Happy Atheist Forum

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,
I invite you to join me on a stroll through the properties of the universe. Along the way we shall pay close attention what Mother Nature is telling us. We shall consider what modern theories tell us. We shall also look for discrepancies and try to better interpret mother nature's behavior if we find any. I suspect we will find discrepancies, but I digress, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here. Please accompany me on a journey along the frontiers of science.

Almost a hundred years ago, the Chandra Satellite's namesake, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was working out the effects of extreme pressures on subatomic particles in context of supermassive stars and supernovae. There's now a "Limit" named after him that's directly related to how much pressure it takes to crush electrons into protons, thus creating neutrons. Any star that surpasses that limit will crush protons and electrons together turning the object into a neutron star. More intriguing is what happens when we add even more pressure. A neutron star is made of the densest material possible. It cannot be crushed any further without something very remarkable happening. When Chandrasekhar tried to work out the math on crushing that system further the result was infinities. More precisely, he tried to work out what happens at neutron degeneracy pressures and infinity was the result. That still happens today. Every time we ask the mathematics of prevailing theory what happens at that threshold we get the same answer: infinities. "Infinity" is a nonsensical result. "Infinity" is no result at all. It's the mathematical equivalent of crashing and burning. "Infinity" is the math saying, "I don't know what you're talking about". This is an important point because anywhere we go from here is completely arbitrary. There is no scientific/mathematic precedence to direct us to a next step. We are completely blind here.

Prevailing theory tells us the result of "crushing" neutrons is singularity/black hole. Again, this a completely arbitrary assumption in the mathematics of particles. (Other mathematical structures do lend themselves to the notion of singularity, but the scope of those models is not sufficient to dictate anything about this situation.) Once armed with this assumption theorists can build independent mathematics that describe the properties of this singularity/black hole, and then use some duct tape and glue to bind the independent theories together. It should be noted that this type of speculation is superb science!!!  We need to generate new ideas and then we need to see how said ideas align with what the universe is telling us. So now that we have this new idea, let's see how it aligns with observation... On the surface, singularity is a very reasonable solution to the question of neutron degeneracy, but if we dig deeper we may find that solution isn't telling us the same story the universe tells us.

One issue we find involves quasars/active galactic nuclei. [This one is more mathematically intensive than the other points and I want to keep this essay accessible to all, so please comment if you would like further elaboration on this point, or any point.] Modern theory relies on the angular momentum of accretion disks to generate the cosmic jets that exist at the axis of rotation. The problem is there is far more energy within the jets than the accretion disk can account for.   Clearly, we need to take a honest and in-depth look at the mechanisms within prevailing theory to find out what's going on there. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals there are no mechanisms to be found at all. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals the substance of the theory is essentially this: the supermassive object in the center simply must be a black hole, so it's a black hole; and the jets can't be coming from a black hole, so it simply must the angular momentum from the accretion disk powering them...   ...And that's it!  That is the full extent of modern "scientific" description involving quasars/active galactic nuclei/galactic jets.  The truth is prevailing theory doesn't understand what's going on there...  At best, using accretion disks to power the jets is a hypothesis.   It is, in fact, a poor hypothesis.   There is no trait within any area of physics that could even potentially explain how to focus the energy of accretion discs into a perpendicular jet.  Not to mention the fact the total energy contained within accretion discs is regularly dwarfed by the energy emanating out of the jets.   Ultimately, if we were really honest about the situation, we would have to acknowledge there is NO process within that approach that can account for the energy being released in cosmic jets, at all. -if you do the math, constrained by the physics of prevailing theory, cosmic jets don't add up, no matter what. Now that is interesting... Perhaps we can make some sense of it... I'm certain we are going to find out....

