple application of Occam's razor. Your ideas add extra layers of complexity without adding any extra explanative power. I call BS.
It's a starting point. ...something to think about. If it was BS, you'd be attacking my science, not me! Seems like my science is impervious, however. ...as am I.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 09:20:27 PM
Do you know what Erwin Hubble thought of "Hubble Law"?
"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."
-Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947
He probably got that impression because structures like NGC 7603, NGC 4319, and many others make it very clear gravitation is a contributing factor to redshift. NASA decided to cover up that fact by doctoring images of NGC 4319 to deny that truth rather than adjust theory to accommodate observation [true story... -ridiculously shady!!!].
There is an issue with galactic rotation that BBT addresses by fabricating "dark matter"... Actually, the real issue is the density of the universe has to be a very specific value for the theory to work. The observed density, "Omega", was 2%~3% what it "should" be. So, for BBT to work at all, it simply had to pull a lot of matter and energy straight out of its ass. The galaxy rotation issue gave BBT theorists good reason to fabricate physics because spiral galaxies rotate faster than gravity alone can account for. Plus, it turns out if you fabricate enough "dark matter", pick exactly how and where you distribute it to best accommodate these intellectually dishonest simulations, you can mimic the angular velocity of spiral galaxies reasonably well. They too are shady because their physics doesn't lead to the simulations' starting conditions; they build fantasy then let their equations play with it.]
You should discount BBT in an instant given the simple observation that this universe has more than one force! All BBT knows is gravity. All it thinks about is gravity, the weakest force of them all. And when it's insufficient to explain observation, it just fabricates more gravity to make it all better. Um BBT, how about incorporating known physics into your models? You know, like electromagnetism / plasma physics? This universe is, 99.999+% plasma! Might be wise to include its behavior into our models of the universe!
Observe: (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plasma-universe.com%2Fimages%2F1%2F16%2FPeratt-galaxy-simulation.gif&hash=67aa455a9e9a050c0ab6277cb35c8206376c435f)
^That's pure plasma physics! ...and those angular momentum values are consistent with galaxy rotation. Dark matter is a blatant lie. It is willful ignorance. It is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
BBT is not enlightened, it's inept. Do you know how to determine if theories are worthy? They make predictions that we can then test. BBT has never made an accurate prediction. NEVER! Ever, nada, zip, zilch, none. Is this a surprise to anyone? Do you think you can take the weakest of all forces, pretend it's the only force, build a "universe" with it, then assume you're gonna have a perfectly accurate picture? I should hope not. What I love best about BBT is how it cannot explain accretion discs at all, yet assumes them in their models because their so ubiquitous in the universe. They're ubiquitous because they're a plasma physics phenomenon! Solar systems, spiral galaxies, all of the universe's accretion discs are actually against the laws of physics put forth by BBT. BBT hates to admit they ignore the physics of plasma in favor of fabricating BS physics, then turn around and "borrow" plasma physics structures anyway (because the physics of their theories cannot build them on their own).
BBT is the story of fabricating physics when you should be paying attention to existing / known physics. NGC 7603 and many others deny doppler "expansion". So much for dark energy! Thus a fair amount of that mass needed to make Omega = ~1 is compromised. Furthermore, plasma physics says we don't need to dark matter to account for galactic motions. Galaxies are plasma! Surprise! --plasma physics along with gravitation explains their motions perfectly! This, of course, removes the dark matter fantasy and now BBT is left with an omega value that proves its own inconsistency.
There's a place for BBT! It's right next to Platomic Solids and their epicycles on the shelf of failed science.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 11:38:40 PMIf it was BS, you'd be attacking my science, not me!
If you had some science to address, we would.
Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 02:26:38 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 11:38:40 PMIf it was BS, you'd be attacking my science, not me!
If you had some science to address, we would.
yea, it's all about vivid imagination. Like: I wonder what kind of kiss ass would do an obscure sole dirty when they tried to share only to turn around and be all about "we hung out in the same forum together..." like they was friends, when dude gains some notoriety, cuz they don't have any spine on their own accord, so they latch on to any entity they think has clout, only to blindly lash out on things that challenge it, thinking they're on the strong ground cuz no one will fucks with their authoritah, when in reality no one fucks with mother nature. meh, probably never happens.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 05:45:17 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 02:26:38 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 11:38:40 PMIf it was BS, you'd be attacking my science, not me!
If you had some science to address, we would.
yea, it's all about vivid imagination.[...]
If it's all about vivid imagination, then not only are you in the wrong section, but you're also moving the goal post (fallacy).
You goaded up to attack your science and not you.
I noted that you provided no science.
So you say that it's all about imagination.
Do you think that your imagination is science?
It's in the wrong section? Oops, my bad. You should petition to have it placed in a more appropriate location.
Ralph Apher -- CMB
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 12:17:22 AM
Quote from: Recusant on March 20, 2018, 11:23:28 PM
Ralph Apher -- CMB
what about him/it?
You're a clever fellow (I'm not being sarcastic here, I believe you to be of above average intelligence), you no doubt have already figured it out. It directly addresses one of your claims in the OP.
Quote from: Recusant on March 21, 2018, 12:34:17 AM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 12:17:22 AM
Quote from: Recusant on March 20, 2018, 11:23:28 PM
Ralph Apher -- CMB
what about him/it?
You're a clever fellow (I'm not being sarcastic here, I believe you to be of above average intelligence), you no doubt have already figured it out. It directly addresses one of your claims in the OP.
My apologies, I'm not familiar with him. The reference is lost on me. Is CMB Cosmic Microwave Background? ...oh, predictions! Is that where you 're going with this? BBT had their prediction at 50 Kelvin when the findings were released. And plasma cosmology had their value, established for different reasons, within a few K. Dozens of predictions of background radiation have come from dozens of stances. It's not a unique feature of a cosmological theory. BBT's love of CMB is essentially unfounded.
So, was that it? if not, you lost me.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 10:03:38 PM
It's in the wrong section? Oops, my bad. You should petition to have it placed in a more appropriate location.
So you're admitting that what you're presenting is not science then?
Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 01:34:44 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 10:03:38 PM
It's in the wrong section? Oops, my bad. You should petition to have it placed in a more appropriate location.
So you're admitting that what you're presenting is not science then?
I admit I'm gonna establish 21st century physics.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 05:05:18 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 01:34:44 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 10:03:38 PM
It's in the wrong section? Oops, my bad. You should petition to have it placed in a more appropriate location.
So you're admitting that what you're presenting is not science then?
I admit I'm gonna establish 21st century physics.
So smarmy!
(https://im-01.gifer.com/53s3.gif)
You should probably get a hold of Betsy DeVos, she doesn't understand science either.
Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 05:11:24 PM
You should probably get a hold of Betsy DeVos, she doesn't understand science either.
Got her number? i'll get her a beer so we can both cry in one.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 05:05:18 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 01:34:44 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 10:03:38 PM
It's in the wrong section? Oops, my bad. You should petition to have it placed in a more appropriate location.
So you're admitting that what you're presenting is not science then?
I admit I'm gonna establish 21st century physics.
https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 05:13:27 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 05:11:24 PM
You should probably get a hold of Betsy DeVos, she doesn't understand science either.
Got her number? i'll get her a beer so we can both cry in one.
Oh, you don't already know her? I figured all the science deniers knew each other.
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 21, 2018, 05:24:20 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 05:05:18 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 01:34:44 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 10:03:38 PM
It's in the wrong section? Oops, my bad. You should petition to have it placed in a more appropriate location.
So you're admitting that what you're presenting is not science then?
I admit I'm gonna establish 21st century physics.
https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Good link that, Hermes!
you guys know there's a really good chance your not too distant progeny will have greater awareness of and more respect for me than you, right? you think you're gonna hurt my feelings? lol you're sadly mistaken. emotional stability ranks as my strongest preference in sloan/global5, in the 90's. The only thing I'm doing here is watching people as they demonstrate qualities that make other people revere genius so much in the first place. We are, after all, very different types of creatures.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 01:15:12 AM
My apologies, I'm not familiar with him. The reference is lost on me. Is CMB Cosmic Microwave Background? ...oh, predictions! Is that where you 're going with this? BBT had their prediction at 50 Kelvin when the findings were released. And plasma cosmology had their value, established for different reasons, within a few K. Dozens of predictions of background radiation have come from dozens of stances. It's not a unique feature of a cosmological theory. BBT's love of CMB is essentially unfounded.
So, was that it? if not, you lost me.
You can read about Apher's work here (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.0172.pdf).
QuoteThe first prediction of the existence of "relict radiation" or radiation remaining from the "Big Bang" was made in 1948.
In 1964 Wilson and Penzias noticed something incongruous in the output of the the Bell Labs horn antenna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmdel_Horn_Antenna). Eventually realized they were looking something of significance, and in the
Astrophysical Journal they published their findings (http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1965ApJ...142..419P/0000419.000.html) along with a letter by Dicke
et al. (http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1965ApJ...142..414D/0000414.000.html) explaining the significance of the discovery. Wilson and Penzias received a Nobel Prize.
Given that scientists make predictions (aka hypotheses), while scientific theories are products of the work of scientists, technically you are correct that "BBT has never made an accurate prediction." On the other hand, Apher along with Robert Herman hypothesized ("predicted") that there would be residual radiation from the initial phases of the evolution of the cosmos. This radiation was later observed by Wilson and Penzias.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 07:32:30 PM
you guys know there's a really good chance your not too distant progeny will have greater awareness of and more respect for me than you, right?
Self aggrandizement, because no one else will.
Quote from: Rift Zoneyou think you're gonna hurt my feelings?[...]
I don't care about your feelings one way or the other.
Quote from: Rift ZoneThe only thing I'm doing here is watching people as they demonstrate qualities that make other people revere genius so much in the first place. We are, after all, very different types of creatures.
You're spouting bullshit here and avoiding direct questions and challenges. That is preaching. Maybe you're really a genius, maybe you're not, but in the words of yourself, "So, even if I was some kind of elite intellectual, it don't mean shit."
Quote from: Recusant on March 21, 2018, 07:45:15 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 01:15:12 AM
My apologies, I'm not familiar with him. The reference is lost on me. Is CMB Cosmic Microwave Background? ...oh, predictions! Is that where you 're going with this? BBT had their prediction at 50 Kelvin when the findings were released. And plasma cosmology had their value, established for different reasons, within a few K. Dozens of predictions of background radiation have come from dozens of stances. It's not a unique feature of a cosmological theory. BBT's love of CMB is essentially unfounded.
So, was that it? if not, you lost me.
You can read about Apher's work here (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.0172.pdf).
QuoteThe first prediction of the existence of "relict radiation" or radiation remaining from the "Big Bang" was made in 1948.
In 1964 Wilson and Penzias noticed something incongruous in the output of the the Bell Labs horn antenna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmdel_Horn_Antenna). Eventually realized they were looking something of significance, and in the Astrophysical Journal they published their findings (http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1965ApJ...142..419P/0000419.000.html) along with a letter by Dicke et al. (http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1965ApJ...142..414D/0000414.000.html) explaining the significance of the discovery. Wilson and Penzias received a Nobel Prize.
Given that scientists make predictions (aka hypotheses), while scientific theories are products of the work of scientists, technically you are correct that "BBT has never made an accurate prediction." On the other hand, Apher along with Robert Herman hypothesized ("predicted") that there would be residual radiation from the initial phases of the evolution of the cosmos. This radiation was later observed by Wilson and Penzias.
