Nova! -the end of black hole/singularity fantasy:

[Rift Zone]

Then why do all the bolstering bullshit?

man, I'm just some fuck, floating through the cosmos, who'd like to know what it's all about, just like all of us, it's our nature.   I'm simply sharing some of my notes with you: that's what I see.   You don't like it?   cool, I'm down with that.   Notions are supposed to be treated with hostility (unless you cant break em).   We, as a species, should be ripping everything we think we know a new one all the time.   So by all means, take these notions and beat the living fuck out of them... I want you to.    However, we're gonna have a problem if someone fucks with me personally.   Engaging in psychological warfare with the guy who's gonna bring down religion, the biggest mind fuck of them all is probably not a good idea.   You guys might want to be careful with that shit, someone's feelings could get hurt.   You mind your manners, and we're friends.   

The value of a person is not measured by the gifts they've been given, it's what they do with their gifts that counts.   It's what you leave in your wake.  If where you've been has been graced by your presence because you've left nothing but beauty, wisdom, joy, intrigue, and empowerment, then you have a beautiful soul (defined non-dualistically) and your value as a person is uncontested.  Leave ignorance, fear, pain, misery, and feelings of inferiority behind, then you are a reprehensible piece of shit.   

So, even if I was some kind of elite intellectual, it don't mean shit.   What does matter is I can be a dick in a big way if you fuck with me; so no, I'm no better than anyone at all.  In fact, many of you could be up for my vote on who has the better quality of being between us.   So, whatever, I'll get over being the lesser being, can we be friends anyway?   But if you want to put someone in their place, I'm gonna let you know just how far out of your league you really are.   

Yeah, that's how it works. Instead of some one just pretending to know things and baselessly claiming things, science is way to actually see things.

Take a look man...   What do you see?

[Davin]

Then why do all the bolstering bullshit?

man, I'm just some fuck, floating through the cosmos[...]So, even if I was some kind of elite intellectual, it don't mean shit.[...]

Are my questions too difficult for you? Why add in all the self bolstering bullshit even when you admit that it doesn't matter?

Yeah, that's how it works. Instead of some one just pretending to know things and baselessly claiming things, science is way to actually see things.

Take a look man...   What do you see?

I see you spouting bullshit trying to make it sound profound. Also known as "woo."

[Rift Zone]

So it's like that, huh?   As you wish. 

You've got your answers.   What I'd be concerned with is who's leading this dance.   

[Davin]

So it's like that, huh?   As you wish. 

You've got your answers.   What I'd be concerned with is who's leading this dance.

Actually, I didn't get my answers because you didn't answer, you avoided answering.

You should be concerned with who's leading your dance. Very concerned. If you can't track your beliefs to sources that aren't just a person's say so (including your own), then you should be deeply concerned.

[Rift Zone]

Actually, I didn't get my answers because you didn't answer, you avoided answering.

You should be concerned with who's leading your dance. Very concerned. If you can't track your beliefs to sources that aren't just a person's say so (including your own), then you should be deeply concerned.

oh yes, I'm mortified...   Perhaps I missed something here...    You should probably re-phrase your question!  -precisely what would you like me to psychoanalyze for you?   

[Tank]

Actually, I didn't get my answers because you didn't answer, you avoided answering.

You should be concerned with who's leading your dance. Very concerned. If you can't track your beliefs to sources that aren't just a person's say so (including your own), then you should be deeply concerned.

oh yes, I'm mortified...   Perhaps I missed something here...    You should probably re-phrase your question!  -precisely what would you like me to psychoanalyze for you?

Why don't you just answer Davin's questions? They are not unreasonable.

[Davin]

Actually, I didn't get my answers because you didn't answer, you avoided answering.

You should be concerned with who's leading your dance. Very concerned. If you can't track your beliefs to sources that aren't just a person's say so (including your own), then you should be deeply concerned.

oh yes, I'm mortified...   Perhaps I missed something here...    You should probably re-phrase your question!

I asked you already if my question was too difficult for you, you could have answered then. I'll try my best to simplify my already simple questions for you:
You claimed that the universe was made up of 99.999+% of plasma contrary to all astronomical observations (one could even say that astronomical observations would be impossible if it were true), I asked you to back that claim up.
Why add in all the self bolstering bullshit even when you admit that it doesn't matter?