Another issue with black hole/singularity theory involves what happens during a supernova explosion. Stars that are massive enough will crush neutrons when they run out of nuclear fuel. They will collapse under their own weight and matter in the core will achieve Schwarzchild Radius. [To achieve Schwarzchild radius you need to exceed neutron degeneracy pressures. When you have squeezed a fixed amount of neutrons together so tightly they cannot be squeezed into a smaller space without destroying them, smaller yet is Schwarzchild Radius.]  According to modern theory, Schwarzchild Radius is the threshold that creates a black hole.   Schwarzschild radius IS the event horizon of a black hole. By unconventional yet mathematical definition, event horizon and Schwarzchild radius are same; for any given mass, the event horizon of a black hole is located at Schwarzschild radius.   Mass that gets trapped within Schwarzchild radius is doomed; that much is certain. Is that mass doomed to singularity as prevailing theory describes? If singularity were the case it would set very specific parameters on the behavior of supernovae. The mathematics/physics of the system would demand the system evolve in certain ways. The physics of prevailing theory dictates this: the core will collapse into singularity thus forming a black hole.   ...and that's about all the math says.   Prevailing theory does however, seemingly arbitrarily, add in a shockwave that creates a "nova", though it's not really clear where that shockwave comes from. You see, the initial collapse would press the core into Schwarzchild Radius.  Nothing escapes Schwarzchild radius/the event horizon; we are talking about the inside of a black hole: nothing gets out!    Thus, this potential shockwave didn't originate within the core, it could not have gone though the core, nor could it be associated with bouncing something off of the event horizon. So, the shockwave remains a mystery, but I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow this phantasmic shockwave to power the nova anyway. Thus prevailing theory says the when a supermassive star collapses the core turns into a black hole, and there's some shady shockwave which creates a nova.   Please note: the physics of prevailing theory demands that whole process takes less time than it took you to read that last sentence. Huston, we have a problem: there are discrepancies between that story and what observation tells us.

First of all, supernovae are known to outshine their own galaxy.   We graciously allowed the shockwave, but who said anything about it having enough energy to enable one star to outshine its entire galaxy? ONE star!!! -outshine hundreds of billions of stars?!? That's asking a whole lot. It's asking too much -there is no process in the physics of prevailing theory that can explain how this could be.  According to the physics of prevailing theory, one star should not be able to outshine its galaxy; it's not permitted!!!   There's no room for it in the physical system the math represents.   We witness observations that are quite literally against the laws of physics as we know them.  Even worse is we have observed varying periods of maximum intensity. Varying periods of maximum intensity is a problem because there is no mechanism within prevailing theory to support anything of the sort. That proposed shockwave is going to come and go in an instant. The physics of prevailing theory demands the process happens very quickly. The math says we should not be observing supernovae that have extended periods of maximum intensity, at all. They should only last for mere seconds, but that's not what we observe: some last for weeks. This is inexplicable within prevailing theory. I think we're have to face the possibility prevailing theory is not telling the same story the universe is telling us.

There seems to be a trend within the above examples. In both cases we find observations prevailing theory cannot explain. Also in both cases, the intensity of the objects is one of the most pertinent and troublesome issues. We are talking about the most vivid objects in the universe! We have a lot of energy to account for! And thinking in terms of black hole/singularity doesn't seem to be accounting for what we observe. I think we should try to throw some other ideas out there to see if there's another concept that fits observation better. Einstein, where are you now? We could use your help here. "E=mc^2", you say? Yea, I know, Einstein; you rock. Wait a second, that could be it!!!  ...So we're back at square one, looking at Chandrasekhar's work, also wondering what happens when we crush neutrons beyond their breaking point. We explored singularity; it was less than completely convincing. Let's explore the reverse. What if E=mc^2 was the answer to what happens when matter achieves neutron degeneracy/Schwarzchild radius? Let's explore the properties of that story and see how it relates to observation.