Yea, everyone's favorite story about that horn antenna was them going so far as to clean all the pidgeon poo off it to try to clean up their signal. It was a chance crossing of info with people working on the other end of things that finally put it all together and enabled them to know what they were hearing was of cosmic origin. I have a real good understanding of humanity's understanding. anyway, lots of theories have predicted that background radiation for lots of different reasons. The fact they had one is quite meaningless. The fact they were off by magnitudes is more significant.
Working off of a private definition again, apparently. Only if you personally give your imprimatur to something does it gain any standing.
Please tell me about all the other predictions regarding the existence of "that background radiation" as well as the "lots of different reasons" hypothesized for the hypothetical radiation.
private definitions? Come now Recusant, show a little respect for my scientific rigor... It does, after all, demonstrate adherence to physical reality better than anything else you ever seen. Blindly lashing out on things you don't understand may not serve you well.
minute 32 has the answers you seek.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:06:08 PM
Fuck that video is hilarious. I'll have to watch the whole thing later. You actually take that seriously?
Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 09:13:08 PM
Fuck that video is hilarious. I'll have to watch the whole thing later. You actually take that seriously?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fizquotes.com%2Fquotes-pictures%2Fquote-great-spirits-have-always-encountered-violent-opposition-from-mediocre-minds-the-mediocre-mind-is-albert-einstein-226507.jpg&hash=72b10025fe1c9f54eac805e4dff30b0aa5f341cd)
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:17:39 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 09:13:08 PM
Fuck that video is hilarious. I'll have to watch the whole thing later. You actually take that seriously?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fizquotes.com%2Fquotes-pictures%2Fquote-great-spirits-have-always-encountered-violent-opposition-from-mediocre-minds-the-mediocre-mind-is-albert-einstein-226507.jpg&hash=72b10025fe1c9f54eac805e4dff30b0aa5f341cd)
Oh, you poor little thing. :sad sigh: Do you really think that you're the victim of violence?
Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 09:25:03 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:17:39 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 09:13:08 PM
Fuck that video is hilarious. I'll have to watch the whole thing later. You actually take that seriously?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fizquotes.com%2Fquotes-pictures%2Fquote-great-spirits-have-always-encountered-violent-opposition-from-mediocre-minds-the-mediocre-mind-is-albert-einstein-226507.jpg&hash=72b10025fe1c9f54eac805e4dff30b0aa5f341cd)
Oh, you poor little thing. :sad sigh: Do you really think that you're the victim of violence?
I suppose everyone needs a pet... just wish it were better house trained.
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment... that's a good boy.
At least Albert backed up most of his ideas with maths, the others were based on sound principles of physocs until proven, by others who took them seriously, by subjective observation. He dud not publish his thoughts until he had suffucient evidence. Evidence ribust enough that others could inspect it and come to valid conclusions on.
So far, RZ, from you we have seen only words and outrageous claims with nothing to back them up up. I admit that could not handle the maths but would still like to see supporting evidence.
That's the thing about Einstein, he payed attention to things in the universe no one cared to pay much attenttion to, developed some understanding of how those notions fit together, and then committed his understanding to math and published. I'm not trying to "publish" here, I'm just sharing some of my notes, sharing the premises i found, as well where it all leads. The truth is he's a hero and I'm a dick only because he has notoriety. After he published the special theory of relativity, Einstein dealt with the same crap you now give me, for 4 years straight! -A couple of serious inquiries into the theory maybe, but mostly fools who thought they know something. 4 YEARS later, the only person bright enough to know any better comes across it: Max Planck. At that point Einstein was a hero, not before. Don't worry yall! I know how you humans work, you don't want thoughtful people pointing out how it takes only one observation to discount any theory, indeed every theory. You don't want to hear sound arguments that definitively disclude what you think you know. No, you want someone with notoriety telling you what is... I'll get back to you on that real soon.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment... that's a good boy.
I suggest you do not post while you're angry. It does not add anything to this discussion.
You may believe that you are in a sea of 'mediocre minds', but that is not the case. We skeptics are naturally a tough bunch to convince, even if probably none among us fully understand QM, plasma physics and the like, but you can still take value from input you find here, even if you don't want to accept it.
If you're planning in the future to convince physicists who specialise in the field, that's what peer review is for. If the idea is to convince the layperson, then you really should learn how to write for that audience. Insulting and lashing out against your critics will get you no where, in fact, it'll only cause people to lose even more respect for your ideas.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment... that's a good boy.
I suggest you do not post while you're angry. It does not add anything to this discussion.
You may believe that you are in a sea of 'mediocre minds', but that is not the case. We skeptics are naturally a tough bunch to convince, even if probably none among us fully understand QM, plasma physics and the like, but you can still take value from input you find here, even if you don't want to accept it.
If you're planning in the future to convince physicists who specialise in the field, that's what peer review is for. If the idea is to convince the layperson, then you really should learn how to write for that audience. Insulting and lashing out against your critics will get you no where, in fact, it'll only cause people to lose even more respect for your ideas.
Very well said, Silver.
I think I will steal that spand place it in my file of Good Stuff! (Due accreditation will be given if used elsewhere.)
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:06:08 PM
private definitions?
Very much so.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:06:08 PMCome now Recusant, show a little respect for my scientific rigor...
Certainly. The moment you begin to display some.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:06:08 PMIt does, after all, demonstrate adherence to physical reality better than anything else you ever seen.
Are you referring to your personal version of the discredited "plasma universe" hypothesis? You have yet to demonstrate its validity in any coherent manner.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:06:08 PMBlindly lashing out on things you don't understand may not serve you well.
Your puerile chest-thumping is becoming tedious, and certainly doesn't serve
you well. Perhaps some who disagree with you do so out of a lack of understanding, but that doesn't exhaust the possible options.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:06:08 PMminute 32 has the answers you seek.
Thank you for citing the time-stamp. That's more than people who cite YouTube as a source usually do.
That video is not a source I would be willing to rely on, and its assertions regarding previous hypotheses are of questionable value. If you want to challenge current cosmology and the significance of Apher's work, you will have to show that any of these hypotheses (or your own) are a superior explanation of the observations.
At any rate, the video does not appear to have demonstrated that Apher's hypothesis regarding residual radiation from an earlier period of the universe's existence should be dismissed. Certainly you have not done so here. Perhaps the "Big Bang" theory will eventually be successfully challenged but if you intend to do that I'll just note that citing YouTube videos will not achieve your aim.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment... that's a good boy.
I suggest you do not post while you're angry. It does not add anything to this discussion.
You may believe that you are in a sea of 'mediocre minds', but that is not the case. We skeptics are naturally a tough bunch to convince, even if probably none among us fully understand QM, plasma physics and the like, but you can still take value from input you find here, even if you don't want to accept it.
If you're planning in the future to convince physicists who specialise in the field, that's what peer review is for. If the idea is to convince the layperson, then you really should learn how to write for that audience. Insulting and lashing out against your critics will get you no where, in fact, it'll only cause people to lose even more respect for your ideas.
I know he's a friend of all you guys but seriously, can you put a muzzle on him on already? My apologies. I feel as though I have made it very clear that I welcome scientific discourse and would love to share notes with you all. However, I call upon admin to kindly review Davin's approach to this discourse. It does not serve a community founded upon justified knowledge of physical reality to have a science section that is being terrorized by an entity who is clearly not interested in the science presented. If such a thing is found here, I ask admin make efforts to create an environment more conducive to critical thought.
Quote from: Dave on March 21, 2018, 10:19:34 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment... that's a good boy.
I suggest you do not post while you're angry. It does not add anything to this discussion.
You may believe that you are in a sea of 'mediocre minds', but that is not the case. We skeptics are naturally a tough bunch to convince, even if probably none among us fully understand QM, plasma physics and the like, but you can still take value from input you find here, even if you don't want to accept it.
If you're planning in the future to convince physicists who specialise in the field, that's what peer review is for. If the idea is to convince the layperson, then you really should learn how to write for that audience. Insulting and lashing out against your critics will get you no where, in fact, it'll only cause people to lose even more respect for your ideas.
Very well said, Silver.
I think I will steal that spand place it in my file of Good Stuff! (Due accreditation will be given if used elsewhere.)
:blush: I'm glad my post made it into your file of Good Stuff, Dave! :grin:
:P
Quote from: Recusant on March 21, 2018, 10:20:29 PM
That video is not a source I would be willing to rely on, and its assertions regarding previous hypotheses are of questionable value. If you want to challenge current cosmology and the significance of Apher's work, you will have to show that any of these hypotheses (or your own) are a superior explanation of the observations.
At any rate, the video does not appear to have demonstrated that Apher's hypothesis regarding residual radiation from an earlier period of the universe's existence should be dismissed. Certainly you have not done so here. Perhaps the "Big Bang" theory will eventually be successfully challenged but if you intend to do that I'll just note that citing YouTube videos will not achieve your aim.
I know what it will take to challenge current paradigm, don't you worry about that none. You wanted to see other predictions for background, you got a whole pile of them... the integrity of the vid is irrelevant. You have your list of predictions and you may verify them independently if you wish. Um, what? why would it be dismissed? of course there will be such backgound in a big bang type of universe. But the value is 3k, not the 50k BBT predicted. (they have since adjusted the theory to match observation). and talking down on a theory you're not qualified to evaluate does not alter its validity or when it will take over mainstream ;)
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment... that's a good boy.
I suggest you do not post while you're angry. It does not add anything to this discussion.
You may believe that you are in a sea of 'mediocre minds', but that is not the case. We skeptics are naturally a tough bunch to convince, even if probably none among us fully understand QM, plasma physics and the like, but you can still take value from input you find here, even if you don't want to accept it.
If you're planning in the future to convince physicists who specialise in the field, that's what peer review is for. If the idea is to convince the layperson, then you really should learn how to write for that audience. Insulting and lashing out against your critics will get you no where, in fact, it'll only cause people to lose even more respect for your ideas.
I know he's a friend of all you guys but seriously, can you put a muzzle on him on already?
My apologies. I feel as though I have made it very clear that I welcome scientific discourse and would love to share notes with you all. However, I call upon admin to kindly review Davin's approach to this discourse. It does not serve a community founded upon justified knowledge of physical reality to have a science section that is being terrorized by an entity who is clearly not interested in the science presented. If such a thing is found here, I ask admin make efforts to create an environment more conducive to critical thought.
Very well, I've brought this thread to the attention of the staff.
In the meantime, just keep your cool. It's not a warning, just a suggestion. Even if you can't control another's response to your ideas you can try to better control your own.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2018, 10:51:00 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment... that's a good boy.
I suggest you do not post while you're angry. It does not add anything to this discussion.
You may believe that you are in a sea of 'mediocre minds', but that is not the case. We skeptics are naturally a tough bunch to convince, even if probably none among us fully understand QM, plasma physics and the like, but you can still take value from input you find here, even if you don't want to accept it.
If you're planning in the future to convince physicists who specialise in the field, that's what peer review is for. If the idea is to convince the layperson, then you really should learn how to write for that audience. Insulting and lashing out against your critics will get you no where, in fact, it'll only cause people to lose even more respect for your ideas.
I know he's a friend of all you guys but seriously, can you put a muzzle on him on already?
My apologies. I feel as though I have made it very clear that I welcome scientific discourse and would love to share notes with you all. However, I call upon admin to kindly review Davin's approach to this discourse. It does not serve a community founded upon justified knowledge of physical reality to have a science section that is being terrorized by an entity who is clearly not interested in the science presented. If such a thing is found here, I ask admin make efforts to create an environment more conducive to critical thought.
Very well, I've brought this thread to the attention of the staff.
In the meantime, just keep your cool. It's not a warning, just a suggestion. Even if you can't control another's response to your ideas you can try to better control your own.