-precisely what would you like me to psychoanalyze for you?

Why precisely nothing. I have absolutely no faith in your analytical abilities, let alone psychoanalysis. Besides, all who have tried prove out wrong.

Looks like I missed a post too, as useless as it is.

[You can't both say that a concept is arbitrary and that it fits with other concepts. That you got lost in that simple bit of logic isn't a great sign.

If you read the theories and hypothesis' that you are attacking, then you would already know why they present the concepts and what those concepts are meant to answer. That you don't know of which you are criticizing, means that there is no reason to take your criticism seriously.

Oh, actually read the theories?[...]

Yes, actually read them. You're coming here claiming that science has it wrong, then you demonstrate that you don't know what the science says. Present your specific disagreements with the support for them. None of the scientific theories are arbitrary, as you yourself have admitted. So lay off the hyperbole.

Or... I just stick around and point out the errors in your reasoning.

You do that and I'll keep pointing out some logical fallacy loving ankle-biter who is desperate to get a little piece of me because he knows damn well he can't touch my science.    I mean, I'd be delighted to have the help!   I value accuracy more than being "right".  -that approach seems to have its benefits.

Ankle biter? Personal attacks are against the rules of the forum. I don't personally care if you insult me, I couldn't be less bothered. But if you don't want to get a mark against you, you should refrain.

If you provided science, I would address it. All you've provided thus far are nonsensical ramblings.

[Rift Zone]

I asked you to back that claim up.

You should have actually read that blurb on the demise of BBT.   In there it mentions structures like NGC 7603, and NGC 4319...   I don't think it mentioned the fact Halton Arp studied many more of these "anomalous" galaxies.    They all have a curious trait in common: there are multiple quasars in those structures, and those quasars all have differing red-shift values.   Modern science only accounts for Doppler effects when considering red-shift.   Modern science says gravitation is not a factor in producing red-shifts.   Modern science is very wrong.   Mother nature has galaxies all over the place that amount to one structure with greatly varying redshift values.   The quasars within those structures are about the same distance away from us.   The redshifts, processed through doppler alone, say those quasars, that are part of one structure, should be in entirely different places in the cosmos.   The lesson mother nature has for us is very clear: redshift is not purely a doppler thing.  And once you factor in gravationally induced redshift, the remaining doppler is negligible and it's clear the universe is not expanding.    -so much for dark energy, bye bye, denied by mother nature.   Then there's numerous facts that deny dark matter, like plasma interaction, known, legit, real! physics, can explain galaxy rotation...  -so much for dark matter, bye bye, denied by mother nature.   Now we're left with our type of stuff in the universe, "observable" stuff...    My value is easily verified at this point. 

If you provided science, I would address it.

I sincerely doubt that.   But there's your chance^.

[Davin]

If you provided science, I would address it.

I sincerely doubt that.   But there's your chance^.

My chance to what? You still haven't provided any science. All you've provided are inane ramblings. Please back up your claim.

[Rift Zone]

If you provided science, I would address it.

I sincerely doubt that.   But there's your chance^.

My chance to what? You still haven't provided any science. All you've provided are inane ramblings. Please back up your claim.

And the verdict is: you've failed miserably!     What do you think this is?   we're trading abstracts or something?   that our next post, if proven accurate, is gonna get us the next nobel prize?   dude, you're seriously tripp'n     We're having a discussion pertaining to science.   That means we cross-examine properties of various theories/notions against observable properties of the universe, like:

blurb on the demise of BBT.   In there it mentions structures like NGC 7603, and NGC 4319...   I don't think it mentioned the fact Halton Arp studied many more of these "anomalous" galaxies.    They all have a curious trait in common: there are multiple quasars in those structures, and those quasars all have differing red-shift values.   Modern science only accounts for Doppler effects when considering red-shift.   Modern science says gravitation is not a factor in producing red-shifts.   Modern science is very wrong.   Mother nature has galaxies all over the place that amount to one structure with greatly varying redshift values.   The quasars within those structures are about the same distance away from us.   The redshifts, processed through doppler alone, say those quasars, that are part of one structure, should be in entirely different places in the cosmos.   The lesson mother nature has for us is very clear: redshift is not purely a doppler thing.  And once you factor in gravationally induced redshift, the remaining doppler is negligible and it's clear the universe is not expanding.    -so much for dark energy, bye bye, denied by mother nature.   Then there's numerous facts that deny dark energy, like plasma interaction, known, legit, real! physics, can explain galaxy rotation...  -so much for dark energy, bye bye, denied by mother nature.   Now we're left our type of stuff in the universe, "observable" stuff...    My value is easily verified at this point. 