What if E=mc^2 is the answer to what happens when we achieve neutron degeneracy/Schwartzchild radius? I suppose we should start by clarifying what we mean by that. In contrast to the singularity notion that sequesters the mass, we are now going to experiment with releasing the mass. We are going to hypothesize when neutrons get crushed beyond their breaking point their energy gets released from particle state and is freed to roam as radiative energy. How much energy is released is simple: all of it! -as per E=mc^2. We are essentially experimenting with a new definition of "nova". The idea we are toying with says nova is the energy released by neutrons that get crushed beyond their breaking point. Nova isn't related to shockwave, it's a change in the state of matter/energy. It's exactly what we should expect from mixing matter and antimatter: complete conversion of mass into radiative energy. If we break a neutron, it literally becomes a nova; that outburst of energy is nova.

Okay, we have a different definition of "nova" to test out; one where we think neutron degeneracy means the mass of the particle gets released as radiative energy. What is a supernova then? Say we have a supermassive star that's collapsing. We know it's going to achieve Schwarzchild radius in the core. Within our current thought experiment, that means all the mass in the core will be converted into radiative energy, as per E=mc^2. That is a huge amount of radiative energy. Stars shine thanks to nucleosynthesis, or fusion, by turning lighter elements into heavier elements. They manage to scrape off a minute portion of the mass in the process and use that energy to shine. But in our supernova here, it is utilizing all of the mass of those particles. That is seriously a huge amount of energy. Complete conversion of mass into energy within Schwarzchild Radius would produce enough energy for one star to outshine an entire galaxy.  Hmm, perhaps that's how supernova can be so intense: they got a better energy source.   It seems as though our new concept is doing okay so far. It just neatly explained something that couldn't be explained previously!

Observation tells us supernovae have greatly varying periods of maximum intensity. Some are very short lived, some last for weeks. This cannot be explained within prevailing theory. Our current notion of nova, on the other hand, has an elegant solution for this one too: it's a matter of how massive the star is. Say we had a supermassive star that was just barely massive enough to crush a few neutrons. It would not have very far to go before it reached equilibrium. Subsequently, it would reach equilibrium rather quickly and the period of maximum intensity would be very short. Thus is the nature of our short-lived supernova. There are also supermassive stars that bring the term "supermassive" to new heights. With this much larger variety, there is much more mass to burn off before equilibrium can be reached. Those stars will subsequently have much longer periods of maximum intensity. [Incidentally, Gamma Ray Bursts are the signature of "nova". Maximum intensity in visible wavelengths is not as directly related to the collapse as the GRBs are.]

Our thought experiment is enjoying some successes! As we've seen above, it can account for the intensity of supernovae. And now we see it can account for their varying periods of maximum intensity as well. If we scrutinized all the other properties observed within supernova in relation to this approach, we would find the same thing: our new story better matches the story observation is telling us. The singularity story isn't standing to observation as well. While inspiring, we scientists at heart must press on. It seems quasars, active galactic nuclei, and cosmic jets were a part of this discussion too. We must find out what they have to say about our concept.

Quasars/active galactic nuclei are the most energetic objects in the universe. Prevailing theory cannot explain this intensity but our new found definition of nova can. Gravitational acceleration of accretion disks is a wholly insufficient explanation of the origin of cosmic jets, it fails by magnitudes; if cosmic jets were an ocean, accretion disks could barely power a puddle. Conversion of mass into pure energy as per E=mc^2 can explain their intensity, however. If we dug deep enough we would find that's the only way it can be explained. No other mechanism known to science could produce the amount of energy we observe emanating from those structures.

The cores of quasars ["active" galaxies, like our own] are insanely massive, far bigger than any star we've discussed above. And because of that, they have a much more stable structure. A supernova is a firecracker by comparison. These celestial bodies largely maintain their structure while burning incredible amounts of neutrons in the core. These things don't thrive on nucleosynthesis like most stars do, these guys are powered by nova; they maintain Schwarzchild radius!   Supernovae only get to experience that highly energetic state for a brief period of time, quasars live there. Quasars are able to maintain their jets because they are continuously being fed by the rest of their Galaxy. If we give it some thought, we might see the core of a quasar is bound to be the craziest place in the universe. It is somewhat like a laser in there, only made of the most unusual medium you can imagine: pure energy! In its simplest terms, a laser is a mirrored box that you pump some energy into until whatever is trapped inside resonates. Lasers can be made of various different states of matter, including pure energy. Everything caught within Schwarzchild radius is pure energy, and being stuck in the center of a quasar means that energy's chances of escape are severely compromised. We have a case of full-spectrum resonance occurring in a medium of pure energy. That is, without a doubt, some craziness! Most of the energy that does manages to escape does so at the weakest points in the system, along the magnetic poles, contributing to the cosmic jets.