Yes, ma'am.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 10:34:31 PM
Quote from: Recusant on March 21, 2018, 10:20:29 PM
That video is not a source I would be willing to rely on, and its assertions regarding previous hypotheses are of questionable value. If you want to challenge current cosmology and the significance of Apher's work, you will have to show that any of these hypotheses (or your own) are a superior explanation of the observations.
At any rate, the video does not appear to have demonstrated that Apher's hypothesis regarding residual radiation from an earlier period of the universe's existence should be dismissed. Certainly you have not done so here. Perhaps the "Big Bang" theory will eventually be successfully challenged but if you intend to do that I'll just note that citing YouTube videos will not achieve your aim.
I know what it will take to challenge current paradigm, don't you worry about that none. You wanted to see other predictions for background, you got a whole pile of them... the integrity of the vid is irrelevant. You have your list of predictions and you may verify them independently if you wish. Um, what? why would it be dismissed? of course there will be such backgound in a big bang type of universe. But the value is 3k, not the 50k BBT predicted. (they have since adjusted the theory to match observation). and talking down on a theory you're not qualified to evaluate does not alter its validity or when it will take over mainstream ;)
In fact Alpher, Herman, and Gamow initially estimated that the CMB would be about 5 Kelvin (http://lcd-www.colorado.edu/astr2010/Lectures/part3/part3_08.html), not "50k."
My apologies for misspelling Alpher's name in my previous posts. That didn't help matters.
Quote from: Recusant on March 21, 2018, 11:06:35 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 10:34:31 PM
Quote from: Recusant on March 21, 2018, 10:20:29 PM
That video is not a source I would be willing to rely on, and its assertions regarding previous hypotheses are of questionable value. If you want to challenge current cosmology and the significance of Apher's work, you will have to show that any of these hypotheses (or your own) are a superior explanation of the observations.
At any rate, the video does not appear to have demonstrated that Apher's hypothesis regarding residual radiation from an earlier period of the universe's existence should be dismissed. Certainly you have not done so here. Perhaps the "Big Bang" theory will eventually be successfully challenged but if you intend to do that I'll just note that citing YouTube videos will not achieve your aim.
I know what it will take to challenge current paradigm, don't you worry about that none. You wanted to see other predictions for background, you got a whole pile of them... the integrity of the vid is irrelevant. You have your list of predictions and you may verify them independently if you wish. Um, what? why would it be dismissed? of course there will be such backgound in a big bang type of universe. But the value is 3k, not the 50k BBT predicted. (they have since adjusted the theory to match observation). and talking down on a theory you're not qualified to evaluate does not alter its validity or when it will take over mainstream ;)
In fact Alpher, Herman, and Gamow initially estimated that the CMB would be about 5 Kelvin (http://lcd-www.colorado.edu/astr2010/Lectures/part3/part3_08.html), not "50k."
My apologies for misspelling Alpher's name in my previous posts. That didn't help matters.
oh, yes, of course. the original is at 5 k. of course that iteration of the the theory was like, the original, potentially before inflation, dark matter and allllllll sorts of stuff. at any rate, a lot has changed within the theory since then. It remains that the value BBT held when the first findings were released was 50k. no worries, i'm a terrible speller, never bothers me when it see it in other text.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:36:49 PM
I suppose everyone needs a pet... just wish it were better house trained.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment... that's a good boy.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 10:23:46 PM
I know he's a friend of all you guys but seriously, can you put a muzzle on him on already?
Ugly.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 11:18:22 PMoh, yes, of course. the original is at 5 k. of course that iteration of the the theory was like, the original, potentially before inflation, dark matter and allllllll sorts of stuff. at any rate, a lot has changed within the theory since then.
Revisions to scientific ideas do not invalidate those ideas. All challenges to the essential theory so far have failed.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 11:18:22 PMIt remains that the value BBT held when the first findings were released was 50k.
Perhaps you could cite sources when you make statements like that. I can find nothing supporting your claim. What I have found is that 50 Kelvin was the upper limit of estimates.
QuoteAlpher and Herman's prediction of a 5 Kelvin background contained no suggestion of its detectability with available technology and had little impact. Over the next decade, George Gamow and collaborators, including Alpher and Herman, made a variety of estimates of the background temperature which fluctuated between 3 and 50 Kelvin (e.g. Gamow 1956).
[source (https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Kosowsky2/Kosowsky2.html)]
Quote from: Magdalena on March 21, 2018, 11:39:32 PM
Ugly.
=( Sigh.... guilty as charged.
Ya know if I'm wrong, great, we all know RZ is indeed seriously batshit crazy and you can celebrate your victory. If i'm right, then it don't mean shit till i publish the math and it takes it's place as a respected theory in a respected manner. but for now, it's just something that shows promise, not exactly ready for you to fully endorse, so chill, i'm not selling nothing. And we're never gonna know anything about anything if we constantly bicker among ourselves. Let's harass mother nature... She's the one who really knows what's up.
Quote from: Recusant on March 22, 2018, 12:20:11 AM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 11:18:22 PMoh, yes, of course. the original is at 5 k. of course that iteration of the the theory was like, the original, potentially before inflation, dark matter and allllllll sorts of stuff. at any rate, a lot has changed within the theory since then.
Revisions to scientific ideas do not invalidate those ideas. All challenges to the essential theory so far have failed.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 11:18:22 PMIt remains that the value BBT held when the first findings were released was 50k.
Perhaps you could cite sources when you make statements like that. I can find nothing supporting your claim. What I have found is that 50 Kelvin was the upper limit of estimates.
QuoteAlpher and Herman's prediction of a 5 Kelvin background contained no suggestion of its detectability with available technology and had little impact. Over the next decade, George Gamow and collaborators, including Alpher and Herman, made a variety of estimates of the background temperature which fluctuated between 3 and 50 Kelvin (e.g. Gamow 1956).
[source (https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Kosowsky2/Kosowsky2.html)]
Recrusant, are you trying to imply i have insinuated that BBT is no longer valid because it had experienced revisions? is that what you wish to say? Are you building an argument pertaining to that? if you are not, will you kindly spare us the commentary and stick to relevant data alone. The fluff around here is ridiculous enough as it is.
I'll see what I can do about substantiating that fact.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:22:06 AM. . . And we're never gonna know anything about anything if we constantly bicker among ourselves.
Good thinking. Hyperbole tends to elicit mockery. However, mockery really isn't a civil response to hyperbole. If neither can contain their impulses (
Rift Zone's hyperbole--"terrorizing," really? /
Davin's mockery) and instead choose to ratchet this up, the staff will have no choice but to step in.
ETA: Your sniping back hasn't been particularly civil, either.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:32:04 AM. . . are you trying to imply i have insinuated that BBT is no longer valid because it had experienced revisions?
I was clear: Despite revisions to the theory, none of the challenges to it have succeeded in disproving it.
Quote from: Recusant on March 22, 2018, 12:36:30 AM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:32:04 AM. . . are you trying to imply i have insinuated that BBT is no longer valid because it had experienced revisions?
I was clear: Despite revisions to the theory, none of the challenges to it have succeeded in disproving it.
yea, it's safe for a few more years. we'll see how smug this community is then.
oh, no question I didn't play nice with anyone who attacked me. Homie don't play that.
it was Gamow himself that raised it to 50K!!! it's in a later iteration of his work. I'm not finding the reference right now either.
Quote from: Magdalena on March 22, 2018, 01:13:44 AM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:22:06 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on March 21, 2018, 11:39:32 PM
Ugly.
... so chill,...
Chill? What did I do? :notsure:
I'm not the one calling my friend an animal.
no, no, that wasn't directed to you. That was for people taking themselves or me too seriously. The only thing I've seen out of you was an astute and well supported observation, so I naturally have respect for you.
Sorry about your friend. for my defense, it was kinda game on between us, and we both knew it. not my first choice, but it works out that way sometimes. i was just defending myself. tried to warn him about playing with psychological warfare... at any rate, i was not the agressor here, my wittle feewings have been hurt through the constant barage of assaults on me and my notions, but I have a plush frog so i'm good.
incidentally, if BBT was given the same harsh treatment as Nova, it wouldn't have lasted 20 mins in here... Nova has yet to be discounted... just say'n
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 01:26:10 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on March 22, 2018, 01:13:44 AM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:22:06 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on March 21, 2018, 11:39:32 PM
Ugly.
... so chill,...
Chill? What did I do? :notsure:
I'm not the one calling my friend an animal.
no, no, that wasn't directed to you. That was for people taking themselves or me too seriously. The only thing I've seen out of you was an astute and well supported observation, so I naturally have respect for you.
Sorry about your friend. for my defense, it was kinda game on between us, and we both knew it. not my first choice, but it works out that way sometimes. i was just defending myself. tried to warn him about playing with psychological warfare... at any rate, i was not the agressor here, my wittle feewings have been hurt through the constant barage of assaults on me and my notions, but I have a plush frog so i'm good.
OK.
Could you do me a small favor? Could you post the quotes where you were offended by
Davin...on a personal level? You know, like, "Put a muzzle on
Rift Zone..." Or something like that. Maybe I missed it.
Thank you.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 01:26:10 AM
...at any rate, i was not the agressor here, my wittle feewings have been hurt through the constant barage of assaults on me and my notions, but I have a plush frog so i'm good.
::) We could seriously do with a little less drama...it gets old really fast.
Quote from: Magdalena on March 22, 2018, 01:40:37 AM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 01:26:10 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on March 22, 2018, 01:13:44 AM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:22:06 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on March 21, 2018, 11:39:32 PM
Ugly.
... so chill,...
Chill? What did I do? :notsure:
I'm not the one calling my friend an animal.
no, no, that wasn't directed to you. That was for people taking themselves or me too seriously. The only thing I've seen out of you was an astute and well supported observation, so I naturally have respect for you.
Sorry about your friend. for my defense, it was kinda game on between us, and we both knew it. not my first choice, but it works out that way sometimes. i was just defending myself. tried to warn him about playing with psychological warfare... at any rate, i was not the agressor here, my wittle feewings have been hurt through the constant barage of assaults on me and my notions, but I have a plush frog so i'm good.
OK.
Could you do me a small favor? Could you post the quotes where you were offended by Davin...on a personal level? You know, like, "Put a muzzle on Rift Zone..." Or something like that. Maybe I missed it.
Thank you.
um, I'm afraid I can't. It would seem I was fighting dirtier than he was.
Quote from: Recusant on March 22, 2018, 12:33:28 AM
Hyperbole tends to elicit mockery. However, mockery really isn't a civil response to hyperbole. If neither can contain their impulses (Rift Zone's hyperbole--"terrorizing," really? / Davin's mockery) and instead choose to ratchet this up, the staff will have no choice but to step in.
ETA: Your sniping back hasn't been particularly civil, either.
As Recusant posted in response to Rift Zone above (worth re-posting as a reminder), both Rift Zone and Davin have contributed unnecessarily uncivil responses to this thread. If this continues then the staff will be required to take a more active approach (hopefully not before Davin has had the chance to read this and the quoted post).
OK,
RZ,
I live in LA so I know exactly what this means:
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:50:50 AM
...oh, no question I didn't play nice with anyone who attacked me. Homie don't play that.
What I don't understand is this:
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:32:04 AM
...The fluff around here is ridiculous enough as it is.
...
What is this, "fluff?" :lol:
Quote from: Magdalena on March 22, 2018, 04:21:52 AM
OK, RZ,
I live in LA so I know exactly what this means:
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:50:50 AM
...oh, no question I didn't play nice with anyone who attacked me. Homie don't play that.
What I don't understand is this:
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:32:04 AM
...The fluff around here is ridiculous enough as it is.
...