^that's impeccable science, actually.   It's a shame you don't recognize it.   so what are you really here for?  cuz you're clearly not capable of science.   and don't kid yourself, academia may be able to sweep things under the rug, and ignore inconvenient truths, but science doesn't have that luxury.   Science pays attention the to universe, every thing it says, and nothing else.    your relationship to science is disgusting; you sir, stand as a mockery of it.

[Tank]

If you provided science, I would address it.

I sincerely doubt that.   But there's your chance^.

My chance to what? You still haven't provided any science. All you've provided are inane ramblings. Please back up your claim.

And the verdict is: you've failed miserably!     What do you think this is?   we're trading abstracts or something?   that our next post, if proven accurate, is gonna get us the next nobel prize?   dude, you're seriously tripp'n     We're having a discussion pertaining to science.   That means we cross-examine properties of various theories/notions against observable properties of the universe, like:

blurb on the demise of BBT.   In there it mentions structures like NGC 7603, and NGC 4319...   I don't think it mentioned the fact Halton Arp studied many more of these "anomalous" galaxies.    They all have a curious trait in common: there are multiple quasars in those structures, and those quasars all have differing red-shift values.   Modern science only accounts for Doppler effects when considering red-shift.   Modern science says gravitation is not a factor in producing red-shifts.   Modern science is very wrong.   Mother nature has galaxies all over the place that amount to one structure with greatly varying redshift values.   The quasars within those structures are about the same distance away from us.   The redshifts, processed through doppler alone, say those quasars, that are part of one structure, should be in entirely different places in the cosmos.   The lesson mother nature has for us is very clear: redshift is not purely a doppler thing.  And once you factor in gravationally induced redshift, the remaining doppler is negligible and it's clear the universe is not expanding.    -so much for dark energy, bye bye, denied by mother nature.   Then there's numerous facts that deny dark energy, like plasma interaction, known, legit, real! physics, can explain galaxy rotation...  -so much for dark energy, bye bye, denied by mother nature.   Now we're left our type of stuff in the universe, "observable" stuff...    My value is easily verified at this point. 

^that's impeccable science, actually.   It's a shame you don't recognize it.   so what are you really here for?  cuz you're clearly not capable of science.   and don't kid yourself, academia may be able to sweep things under the rug, and ignore inconvenient truths, but science doesn't have that luxury.   Science pays attention the to universe, every thing it says, and nothing else.    your relationship to science is disgusting; you sir, stand as a mockery of it.

Too far. All Davin has done is ask you to support your claims, and you have singularly avoided doing so. And Davin's relationship with science is fine. Davin has never ever mocked science.

[Rift Zone]

Too far. All Davin has done is ask you to support your claims, and you have singularly avoided doing so. And Davin's relationship with science is fine. Davin has never ever mocked science.

My apologies.   I will make it a point to demonstrate better behavior.   
For my defense I'd only like to point out he's been badgering me, probably deserved that, it wasn't exactly a huge stretch of the imagination (through what's he's shown me), and I did in fact address his initial question with "darkwhateverthefucks?  We'll see about that".  There was plenty opportunity to seek clarification.

[Davin]

If you provided science, I would address it.

I sincerely doubt that.   But there's your chance^.

My chance to what? You still haven't provided any science. All you've provided are inane ramblings. Please back up your claim.

And the verdict is: you've failed miserably!     What do you think this is?   we're trading abstracts or something?   that our next post, if proven accurate, is gonna get us the next nobel prize?   dude, you're seriously tripp'n     We're having a discussion pertaining to science.

All you've been saying is gibberish. It doesn't make sense.

That means we cross-examine properties of various theories/notions against observable properties of the universe, like:

Sure, let's talk about just one thing in this:

I don't think it mentioned the fact Halton Arp studied many more of these "anomalous" galaxies.    They all have a curious trait in common: there are multiple quasars in those structures, and those quasars all have differing red-shift values.