That treatment of quasars was excessively short and sweet, and probably needs to be elaborated on, but it made a significant achievement! It could be purely circumstantial, but our thought experiment just wrote out the most clear, concise, and comprehensive description of quasars known to humanity. And while brief, the story it tells matches the story observation tells us better than any other theory. Actually, that's the only viable model of quasars humanity has EVER produced; before this, humanity didn't have a plausible explanation.  I'm beginning to suspect our thought experiment is turning up something valid. Wait a second, we have a new observation coming in!!! That will certainly help us sort out what's going on here.

"Just about a year ago, astronomers from Ohio State University using an optical telescope in Hawaii discovered a star that was being pulled from its normal path and heading for a supermassive black hole. Because of that exciting find, scientists have now for the first time witnessed a black hole swallow a star and then, well, belch! When a black hole burps, it quickly ejects a flare of stellar debris moving at nearly light speed, a very rare and dazzling event.
Astrophysicists tracked the star—about the size of our sun—as it shifted from its customary path, slipped into the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole, and was sucked in, says Sjoert van Velzen, a Hubble fellow at Johns Hopkins University.
"These events are extremely rare," says van Velzen, lead author of the study published in the journal Science. "It's the first time we see everything from the stellar destruction followed by the launch of a conical outflow, also called a jet, and we watched it unfold over several months."
-Courtesy of: http://www.sciencerocksmyworld.com/astronomers-see-star-pulled-into-black-hole-and-what-happened-next-amazed-them/

What is Mother Nature telling us here? Is that observation consistent with black hole theory? Um no, it isn't. The event horizon is not a structure, there is nothing to hit there. And it's a one way street once you're inside. The notion that hitting a black hole with something would result in significant signal is ridiculous. What we're left with is a star passing through a thin and diffuse plasma structure in orbit. That would not produce a cosmic jet. That would be more like trying to submerge a piece of ice in a warm stream. Sure, the plasma in orbit would mess with the star a bit, but a galactic jet is magnitudes more energetic than anything could ever expect from that type of interaction.

This observation provides further support to the validity of the notions within our thought experiment. A massive neutron star on the verge of neutron degeneracy pressures that gets another star dumped on top of it will behave exactly as we see here. The added mass will force particles into Schwarzchild radius, convert those particles into pure radiative energy, create plasma jets, and blow chunks of star at relativistic speeds into the cosmos.

Personally, I trust the universe more than I trust the opinion of humans. Modern theory is telling me one thing, but I can see the universe trying to tell me something else. I'm going to go with the universe on this one. The E=mc^2 approach to redefining nova elegantly explains all known properties of the discussed structures. Not only does the singularity approach fail to provide a clear and concise description of the physics it champions, that approach also undermines the tools needed to explain the physics behind the most energetic objects in the universe. The only physics known to humanity that can explain the intensity of these objects is E=mc^2, nothing else comes close. The only model of the universe that takes that approach is the Nova model. That is to say the Nova Model is the only model known to humanity that will survive achieving Schwarzchild radius in the lab. Every other model of the universe seems to think the sample will go singularity. We know the sample will go nova. Well, I, at least, know the sample will go nova. I, therefore, know with confidence: black holes don't exist! -Mother Nature told me so.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 06:49:36 PM[...]Prevailing theory tells us the result of "crushing" neutrons is singularity/black hole. Again, this a completely arbitrary assumption in the mathematics of particles.[...]

If your post is going to be very, very long, then do not repeat yourself. It's OK to do it essay style with an introduction paragraph then detailing that when you get into the meat of it and then coming back in a conclusion, but what you have produced is way too much repeating. Be kind to your audience.