What is this, "fluff?" :lol:
Bitching, moaning, bickering... like, most of it. Anything that not a legit attempt to have a legit conversation is fluff.
Quote from: Magdalena on March 22, 2018, 04:21:52 AM
OK, RZ,
I live in LA so I know exactly what this means:
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:50:50 AM
...oh, no question I didn't play nice with anyone who attacked me. Homie don't play that.
What I don't understand is this:
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:32:04 AM
...The fluff around here is ridiculous enough as it is.
...
What is this, "fluff?" :lol:
Have you used this one before?
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GlassCorruptHornedtoad-size_restricted.gif)
Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 22, 2018, 12:25:51 PM
Quote from: Magdalena on March 22, 2018, 04:21:52 AM
OK, RZ,
I live in LA so I know exactly what this means:
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:50:50 AM
...oh, no question I didn't play nice with anyone who attacked me. Homie don't play that.
What I don't understand is this:
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:32:04 AM
...The fluff around here is ridiculous enough as it is.
...
What is this, "fluff?" :lol:
Have you used this one before?
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GlassCorruptHornedtoad-size_restricted.gif)
probably!
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 01:26:10 AM
Sorry about your friend. for my defense, it was kinda game on between us, and we both knew it. not my first choice, but it works out that way sometimes. i was just defending myself. tried to warn him about playing with psychological warfare... at any rate, i was not the agressor here, my wittle feewings have been hurt through the constant barage of assaults on me and my notions, but I have a plush frog so i'm good.
Oh hi there, Rift Zone, I'm glad that you're thinking about me. You should think though, about why it is that instead of defending your argument with facts, data, and logic, you instead resort to avoidance and personal attacks. The reason you do that, is because your argument is weak and broken.
By the way, don't worry about hurting my feelings, you lack the ability to.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 02:02:12 AM
Quote from: Recusant on March 22, 2018, 12:33:28 AM
Hyperbole tends to elicit mockery. However, mockery really isn't a civil response to hyperbole. If neither can contain their impulses (Rift Zone's hyperbole--"terrorizing," really? / Davin's mockery) and instead choose to ratchet this up, the staff will have no choice but to step in.
ETA: Your sniping back hasn't been particularly civil, either.
As Recusant posted in response to Rift Zone above (worth re-posting as a reminder), both Rift Zone and Davin have contributed unnecessarily uncivil responses to this thread. If this continues then the staff will be required to take a more active approach (hopefully not before Davin has had the chance to read this and the quoted post).
What responses of mine were uncivil? I've only ever addressed what was said.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:51:08 PM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 22, 2018, 12:25:51 PM
Quote from: Magdalena on March 22, 2018, 04:21:52 AM
OK, RZ,
I live in LA so I know exactly what this means:
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:50:50 AM
...oh, no question I didn't play nice with anyone who attacked me. Homie don't play that.
What I don't understand is this:
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:32:04 AM
...The fluff around here is ridiculous enough as it is.
...
What is this, "fluff?" :lol:
Have you used this one before?
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GlassCorruptHornedtoad-size_restricted.gif)
probably!
Shit, I didn't mean to draw your attention, I don't want to end up in the sack.
Those eight minute folk are anachronisms, six minutes is just crazy talk.
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 01:34:11 PM
Oh hi there, Rift Zone, I'm glad that you're thinking about me. You should think though, about why it is that instead of defending your argument with facts, data, and logic, you instead resort to avoidance and personal attacks. The reason you do that, is because your argument is weak and broken.
Davin! My favorite adversary. How you doing? Well that's what we're all wanting to know about it, isn't it? So go on, your public awaits you, discount Nova already! It is a horrendous splattering of disassociated facts with holes lightyears big it in everyone, and Davin here is gonna tell you all about it. It is weak, but he is strong, and he apparently already broke it... -Tell us how you did it Davin, show us that stellar scientific shine of yours.
you were inches away from obsession with me yesterday. don't try to play. you love me and you know it.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 01:44:36 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 01:34:11 PM
Oh hi there, Rift Zone, I'm glad that you're thinking about me. You should think though, about why it is that instead of defending your argument with facts, data, and logic, you instead resort to avoidance and personal attacks. The reason you do that, is because your argument is weak and broken.
Davin! My favorite adversary. How you doing? Well that's what we're all wanting to know about it, isn't it? So go on, your public awaits you, discount Nova already! It is a horrendous splattering of disassociated facts with holes lightyears big it in everyone, and Davin here is gonna tell you all about it. It is weak, but he is strong, and he apparently already broke it... -Tell us how you did it Davin, show us that stellar scientific shine of yours.
I didn't break your argument, it already was broken.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 01:46:57 PM
you were inches away from obsession with me yesterday. don't try to play. you love me and you know it.
So I'm so obsessed with you that I took my normal nightly break from forums as if it doesn't matter that much to me? Doesn't make sense.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 09:20:27 PM
"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."
-Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947
He probably got that impression because structures like NGC 7603, NGC 4319, and many others make it very clear gravitation is a contributing factor to redshift. NASA decided to cover up that fact by doctoring images of NGC 4319 to deny that truth rather than adjust theory to accommodate observation [true story... -ridiculously shady!!!].
While it's difficult to translate these word jumbles into English, this is not a true story. Modern science already accounts for gravitational effects on red shift. NASA "doctors" all their images, that's where the colors come from. They don't get images through the telescopes, they get data. To turn them into images they have to create the images from the data and they throw in colors to make them look more interesting. To call this "doctoring" a cover up is disingenuous at best. And the data is still there if you don't trust the images.
Even when accounting for gravitational effects on red shift, galaxies are still shown to be moving away from each other.
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 02:04:26 PM
I didn't break your argument, it already was broken.
Is that right? And what is the nature of its flaw? or are you just making shit up to suit your vile approach to intellecutal dishonesty?
(https://meta-s3-cdn.freetls.fastly.net/original/1X/d55000f7718086efe6a07ad84f46951f01db2e9e.png)
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 09:20:27 PM
"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."
-Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947
He probably got that impression because structures like NGC 7603, NGC 4319, and many others make it very clear gravitation is a contributing factor to redshift. NASA decided to cover up that fact by doctoring images of NGC 4319 to deny that truth rather than adjust theory to accommodate observation [true story... -ridiculously shady!!!].
While it's difficult to translate these word jumbles into English, this is not a true story. Modern science already accounts for gravitational effects on red shift. NASA "doctors" all their images, that's where the colors come from. They don't get images through the telescopes, they get data. To turn them into images they have to create the images from the data and they throw in colors to make them look more interesting. To call this "doctoring" a cover up is disingenuous at best. And the data is still there if you don't trust the images.
Even when accounting for gravitational effects on red shift, galaxies are still shown to be moving away from each other.
the different colors represent different ions. (ions=plasma) Did you know the scientific value of that arguments amounts to, "but we got it right here! -see!". Yea, you got it there. But you need it over in another place too, is what my argument says. this is the importance of forming cohesive thoughts; if you knew what you were talking about, you'd see you'd have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 01:36:41 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 02:02:12 AM
Quote from: Recusant on March 22, 2018, 12:33:28 AM
Hyperbole tends to elicit mockery. However, mockery really isn't a civil response to hyperbole. If neither can contain their impulses (Rift Zone's hyperbole--"terrorizing," really? / Davin's mockery) and instead choose to ratchet this up, the staff will have no choice but to step in.
ETA: Your sniping back hasn't been particularly civil, either.
As Recusant posted in response to Rift Zone above (worth re-posting as a reminder), both Rift Zone and Davin have contributed unnecessarily uncivil responses to this thread. If this continues then the staff will be required to take a more active approach (hopefully not before Davin has had the chance to read this and the quoted post).
What responses of mine were uncivil? I've only ever addressed what was said.
You did, but at least a couple of your responses have been to mock your adversary, such as here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15684.msg370844#msg370844) and here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15684.msg370894#msg370894) and are not conducive to a civil discussion. It does not excuse Rift Zone's replies to you, however.
I just want to give a shout out to the community at large: I don't expect everyone to like me, but I may be exactly the type of guy you want on your side... shrewd as fuck and not afraid to challenge anything they're opposed to sounds like a decent ally to me... Incidentally, our scientific views may differ, but i'd like to point out otherwise we're pretty much on the same side here.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 01:36:41 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 02:02:12 AM
Quote from: Recusant on March 22, 2018, 12:33:28 AM
Hyperbole tends to elicit mockery. However, mockery really isn't a civil response to hyperbole. If neither can contain their impulses (Rift Zone's hyperbole--"terrorizing," really? / Davin's mockery) and instead choose to ratchet this up, the staff will have no choice but to step in.
ETA: Your sniping back hasn't been particularly civil, either.
As Recusant posted in response to Rift Zone above (worth re-posting as a reminder), both Rift Zone and Davin have contributed unnecessarily uncivil responses to this thread. If this continues then the staff will be required to take a more active approach (hopefully not before Davin has had the chance to read this and the quoted post).
What responses of mine were uncivil? I've only ever addressed what was said.
You did, but at least a couple of your responses have been to mock your adversary, such as here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15684.msg370844#msg370844) and here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15684.msg370894#msg370894) and are not conducive to a civil discussion. It does not excuse Rift Zone's replies to you, however.
I don't see how that is uncivil, Rift Zone is literally denying science, so calling a person who is denying science a science denier is merely descriptive.
Feeling sorry for a person and asking them if they think they are a victim of violence in response to an image post referencing violence is uncivil? That doesn't make sense.
I do mock what is said, but I do not mock the person.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 02:20:34 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 02:04:26 PM
I didn't break your argument, it already was broken.
Is that right? And what is the nature of its flaw? or are you just making shit up to suit your vile approach to intellecutal dishonesty?
I see that you missed it, so here it is again:
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 09:20:27 PM
"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."
-Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947
He probably got that impression because structures like NGC 7603, NGC 4319, and many others make it very clear gravitation is a contributing factor to redshift. NASA decided to cover up that fact by doctoring images of NGC 4319 to deny that truth rather than adjust theory to accommodate observation [true story... -ridiculously shady!!!].
While it's difficult to translate these word jumbles into English, this is not a true story. Modern science already accounts for gravitational effects on red shift. NASA "doctors" all their images, that's where the colors come from. They don't get images through the telescopes, they get data. To turn them into images they have to create the images from the data and they throw in colors to make them look more interesting. To call this "doctoring" a cover up is disingenuous at best. And the data is still there if you don't trust the images.
Even when accounting for gravitational effects on red shift, galaxies are still shown to be moving away from each other.
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 03:50:00 PM
I see that you missed it, so here it is again:
You mean the point you raised that was dismissed back in post #68. You appear to have missed it. Or you're arguing things that have been knowing discounted already. I don't know why you even bother. You have done nothing to demonstrate scientific aptitude. every point you raise oozes of juvenile grasp and application of scientific knowledge and approach.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:18:27 PM
Quote from: Magdalena on March 22, 2018, 04:21:52 AM
OK, RZ,
I live in LA so I know exactly what this means:
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:50:50 AM
...oh, no question I didn't play nice with anyone who attacked me. Homie don't play that.
What I don't understand is this:
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:32:04 AM
...The fluff around here is ridiculous enough as it is.
...
What is this, "fluff?" :lol:
Bitching, moaning, bickering... like, most of it. Anything that not a legit attempt to have a legit conversation is fluff.
Well, bitching, moaning, bickering is part of some legit conversations. Nothing wrong with that. I have those with my man sometimes.
We could just do this to you all day:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/eqC2ZT8OCgmas/giphy.gif)
...But where's the fun in that? :grin:
We're not
that bad. Just get to know us, and we'll get to know you...particularly our "writing styles."