What do you think this means? Because I think it means that red-shift values represent relative velocities and that you have either misunderstood the data or are misrepresenting it. Not much of a middle ground I'm afraid.

^that's impeccable science, actually.

Do you think that science is merely saying sciency sounding things? Because that is not science.

Too far. All Davin has done is ask you to support your claims, and you have singularly avoided doing so. And Davin's relationship with science is fine. Davin has never ever mocked science.

My apologies.   I will make it a point to demonstrate better behavior.   
For my defense I'd only like to point out he's been badgering me, probably deserved that, it wasn't exactly a huge stretch of the imagination (through what's he's shown me), and I did in fact address his initial question with "darkwhateverthefucks?  We'll see about that".  There was plenty opportunity to seek clarification.

Oh, you poor thing, having what you present publicly getting publicly challenged. To my defense, I have been trying to take it easy on you. Notice that I refrain from personal attacks. Also, if you read back through our conversations, I never mentioned "darkwhateverthefucks" in any way.

Though I still hold that if the universe were made up of 99.999+% plasma, then we wouldn't be able to see far, let alone make any kind of astronomical observations.

[Tank]

Your restraint has been noted Davin and is very much appreciated.

[Rift Zone]

I don't think it mentioned the fact Halton Arp studied many more of these "anomalous" galaxies.    They all have a curious trait in common: there are multiple quasars in those structures, and those quasars all have differing red-shift values.

What do you think this means? Because I think it means that red-shift values represent relative velocities and that you have either misunderstood the data or are misrepresenting it. Not much of a middle ground I'm afraid.

^that's impeccable science, actually.

Do you think that science is merely saying sciency sounding things? Because that is not science.

Oh, you poor thing, having what you present publicly getting publicly challenged. To my defense, I have been trying to take it easy on you. Notice that I refrain from personal attacks. Also, if you read back through our conversations, I never mentioned "darkwhateverthefucks" in any way.

Though I still hold that if the universe were made up of 99.999+% plasma, then we wouldn't be able to see far, let alone make any kind of astronomical observations.

Please pardon me for saying so, but what it all means is you have demonstrated a point I made above to be accurate: you're not capable of science.   That is to say you demonstrate complete lack of awareness when it comes to evaluating the implications of observed properties and how they impact universe dictated theories/mathematical structures.   It only sounds like gibberish because you've failed to make the connections they imply.   No worries man, I got your back! 

Yes, red-shifts represent relative velocity...   Which is represented in theory as "Hubble Law"   It establishes a direct correlation between velocity and its distance from us.   Playing with the math associated with this is what gives humanity the impression we live in an expanding universe.   but it neglects gravitational contribution, which observation shows to exist, so it's invalid...   but it does, infact, apply to the situation, and that's how.   

Sciency sounding?   lol    Nope!    Modern science is sciency sounding, but it knowingly denies properties of the universe in favor of dictating them in the manner of their prophets who actually could process information in an intellectual manner.   <--we're getting closer, thanks to those "prophets", but we aint there yet, and holding the last steps as scripture isn't gonna help the situation.   

oh, me?    Do you know anything about the scientific method?   See, we're supposed to take a question pertaining to the natural world, like: what's the universe made of, try to answer it, then try to dismantle our answers.   The rules are: the answer survives if it never, ever contradicts the universe.   at first it's just fun and games but it gets serious if the answer keeps winning and is shown to sincerely never ever contradict the universe.   So while whiny little humans like to hold on to lame notions that have been kicked to the curb by the universe, science is bound by solely by the ones that survive.   And thanks to that, it always grows with worthy knowledge...   and that little exercise we you quoted was impeccable science, judged by the fact it took one of those steps that makes science what it is.

Publicly challenged?    i have yet to see a challenge.

Cant see through plasma huh?    reading one line out of wikipedia does not constitute understanding.   yes, light has issues transmuting through plasma, but again you have issues with placing that bit if info in proper context with other physical realities, like the density distribution of the universe.   There is so much wrong with that line of reasoning it's not even funny.   To an astute observer, your contribution is in no way reminiscent of a sensical scientific discussion.