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 03:48:26 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 01:36:41 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 02:02:12 AM
Quote from: Recusant on March 22, 2018, 12:33:28 AM
Hyperbole tends to elicit mockery. However, mockery really isn't a civil response to hyperbole. If neither can contain their impulses (Rift Zone's hyperbole--"terrorizing," really? / Davin's mockery) and instead choose to ratchet this up, the staff will have no choice but to step in.
ETA: Your sniping back hasn't been particularly civil, either.
As Recusant posted in response to Rift Zone above (worth re-posting as a reminder), both Rift Zone and Davin have contributed unnecessarily uncivil responses to this thread. If this continues then the staff will be required to take a more active approach (hopefully not before Davin has had the chance to read this and the quoted post).
What responses of mine were uncivil? I've only ever addressed what was said.
You did, but at least a couple of your responses have been to mock your adversary, such as here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15684.msg370844#msg370844) and here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15684.msg370894#msg370894) and are not conducive to a civil discussion. It does not excuse Rift Zone's replies to you, however.
I don't see how that is uncivil, Rift Zone is literally denying science, so calling a person who is denying science a science denier is merely descriptive.
Feeling sorry for a person and asking them if they think they are a victim of violence in response to an image post referencing violence is uncivil? That doesn't make sense.
I do mock what is said, but I do not mock the person.
Davin, sarcasm and mockery is what it comes across as, and while you aren't throwing ad hominems around like Rift Zone is, it does add to the toxicity that is this thread. You are a reasonable guy, I'd just like to ask you to think of the following for a second: do you think it's reasonable to reason with someone who will not be reasoned with? Frankly, this discussion is going no where.
Quote from: Magdalena on March 22, 2018, 04:11:59 PM
We're not that bad. Just get to know us, and we'll get to know you...particularly our "writing styles."
Oh, I know... I wouln't be here at all if I didn't think that. There's hecklers in every crowd.
Davin it's clear to every intellectual present you're doing nothing more than throwing a tantrum. will you please stop already.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
Quote from: Magdalena on March 22, 2018, 04:11:59 PM
We're not that bad. Just get to know us, and we'll get to know you...particularly our "writing styles."
Oh, I know... I wouln't be here at all if I didn't think that. There's hecklers in every crowd.
Davin it's clear to every intellectual present you're doing nothing more than throwing a tantrum. will you please stop already.
But we don't really know you.
What pets do you have?
Or what pets have you had?
If you've never had a pet, why? why?
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 04:04:45 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 03:50:00 PM
I see that you missed it, so here it is again:
You mean the point you raised that was dismissed back in post #68. You appear to have missed it. Or you're arguing things that have been knowing discounted already. I don't know why you even bother. You have done nothing to demonstrate scientific aptitude. every point you raise oozes of juvenile grasp and application of scientific knowledge and approach.
Ok Rift Zone, that's enough.
*** Moderator Red***
Since this discussion has escalated, a cool-down period of 24 hours during which Rift Zone and Davin should refrain from posting anything addressing the other STARTS NOW. If you two continue to address each other during the mandatory cool-down period then further action will be taken.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
Davin it's clear to every intellectual present you're doing nothing more than throwing a tantrum. will you please stop already.
:picard facepalm:
:sad sigh:
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
Davin it's clear to every intellectual present you're doing nothing more than throwing a tantrum. will you please stop already.
You don't speak for me, RZ. If that means I do not qualify as an intellectual in your eyes . . . Well, I think that I can live with that.
Quote from: Dave on March 22, 2018, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
Davin it's clear to every intellectual present you're doing nothing more than throwing a tantrum. will you please stop already.
You don't speak for me, RZ. If that means I do not qualify as an intellectual in your eyes . . . Well, I think that I can live with that.
:this:
Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 22, 2018, 04:27:09 PM
But we don't really know you.
What pets do you have?
Or what pets have you had?
If you've never had a pet, why? why?
I don't personally have any pets now, but the household has a dog and a cat. I tend to be a bit nomadic so my one dog went to auntie sue in less than a year. Had the coolest cat in the world though, all black: Twilight. She could come when I whistled for her, and i could take her on walks, off leash, she'd just follow me, far beyond her home and known territory because we was that close. Her urn is in my presence, I see her now. I also love those little aquatic dwarf african frogs, and often have a tank of them all set up with real wood and live plants. Geckos too! Love those little guys. I'm just a nature lover. In fact, I decorate my spaces like "base camp" I have plants all over the place and I put some of my gear on the walls.
Quote from: Dave on March 22, 2018, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
Davin it's clear to every intellectual present you're doing nothing more than throwing a tantrum. will you please stop already.
You don't speak for me, RZ. If that means I do not qualify as an intellectual in your eyes . . . Well, I think that I can live with that.
My apologies Dave. I'm well aware you're a very bright person. Please forgive me for assuming too much.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 04:14:08 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 03:48:26 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 01:36:41 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 02:02:12 AM
Quote from: Recusant on March 22, 2018, 12:33:28 AM
Hyperbole tends to elicit mockery. However, mockery really isn't a civil response to hyperbole. If neither can contain their impulses (Rift Zone's hyperbole--"terrorizing," really? / Davin's mockery) and instead choose to ratchet this up, the staff will have no choice but to step in.
ETA: Your sniping back hasn't been particularly civil, either.
As Recusant posted in response to Rift Zone above (worth re-posting as a reminder), both Rift Zone and Davin have contributed unnecessarily uncivil responses to this thread. If this continues then the staff will be required to take a more active approach (hopefully not before Davin has had the chance to read this and the quoted post).
What responses of mine were uncivil? I've only ever addressed what was said.
You did, but at least a couple of your responses have been to mock your adversary, such as here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15684.msg370844#msg370844) and here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15684.msg370894#msg370894) and are not conducive to a civil discussion. It does not excuse Rift Zone's replies to you, however.
I don't see how that is uncivil, Rift Zone is literally denying science, so calling a person who is denying science a science denier is merely descriptive.
Feeling sorry for a person and asking them if they think they are a victim of violence in response to an image post referencing violence is uncivil? That doesn't make sense.
I do mock what is said, but I do not mock the person.
Davin, sarcasm and mockery is what it comes across as, and while you aren't throwing ad hominems around like Rift Zone is, it does add to the toxicity that is this thread. You are a reasonable guy, I'd just like to ask you to think of the following for a second: do you think it's reasonable to reason with someone who will not be reasoned with? Frankly, this discussion is going no where.
Yes, and in the meantime since we started discussing this, I refrained from making similar jokes.
Jokes to me, are a reasonably way to make a boring conversation more entertaining. I refrain from making the other person the butt of the joke and I only joke about what was said and/or presented.
Does there need to be a new forum rule, since I am currently following all of them and am still being reprimanded?
Quote from: Magdalena on March 22, 2018, 04:51:43 PM
Quote from: Dave on March 22, 2018, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
Davin it's clear to every intellectual present you're doing nothing more than throwing a tantrum. will you please stop already.
You don't speak for me, RZ. If that means I do not qualify as an intellectual in your eyes . . . Well, I think that I can live with that.
:this:
Yea, you too. Okay, I stand corrected. I rescind that statement.
This place just needs some incense...And a lava lamp or something. A cognac, a cigar, or both.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F78.media.tumblr.com%2F504c4ee7a1b9ad7e42245ca8b2f14d72%2Ftumblr_inline_nqf9u3CNt81r1aqjj_500.gif&hash=a9d7ebfb715352225f4f7287c455579541190b23)
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 05:01:10 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 04:14:08 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 03:48:26 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 01:36:41 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 02:02:12 AM
Quote from: Recusant on March 22, 2018, 12:33:28 AM
Hyperbole tends to elicit mockery. However, mockery really isn't a civil response to hyperbole. If neither can contain their impulses (Rift Zone's hyperbole--"terrorizing," really? / Davin's mockery) and instead choose to ratchet this up, the staff will have no choice but to step in.
ETA: Your sniping back hasn't been particularly civil, either.
As Recusant posted in response to Rift Zone above (worth re-posting as a reminder), both Rift Zone and Davin have contributed unnecessarily uncivil responses to this thread. If this continues then the staff will be required to take a more active approach (hopefully not before Davin has had the chance to read this and the quoted post).
What responses of mine were uncivil? I've only ever addressed what was said.
You did, but at least a couple of your responses have been to mock your adversary, such as here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15684.msg370844#msg370844) and here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15684.msg370894#msg370894) and are not conducive to a civil discussion. It does not excuse Rift Zone's replies to you, however.
I don't see how that is uncivil, Rift Zone is literally denying science, so calling a person who is denying science a science denier is merely descriptive.
Feeling sorry for a person and asking them if they think they are a victim of violence in response to an image post referencing violence is uncivil? That doesn't make sense.
I do mock what is said, but I do not mock the person.
Davin, sarcasm and mockery is what it comes across as, and while you aren't throwing ad hominems around like Rift Zone is, it does add to the toxicity that is this thread. You are a reasonable guy, I'd just like to ask you to think of the following for a second: do you think it's reasonable to reason with someone who will not be reasoned with? Frankly, this discussion is going no where.
Yes, and in the meantime since we started discussing this, I refrained from making similar jokes.
Yes, I noticed. Thank you for refraining from making similar jokes.
QuoteJokes to me, are a reasonably way to make a boring conversation more entertaining. I refrain from making the other person the butt of the joke and I only joke about what was said and/or presented.
You may not have made the other person the butt of the joke but when people are invested in their beliefs it may feel to them like you are attacking them personally and so react accordingly. Maybe it's their problem and not yours.
QuoteDoes there need to be a new forum rule, since I am currently following all of them and am still being reprimanded?
An unwritten rule of civil interaction is that you do not mock something that a person is taking personally or reply in a sarcastic manner, even if they aren't ad hominem attacks, unless you deliberately want to antagonise them. That doesn't excuse Rift Zone's replies, however. If he fails to comply with the conduct guidelines after this cool-off period, then he will start to receive official warnings.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 08:47:16 PM
You may not have made the other person the butt of the joke but when people are invested in their beliefs it may feel to them like you are attacking them personally and so react accordingly. Maybe it's their problem and not yours.
QuoteDoes there need to be a new forum rule, since I am currently following all of them and am still being reprimanded?
An unwritten rule of civil interaction is that you do not mock something that a person is taking personally or reply in a sarcastic manner, even if they aren't ad hominem attacks, unless you deliberately want to antagonise them. That doesn't excuse Rift Zone's replies, however. If he fails to comply with the conduct guidelines after this cool-off period, then he will start to receive official warnings.
For the record, I don't care about that person's behavior. I think they should be evaluated separately. Whether goaded or not, I am still responsible for my behavior. I will try to make the jokes less harmful to fragile people.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 02:31:45 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 09:20:27 PM
"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."
-Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947
He probably got that impression because structures like NGC 7603, NGC 4319, and many others make it very clear gravitation is a contributing factor to redshift. NASA decided to cover up that fact by doctoring images of NGC 4319 to deny that truth rather than adjust theory to accommodate observation [true story... -ridiculously shady!!!].
While it's difficult to translate these word jumbles into English, this is not a true story. Modern science already accounts for gravitational effects on red shift. NASA "doctors" all their images, that's where the colors come from. They don't get images through the telescopes, they get data. To turn them into images they have to create the images from the data and they throw in colors to make them look more interesting. To call this "doctoring" a cover up is disingenuous at best. And the data is still there if you don't trust the images.
Even when accounting for gravitational effects on red shift, galaxies are still shown to be moving away from each other.
the different colors represent different ions.
This is wrong. The different colors represent different wavelengths of light, not ions. You could say "photons" too.
(https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/system/images/images/000/000/037/embed/LIS_SCI_ART_02_Colours_of_light_visible_spectrum_waves_v02.jpg?1491943756)
https://study.com/academy/lesson/light-waves-facts-lesson-for-kids.html
QuoteLight waves are forms of moving energy made of tiny microscopic particles called photons. Scientists usually refer to light waves as electromagnetic waves, because they make up what is known as the electromagnetic spectrum. (The term 'electromagnetic' means the waves are both electric and magnetic.)
Light being a wave is why the doppler effect (as well as a gravitational effect that has been accounted for since 1959), works on it:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.efunda.com%2Fdesignstandards%2Fsensors%2Flaser_doppler%2Fimages%2Flaser_doppler_A.gif&hash=25ecbf7af008ceddeb7fdee4e99c1489000c31af)
Quote from: Rift Zone(ions=plasma)
There are positively charged ions in plasma, but ions are not plasma. There are plenty of ions going about that are not part of plasma. That's a bit like like saying that because there is oxygen in water, that oxygen=water. Or because there are ions in liquid, that ions=liquid.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-an-ion.html
QuoteDefinition of an Ion
Let's recap a few things you probably learned a long time ago. There are 3 subatomic particles that are found in the atoms of an element. They are the positively charged protons, negatively charged electrons, and neutrons, which have no charge. Elements normally have the same number of protons and electrons in each of its atoms. This being the case, the atoms of the elements are neutral, meaning that they don't have a net positive or negative charge.
There are some instances when an atom may have a positive or negative charge. When the atom has a charge, it is now known as an ion. Atoms will pick up or lose electrons, which creates this charge. Electrons move around to reach the goal of having a full outermost shell within the atom in order to be stable.
Or maybe you have some data and/or science to back up your claim that ions=plasma. I'm willing to listen to you if you can provide something other than just you saying it.
Quote from: Davin on March 23, 2018, 05:37:40 PM
This is wrong. The different colors represent different wavelengths of light, not ions. You could say "photons" too.
(https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/system/images/images/000/000/037/embed/LIS_SCI_ART_02_Colours_of_light_visible_spectrum_waves_v02.jpg?1491943756)
Davin, try not blindly lashing out at things you don't understand. Now it's perfectly cool (you don't look like an ass) if you say ions? wtf? But wrong? is it? no Davin, it's not wrong. Many of the pictures you see of space objects area composite image that get different colors for different reasons. Now work with me here Davin... The reason we have different colors in professional/NASA style images is because we have filters that look for light produced by electrons jumping from one orbit to another. "H-alpha" is one very commonly recorded jump. Anyway, all those jumps mean the elements are in ion state. and one ion is not a plasma, but three ions is a plasma.
Quote from: Davin on March 23, 2018, 05:37:40 PM
https://study.com/academy/lesson/light-waves-facts-lesson-for-kids.html
QuoteLight waves are forms of moving energy made of tiny microscopic particles called photons. Scientists usually refer to light waves as electromagnetic waves, because they make up what is known as the electromagnetic spectrum. (The term 'electromagnetic' means the waves are both electric and magnetic.)
Light being a wave is why the doppler effect (as well as a gravitational effect that has been accounted for since 1959), works on it:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.efunda.com%2Fdesignstandards%2Fsensors%2Flaser_doppler%2Fimages%2Flaser_doppler_A.gif&hash=25ecbf7af008ceddeb7fdee4e99c1489000c31af)
yea sure! I'm with you on that... I don't see any point of contention there.
Quote from: Davin on March 23, 2018, 05:37:40 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone(ions=plasma)
There are positively charged ions in plasma, but ions are not plasma. There are plenty of ions going about that are not part of plasma. That's a bit like like saying that because there is oxygen in water, that oxygen=water. Or because there are ions in liquid, that ions=liquid.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-an-ion.html
QuoteDefinition of an Ion
Let's recap a few things you probably learned a long time ago. There are 3 subatomic particles that are found in the atoms of an element. They are the positively charged protons, negatively charged electrons, and neutrons, which have no charge. Elements normally have the same number of protons and electrons in each of its atoms. This being the case, the atoms of the elements are neutral, meaning that they don't have a net positive or negative charge.
There are some instances when an atom may have a positive or negative charge. When the atom has a charge, it is now known as an ion. Atoms will pick up or lose electrons, which creates this charge. Electrons move around to reach the goal of having a full outermost shell within the atom in order to be stable.
Or maybe you have some data and/or science to back up your claim that ions=plasma. I'm willing to listen to you if you can provide something other than just you saying it.
A few ions in mutual association is a plasma. Plasma is defined as hot, ionized, electrically conducting gasses.
RZ, are you equating
QuoteA few ions in mutual association is a plasma.
with 99+% of the universe?
I am guessing that you will not get far in space without encountering, or being encounted by, an ion - but how many per cubic metre I wonder? 0.999m
3 solid worth?
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 08:53:41 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 23, 2018, 05:37:40 PM
This is wrong. The different colors represent different wavelengths of light, not ions. You could say "photons" too.
(https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/system/images/images/000/000/037/embed/LIS_SCI_ART_02_Colours_of_light_visible_spectrum_waves_v02.jpg?1491943756)
Davin, try not blindly lashing out at things you don't understand. Now it's perfectly cool (you don't look like an ass) if you say ions? wtf? But wrong? is it? no Davin, it's not wrong. Many of the pictures you see of space objects area composite image that get different colors for different reasons. Now work with me here Davin... The reason we have different colors in professional/NASA style images is because we have filters that look for light produced by electrons jumping from one orbit to another. "H-alpha" is one very commonly recorded jump. Anyway, all those jumps mean the elements are in ion state. and one ion is not a plasma, but three ions is a plasma.
You can try to be as condescending as you want to me, I don't care. xSP seems to care though, so for the sake of the forum I recommend you stop.
No, the reason we have colors in images from NASA is because they put them in. Otherwise they'd just be gray scale images. H-Alpha barely describes one specific wavelength of light (not the only thing that that wavelength could be), let alone is it or the same effect that produces it the reason why we get all the other wavelengths of light. For instance, we get light coming from things that have no hydrogen let alone light coming from hydrogen coming from when hydrogen electron falls to it's second lowest level.
Three ions make plasma? You're going to have to demonstrate that.
Here's a picture of ionic liquid (note that a liquid is a different state of matter than plasma). How many ions would you say are in that? I bet there's more than three ions.
(https://i.imgur.com/hITzreg.gif)
Quote from: Rift Zone
Quote from: Davin on March 23, 2018, 05:37:40 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone(ions=plasma)
There are positively charged ions in plasma, but ions are not plasma. There are plenty of ions going about that are not part of plasma. That's a bit like like saying that because there is oxygen in water, that oxygen=water. Or because there are ions in liquid, that ions=liquid.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-an-ion.html
QuoteDefinition of an Ion
Let's recap a few things you probably learned a long time ago. There are 3 subatomic particles that are found in the atoms of an element. They are the positively charged protons, negatively charged electrons, and neutrons, which have no charge. Elements normally have the same number of protons and electrons in each of its atoms. This being the case, the atoms of the elements are neutral, meaning that they don't have a net positive or negative charge.
There are some instances when an atom may have a positive or negative charge. When the atom has a charge, it is now known as an ion. Atoms will pick up or lose electrons, which creates this charge. Electrons move around to reach the goal of having a full outermost shell within the atom in order to be stable.
Or maybe you have some data and/or science to back up your claim that ions=plasma. I'm willing to listen to you if you can provide something other than just you saying it.
A few ions in mutual association is a plasma. Plasma is defined as hot, ionized, electrically conducting gasses.
Yes, that is how plasma is defined, however that doesn't mean that all ions=plasma. I means that plasma has ions. Which is already corrected above:
"That's a bit like like saying that because there is oxygen in water, that oxygen=water. Or because there are ions in liquid, that ions=liquid"
I began to think that a qualification was missing somewhere in terms of this ion busibess, wondered if it might be "matter".
Took a look, found this:
QuoteThe plasma universe
It is estimated that 99% of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state...hence the expression "plasma universe." (The phrase "observable universe" is an important qualifier: roughly 90% of the mass of the universe is thought to be contained in "dark matter," the composition and state of which are unknown.) Stars, stellar and extragalactic jets, and the interstellar medium are examples of astrophysical plasmas (see figure). In our solar system, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, the magnetospheres and/or ionospheres of the Earth and other planets, as well as the ionospheres of comets and certain planetary moons all consist of plasmas.
[ more]
http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/plasma2.html
Quote from: Dave on March 23, 2018, 09:10:25 PM
RZ, are you equating QuoteA few ions in mutual association is a plasma.
with 99+% of the universe?
I am guessing that you will not get far in space without encountering, or being encounted by, an ion - but how many per cubic metre I wonder? 0.999m3 solid worth?
I hope we're both in agreement that was a statement about what constitutes we find within the universe, not a statement of its density. Stars are plasma. Thus, irrespective of the planets, 99+% of our solar system is plasma. Galaxies are plasma, the filaments between galaxies are plasma, the large scale web structure of the universe is plasma. Yea man, most of this universe is plasma, by far.
Davin, the colors we get in NASA images come from H alpha and a host of different signatures that arise from electrons changing valence states. They're looking at ions, different signatures from different ions.
I didnt attack anyone i made a comment pertaining to making sport of fools. If you feel personally attacked it's only because you identify with the target group.
Plasma is a state of matter. You're right, 3 ions don't necessarily make a plasma, it's all about how they're interacting.
Quote from: Dave on March 23, 2018, 09:35:49 PM
I began to think that a qualification was missing somewhere in terms of this ion busibess, wondered if it might be "matter".
Took a look, found this:
QuoteThe plasma universe
It is estimated that 99% of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state...hence the expression "plasma universe." (The phrase "observable universe" is an important qualifier: roughly 90% of the mass of the universe is thought to be contained in "dark matter," the composition and state of which are unknown.) Stars, stellar and extragalactic jets, and the interstellar medium are examples of astrophysical plasmas (see figure). In our solar system, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, the magnetospheres and/or ionospheres of the Earth and other planets, as well as the ionospheres of comets and certain planetary moons all consist of plasmas.
[ more]
http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/plasma2.html
for the purposes of this discussion, unless contested, dark energy and dark matter have been discounted, leaving only observable matter, of which 99.999+% is in plasma state.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 09:50:04 PM
Quote from: Dave on March 23, 2018, 09:35:49 PM
I began to think that a qualification was missing somewhere in terms of this ion busibess, wondered if it might be "matter".
Took a look, found this:
QuoteThe plasma universe
It is estimated that 99% of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state...hence the expression "plasma universe." (The phrase "observable universe" is an important qualifier: roughly 90% of the mass of the universe is thought to be contained in "dark matter," the composition and state of which are unknown.) Stars, stellar and extragalactic jets, and the interstellar medium are examples of astrophysical plasmas (see figure). In our solar system, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, the magnetospheres and/or ionospheres of the Earth and other planets, as well as the ionospheres of comets and certain planetary moons all consist of plasmas.
[ more]
http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/plasma2.html
for the purposes of this discussion, unless contested, dark energy and dark matter have been discounted, leaving only observable matter, of which 99.999+% is in plasma state.
Please refresh my memory, was your earlier claim, "99.999+% of the universe..." or, "99.999+% of the matter in the observable universe..." ? Ignore the question of dark matter for the moment if you please.
Bit late at night for my eyes to go trawling thtough the whole thread.
Later:
Never mind, I think that I have found an early version of your claim:
QuoteOh hell no!
This universe is 99.999+% plasma, the primary state of matter. We, and our largely liquid, gaseous, and solid states realm, are an anomaly in the universe. So naturally, there are countless phenomenon in the cosmos that are related to plasma and plasma physics. But you know what? You can't publish celestially applicable plasma physics works in astronomical, astrophysical, or cosmological journals. With rare exception, you cant even say "plasma" in them; the closest any dare tread is "filament" -which is a decidedly plasma phenomenon. Um, say what? -you shady little bastards! So I've decided I'm gonna submit it to the plasma journals. It will be known in plasma circles first. Of course the buzz is certain to hit BBT theorists before too long. ...and they will have to pick up something that lives and breathes plasma physics to know what the universe is really all about. And in that way I will have my revenge on the shady elements of modern science.
My bold.
I think that you meant "observable universe" but the sloppiness of your wording led some, myself included, think you meant the
whole universe. I should have psid more attention to the implications of the following sentence once I had got over my surprise at the first!
Care and precision in presentation is as important as that in measurement. One missing word can change the meaning radically and lose you lots of kudos.
Quote from: Davin on March 23, 2018, 09:18:46 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 08:53:41 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 23, 2018, 05:37:40 PM
This is wrong. The different colors represent different wavelengths of light, not ions. You could say "photons" too.
(https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/system/images/images/000/000/037/embed/LIS_SCI_ART_02_Colours_of_light_visible_spectrum_waves_v02.jpg?1491943756)
Davin, try not blindly lashing out at things you don't understand. Now it's perfectly cool (you don't look like an ass) if you say ions? wtf? But wrong? is it? no Davin, it's not wrong. Many of the pictures you see of space objects area composite image that get different colors for different reasons. Now work with me here Davin... The reason we have different colors in professional/NASA style images is because ...
You can try to be as condescending as you want to me, I don't care. xSP seems to care though, so for the sake of the forum I recommend you stop.
...
RZ, I'm watching you.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/X5Xt1NdG7K61G/200w.gif)
Quote from: Dave on March 23, 2018, 10:02:24 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 09:50:04 PM
Quote from: Dave on March 23, 2018, 09:35:49 PM
I began to think that a qualification was missing somewhere in terms of this ion busibess, wondered if it might be "matter".
Took a look, found this:
QuoteThe plasma universe
It is estimated that 99% of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state...hence the expression "plasma universe." (The phrase "observable universe" is an important qualifier: roughly 90% of the mass of the universe is thought to be contained in "dark matter," the composition and state of which are unknown.) Stars, stellar and extragalactic jets, and the interstellar medium are examples of astrophysical plasmas (see figure). In our solar system, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, the magnetospheres and/or ionospheres of the Earth and other planets, as well as the ionospheres of comets and certain planetary moons all consist of plasmas.
[ more]
http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/plasma2.html
for the purposes of this discussion, unless contested, dark energy and dark matter have been discounted, leaving only observable matter, of which 99.999+% is in plasma state.
Please refresh my memory, was your earlier claim, "99.999+% of the universe..." or, "99.999+% of the matter in the observable universe..." ? Ignore the question of dark matter for the moment if you please.
Bit late at night for my eyes to go trawling thtough the whole thread.
My initial claim was pertaining to the state of observable matter in the universe. Sorry for the ambiguity, I was hoping the next line in the intial statement pertaining to the rest of the matter being in solid, gaseous, and liquid states would firmly establish context. Then there's the fact stars are plasma. Thus, irrespective of the planets, 99+% of our solar system is plasma. Galaxies are plasma, the filaments between galaxies are plasma, the large scale web structure of the universe is plasma... The initial claim checks out.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 10:07:49 PM
Quote from: Dave on March 23, 2018, 10:02:24 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 09:50:04 PM
Quote from: Dave on March 23, 2018, 09:35:49 PM
I began to think that a qualification was missing somewhere in terms of this ion busibess, wondered if it might be "matter".
Took a look, found this:
QuoteThe plasma universe
It is estimated that 99% of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state...hence the expression "plasma universe." (The phrase "observable universe" is an important qualifier: roughly 90% of the mass of the universe is thought to be contained in "dark matter," the composition and state of which are unknown.) Stars, stellar and extragalactic jets, and the interstellar medium are examples of astrophysical plasmas (see figure). In our solar system, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, the magnetospheres and/or ionospheres of the Earth and other planets, as well as the ionospheres of comets and certain planetary moons all consist of plasmas.
[ more]
http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/plasma2.html
for the purposes of this discussion, unless contested, dark energy and dark matter have been discounted, leaving only observable matter, of which 99.999+% is in plasma state.
Please refresh my memory, was your earlier claim, "99.999+% of the universe..." or, "99.999+% of the matter in the observable universe..." ? Ignore the question of dark matter for the moment if you please.
Bit late at night for my eyes to go trawling thtough the whole thread.
My initial claim was pertaining to the state of observable matter in the universe. Sorry for the ambiguity, I was hoping the next line in the intial statement pertaining to the rest of the matter being in solid, gaseous, and liquid states would firmly establish context. Then there's the fact stars are plasma. Thus, irrespective of the planets, 99+% of our solar system is plasma. Galaxies are plasma, the filaments between galaxies are plasma, the large scale web structure of the universe is plasma... The initial claim checks out.
Repeating a later addition to sn earlier post of mine:
Quoting an early post by you:
QuoteOh hell no!
This universe is 99.999+% plasma, the primary state of matter. We, and our largely liquid, gaseous, and solid states realm, are an anomaly in the universe. So naturally, there are countless phenomenon in the cosmos that are related to plasma and plasma physics. But you know what? You can't publish celestially applicable plasma physics works in astronomical, astrophysical, or cosmological journals. With rare exception, you cant even say "plasma" in them; the closest any dare tread is "filament" -which is a decidedly plasma phenomenon. Um, say what? -you shady little bastards! So I've decided I'm gonna submit it to the plasma journals. It will be known in plasma circles first. Of course the buzz is certain to hit BBT theorists before too long. ...and they will have to pick up something that lives and breathes plasma physics to know what the universe is really all about. And in that way I will have my revenge on the shady elements of modern science.
My bold.
I think that you meant "observable universe" but the sloppiness of your wording led some, myself included, think you meant the whole universe. I should have psid more attention to the implications of the following sentence once I had got over my surprise at the first!
Quote from: Dave on March 23, 2018, 10:27:53 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 10:07:49 PM
Quote from: Dave on March 23, 2018, 10:02:24 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 09:50:04 PM
Quote from: Dave on March 23, 2018, 09:35:49 PM
I began to think that a qualification was missing somewhere in terms of this ion busibess, wondered if it might be "matter".
Took a look, found this:
QuoteThe plasma universe
It is estimated that 99% of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state...hence the expression "plasma universe." (The phrase "observable universe" is an important qualifier: roughly 90% of the mass of the universe is thought to be contained in "dark matter," the composition and state of which are unknown.) Stars, stellar and extragalactic jets, and the interstellar medium are examples of astrophysical plasmas (see figure). In our solar system, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, the magnetospheres and/or ionospheres of the Earth and other planets, as well as the ionospheres of comets and certain planetary moons all consist of plasmas.
[ more]
http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/plasma2.html
for the purposes of this discussion, unless contested, dark energy and dark matter have been discounted, leaving only observable matter, of which 99.999+% is in plasma state.
Please refresh my memory, was your earlier claim, "99.999+% of the universe..." or, "99.999+% of the matter in the observable universe..." ? Ignore the question of dark matter for the moment if you please.
Bit late at night for my eyes to go trawling thtough the whole thread.
My initial claim was pertaining to the state of observable matter in the universe. Sorry for the ambiguity, I was hoping the next line in the intial statement pertaining to the rest of the matter being in solid, gaseous, and liquid states would firmly establish context. Then there's the fact stars are plasma. Thus, irrespective of the planets, 99+% of our solar system is plasma. Galaxies are plasma, the filaments between galaxies are plasma, the large scale web structure of the universe is plasma... The initial claim checks out.
Repeating a later addition to sn earlier post of mine:
Quoting an early post by you:
QuoteOh hell no!
This universe is 99.999+% plasma, the primary state of matter. We, and our largely liquid, gaseous, and solid states realm, are an anomaly in the universe. So naturally, there are countless phenomenon in the cosmos that are related to plasma and plasma physics. But you know what? You can't publish celestially applicable plasma physics works in astronomical, astrophysical, or cosmological journals. With rare exception, you cant even say "plasma" in them; the closest any dare tread is "filament" -which is a decidedly plasma phenomenon. Um, say what? -you shady little bastards! So I've decided I'm gonna submit it to the plasma journals. It will be known in plasma circles first. Of course the buzz is certain to hit BBT theorists before too long. ...and they will have to pick up something that lives and breathes plasma physics to know what the universe is really all about. And in that way I will have my revenge on the shady elements of modern science.
My bold.
I think that you meant "observable universe" but the sloppiness of your wording led some, myself included, think you meant the whole universe. I should have psid more attention to the implications of the following sentence once I had got over my surprise at the first!
Fair argument, though,,, It was a determination of what everything in the universe is made of. As noted above, the context was established through identifying the remaining ~.001% as solid, liquid, and gas. The initial statement even identified plasma as the primary
state of matter. But it means more than "observable universe", because that's only supposed to be like 4% if all the "stuff" that's out there. since we've dispensed with darkwhateverthefucks that statement was really trying to say 99.999+ of all stuff out there period is plasma. There is nothing else. Sorry for my lack of eloquence! how we approach language more or less amount to human laws, and I have a tendency to break human law in my quest to know nature/natural law. I'll try to be more succinct in the future.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 09:44:58 PM
..
I didnt attack anyone i made a comment pertaining to making sport of fools. ...
Come on! By implicatin that is a personal attack on anybody here who disagrees with your view. And therefore breaks the civility rules of the forum. I know arguing with Davin is like trying to scratch haemorrhoids, which is why I can't be bothered to engauge with him in debate anymore. Just add him to your ignore list and you won't see his comments anymore. Problem solved.
Rift Zone, had you been more accurate in your use of English regarding plasma then 75% or more of this thread would probably not have happened.
I say "probably" because I agree with Tank regarding arguing with our Davin. Chances are Davin would have found something else to chew on!
You will have to qualify your arguments precisely, offering unassailable evidence, to get anyone with a brain to accrpt it. Wish you luck, you have work to do.
RZ, when you first started on HAF, I was pleased that we seemed to have a physicist in our midst. You may recall I asked you about the proton radius problem. I was looking forward to some interesting discussions about the new frontiers of physics. Tank will tell you that he and I spent a pleasant afternoon a couple of years ago in his front room discussing the possibility of a new revolution in physics. This is something that interests me greatly. Unfortunately you then decided to launch several long, meandering rants denouncing much of modern physics and expounding at length about how smart you are and proclaiming your new revolutionary theories, except you steadfastly refuse to explain exactly what your new theories are, nor to present any actual evidence in support of those theories. Instead you embarked on what looks exactly the same as the mindless rantings of any everyday fundamentalist/creationist who claims to know The Truth™, using much the same approach as used by IDers: denigrate the opposition, claim to have found holes in the accepted theory, claim their idea answers all the questions totally without the slightest bit of evidence. Many of us on this site have a lot of experience dealing with this sort of approach. I have stayed largely away from your threads until I was sure of what sort of editor you would prove to be. You have shown your colours and I am unimpressed. Instead of shedding some light on the great mysteries of the universe, your arguments are rather pedestrian self aggrandisement and without the slightest bit of intellectual rigour. They are big on telling us all how good they are, but very thin on actual substantive content.
Quote from: Tank on March 24, 2018, 07:42:36 AM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 09:44:58 PM
..
I didnt attack anyone i made a comment pertaining to making sport of fools. ...
Come on! By implicatin that is a personal attack on anybody here who disagrees with your view. And therefore breaks the civility rules of the forum. I know arguing with Davin is like trying to scratch haemorrhoids, which is why I can't be bothered to engauge with him in debate anymore. Just add him to your ignore list and you won't see his comments anymore. Problem solved.
We can disagree while remaining civil and adhering to code of conduct becoming of ladies and gentlemen. I've never got anywhere near attacking someone for merely disagreeing with my view and my record shows exactly that. The record shows the only ones I've made sport of attacked me first, and would have never been subjected to it if they just left me the fuck alone.
Quote from: Dave on March 24, 2018, 08:44:31 AM
Rift Zone, had you been more accurate in your use of English regarding plasma then 75% or more of this thread would probably not have happened.
I say "probably" because I agree with Tank regarding arguing with our Davin. Chances are Davin would have found something else to chew on!
You will have to qualify your arguments precisely, offering unassailable evidence, to get anyone with a brain to accrpt it. Wish you luck, you have work to do.
lol you want to blame that on me? it cant be cuz you guys are vile people That's awefully thin Dave. taking cues from the US Prez? That is really pathetic that of all my text that is the one place you guys focus on. It betrays the precarious stance of my opposition.
Davin is getting his butt handed to him. He'll see more of that if he persists.
Quote from: Bluenose on March 24, 2018, 10:15:18 AM
RZ, when you first started on HAF, I was pleased that we seemed to have a physicist in our midst. You may recall I asked you about the proton radius problem. I was looking forward to some interesting discussions about the new frontiers of physics. Tank will tell you that he and I spent a pleasant afternoon a couple of years ago in his front room discussing the possibility of a new revolution in physics. This is something that interests me greatly. Unfortunately you then decided to launch several long, meandering rants denouncing much of modern physics and expounding at length about how smart you are and proclaiming your new revolutionary theories, except you steadfastly refuse to explain exactly what your new theories are, nor to present any actual evidence in support of those theories. Instead you embarked on what looks exactly the same as the mindless rantings of any everyday fundamentalist/creationist who claims to know The Truth™, using much the same approach as used by IDers: denigrate the opposition, claim to have found holes in the accepted theory, claim their idea answers all the questions totally without the slightest bit of evidence. Many of us on this site have a lot of experience dealing with this sort of approach. I have stayed largely away from your threads until I was sure of what sort of editor you would prove to be. You have shown your colours and I am unimpressed. Instead of shedding some light on the great mysteries of the universe, your arguments are rather pedestrian self aggrandisement and without the slightest bit of intellectual rigour. They are big on telling us all how good they are, but very thin on actual substantive content.
Do you think your whiny opinion of me or your bullshit assessment of the situation changes anything? If you could evaluate the situation independent of troglodytes, you'd see there is scientific merit to what I say, and you're full of shit and you know. Refuse to explain? SMH. Let's make this very clear: genius doesn't care what linear thinkers think. You don't have the capacity to know what I'm capable of, much less the capacity to reformat your entire understanding of the universe in your mind all at once, as Nova asks you to do. So if you want explanation, ask for it. if you want to bitch, think very carefully about Newton, Einstein, Tesla and the like, cuz you matter as much to me as you would to them. I mean block me already, throw it in the pseudo-section, stop with the drama queen stuff and just discount my science already if it as much crap as you say, maybe even ask a question so you can actually know more about WTF is going on, or stay the fuck out of my way, but don't think you're actually accomplishing anything with a rant.
Rift Zone, I care about keeping the peace here, so I asked Davin to refrain from mocking you, which he did, and asked you to exert some more self-control in your responses, which you failed to do and show no indication of doing in the future. By attacking other members you are effectively breaking the rules of this site.
Therefore, consider this your first official warning.
It's a pity...whether you're crazy, a genius, or something else, I believe you could contribute some interesting topics to this forum.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 24, 2018, 01:04:10 PM
Rift Zone, I care about keeping the peace here, so I asked Davin to refrain from mocking you, which he did, and asked you to exert some more self-control in your responses, which you failed to do and show no indication of doing in the future. By attacking other members you are effectively breaking the rules of this site.
Therefore, consider this your first official warning.
It's a pity...whether you're crazy, a genius, or something else, I believe you could contribute some interesting topics to this forum.
Yes, ma'am.
Hopefully this is the victory my fans have been looking for. I'm not all that? -that's right, i'm not all that. I'm merely mother nature's bitch; that's all I am. But now you will have to take it up with her! I like that line about present legit conflicting science or be coddled; probably spam that.
So.... you know the way this thread played out is tied to spirituality, right? Science kinda is a religious equivalent for atheists. As explained elsewhere, what we find there gets bound to identity. Now, if we were really fair about the situation, we might see most of the interaction was not as "sciency" as it was purported to be. Also, take Archaic Crust Theory, for instance, it's a dead thread because it's a fairly insignificant thing. But challenge the most cherished, literally, theories of the modern age, and people get real funny about it, specially atheists, because it ties them to the universe, so they tie themselves to it. Which is why there's barely ever a rational discussion when raising these notions. -hard for atheists to reformat that, just like believers. anyway, jus sayn.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 24, 2018, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: Bluenose on March 24, 2018, 10:15:18 AM
RZ, when you first started on HAF, I was pleased that we seemed to have a physicist in our midst. You may recall I asked you about the proton radius problem. I was looking forward to some interesting discussions about the new frontiers of physics. Tank will tell you that he and I spent a pleasant afternoon a couple of years ago in his front room discussing the possibility of a new revolution in physics. This is something that interests me greatly. Unfortunately you then decided to launch several long, meandering rants denouncing much of modern physics and expounding at length about how smart you are and proclaiming your new revolutionary theories, except you steadfastly refuse to explain exactly what your new theories are, nor to present any actual evidence in support of those theories. Instead you embarked on what looks exactly the same as the mindless rantings of any everyday fundamentalist/creationist who claims to know The Truth™, using much the same approach as used by IDers: denigrate the opposition, claim to have found holes in the accepted theory, claim their idea answers all the questions totally without the slightest bit of evidence. Many of us on this site have a lot of experience dealing with this sort of approach. I have stayed largely away from your threads until I was sure of what sort of editor you would prove to be. You have shown your colours and I am unimpressed. Instead of shedding some light on the great mysteries of the universe, your arguments are rather pedestrian self aggrandisement and without the slightest bit of intellectual rigour. They are big on telling us all how good they are, but very thin on actual substantive content.
Do you think your whiny opinion of me or your bullshit assessment of the situation changes anything? If you could evaluate the situation independent of troglodytes, you'd see there is scientific merit to what I say, and you're full of shit and you know. Refuse to explain? SMH. Let's make this very clear: genius doesn't care what linear thinkers think. You don't have the capacity to know what I'm capable of, much less the capacity to reformat your entire understanding of the universe in your mind all at once, as Nova asks you to do. So if you want explanation, ask for it. if you want to bitch, think very carefully about Newton, Einstein, Tesla and the like, cuz you matter as much to me as you would to them. I mean block me already, throw it in the pseudo-section, stop with the drama queen stuff and just discount my science already if it as much crap as you say, maybe even ask a question so you can actually know more about WTF is going on, or stay the fuck out of my way, but don't think you're actually accomplishing anything with a rant.
I tried very hard to avoid making any sort of personal attack. Generally Australians only bother to insult people they like, so meh....
However, it would seem that you do not feel so constrained and you have been appropriately admonished for it. Fine. Now, can we get away from the self praise and dismissive comments about other contributors here? I have already asked you for an explanation, but perhaps my words were not clear enough, so please tell us what exactly are you talking about. You say you have a new revolution in physics, well show us. What evidence that disproves the current theories do you have? How is your hypothesis a better explanation? In what way does Occam's razor apply to your ideas? It is not sufficient for you to simply say it is so, you need to back your comments up. You need to demonstrate that you are correct, not just assert it.
Quote from: Bluenose on March 25, 2018, 12:08:41 AM
I tried very hard to avoid making any sort of personal attack. Generally Australians only bother to insult people they like, so meh....
However, it would seem that you do not feel so constrained and you have been appropriately admonished for it. Fine. Now, can we get away from the self praise and dismissive comments about other contributors here? I have already asked you for an explanation, but perhaps my words were not clear enough, so please tell us what exactly are you talking about. You say you have a new revolution in physics, well show us. What evidence that disproves the current theories do you have? How is your hypothesis a better explanation? In what way does Occam's razor apply to your ideas? It is not sufficient for you to simply say it is so, you need to back your comments up. You need to demonstrate that you are correct, not just assert it.
The OP of the Nova and Time threads would be pertinent examples of what I'm talking about. For civil discussion, I prefer leaving what I have at "more comprehensive and aligns with observation better" than the things it challenges; that's descriptive enough. the Nova thread outlines the evidence for that one. I suggest we start there and deal with Time later. Occam's razor cuts dark matter and dark energy from the universe in Nova.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 25, 2018, 02:39:10 AM
The OP of the Nova and Time threads would be pertinent examples of what I'm talking about. For civil discussion, I prefer leaving what I have at "more comprehensive and aligns with observation better" than the things it challenges; that's descriptive enough. the Nova thread outlines the evidence for that one. I suggest we start there and deal with Time later. Occam's razor cuts dark matter and dark energy from the universe in Nova.
So, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and I went back and re-read your first post in the nova thread. What did I find? Assertion after assertion. Many times you claim the existing theories fail, but other than your bare claim, you do not provide any evidence in supportt. Instead, you assume your interpretation is correct and then use this assumption to underpin your entire argument. This is known in the logic racket as begging the question. As a result, your entire post is really indistinguishable from gibberish. You seem to believe that you are the only person intelligent enough to understand what you are saying. I offer an alternative explanation, the reason no one "understands" your ideas is because they are nonsense. Other people are not stupid just because they do not agree with you. What you are effectively saying is that the whole corpus of modern scientific thought WRT physics is wrong and you, alone, are right. I recommend you consider the Dunning-Kruger effect and how it might apply to arm-chair "physicists" seeking to overturn the last couple of centuries of work, by the greatest minds of the time, simply by saying it is so.
Quote from: Bluenose on March 25, 2018, 04:07:19 AM
I recommend you consider the Dunning-Kruger effect and how it might apply to arm-chair "physicists" seeking to overturn the last couple of centuries of work by the greatest minds of the time simply by saying it is so.
The Dunning-Kruger effect sounds like a plausible diagnosis in this case.
Cool, you guys can get over it then. Apparently my science is worthless so yours faces no threat and you can rest assured your understanding of the cosmos will stand for all time.
besides, I only got to talking about science to show you spirituality exists within you. ...that you seem to have emotional investment in all this, even though it's not your field, magnitudes beyond your level of concern for bits of information not pertaining to your being.
I officially concede the science discussion. I concede all my points to my adept victors, congratulations on your victory.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 24, 2018, 01:50:05 PM
Science kinda is a religious equivalent for atheists.
No. It's not. Science is science. Science is not in any way a religion.
Quote from: Dave on March 24, 2018, 08:44:31 AM
Chances are Davin would have found something else to chew on!
Yeah, there were a lot of things Rift Zone said that was wrong, I decided to limit what I addressed to a few at a time.
Not surprising to see you here Davin... I kinda figured your sportsmanship would be on par with your science. Congratulations on your victory!
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 26, 2018, 06:01:25 PM
Not surprising to see you here Davin...[...]
It's not surprising to anyone who has noticed that my posting habits exclude nights and weekends.