Also, in a science discussion, try to refrain from hyperbole. Or do you expect us to believe that the hypothesis is "completely arbitrary?" They have reasons for why they present their ideas, that do not fall under any definition of "arbitrary," so I would say that it's not arbitrary at all.

With all this repeating and hyperbolic statements, it's tough to interpret what it is that you mean, and difficult to see this as more than nonsense.

Quote from: Davin on March 19, 2018, 09:08:04 PM
If your post is going to be very, very long, then do not repeat yourself. It's OK to do it essay style with an introduction paragraph then detailing that when you get into the meat of it and then coming back in a conclusion, but what you have produced is way too much repeating. Be kind to your audience.

My bad...  I'll endeavor to do better in the future.

Quote from: Davin on March 19, 2018, 09:08:04 PM
Also, in a science discussion, try to refrain from hyperbole. Or do you expect us to believe that the hypothesis is "completely arbitrary?" They have reasons for why they present their ideas, that do not fall under any definition of "arbitrary," so I would say that it's not arbitrary at all.

It actually is arbitrary.  The only justification for it is it seems to fit well with other notions.

Quote from: Davin on March 19, 2018, 09:08:04 PM
With all this repeating and hyperbolic statements, it's tough to interpret what it is that you mean, and difficult to see this as more than nonsense.

It won't look that way when I publish the math behind it!  ;)

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 09:23:57 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 19, 2018, 09:08:04 PM
Also, in a science discussion, try to refrain from hyperbole. Or do you expect us to believe that the hypothesis is "completely arbitrary?" They have reasons for why they present their ideas, that do not fall under any definition of "arbitrary," so I would say that it's not arbitrary at all.

It actually is arbitrary.  The only justification for it is it seems to fit well with other notions.

That is not the only justification, and even if it were, that would mean that it's not arbitrary.

Quote from: Rift Zone

Quote from: Davin on March 19, 2018, 09:08:04 PM
With all this repeating and hyperbolic statements, it's tough to interpret what it is that you mean, and difficult to see this as more than nonsense.

It won't look that way when I publish the math behind it!  ;)

Then I await your post that makes sense.

Quote from: Davin on March 19, 2018, 09:41:52 PMThat is not the only justification, and even if it were, that would mean that it's not arbitrary.

I'm afraid you lost me.   Say the steps you've taken lead to your math producing infinities.   Precisely how do you take a non-arbitrary next step beyond that?   

Quote from: Davin on March 19, 2018, 09:41:52 PMThen I await your post that makes sense.

I'll probably continue to disappoint you.  You might consider running along, satisfied your understanding of physical reality will stand for all time.

TLDR  If your ideas have any validity it should be possible to succinctly write a few sentences that explain the core of it.  I am a strong believer that if you cannot explain the basics of your idea on a 3x5 card, then you do not really understand it yourself.

Whew! I'm staying out of this one......................please continue.

Quote from: Bluenose on March 19, 2018, 10:23:25 PM
TLDR  If your ideas have any validity it should be possible to succinctly write a few sentences that explain the core of it.  I am a strong believer that if you cannot explain the basics of your idea on a 3x5 card, then you do not really understand it yourself.

G'day mate!   
The short and sweet of it is the conditions that "create" black holes exist.   However, the outcome of those conditions do not support the creation of black holes.   Observation is incompatible with the notion of black hole/singularity.   Observation dictates the situation is reversed: rather than sequester the mass/energy, it is a complete release of it, like what you should expect from mixing matter and antimatter: poof!   Subsequently, it re-defines "nova" as that release.   That's about it.   

Quote from: Icarus on March 19, 2018, 10:34:07 PM
Whew! I'm staying out of this one......................please continue.

So disappointing.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 10:47:38 PM

Quote from: Bluenose on March 19, 2018, 10:23:25 PM
TLDR  If your ideas have any validity it should be possible to succinctly write a few sentences that explain the core of it.  I am a strong believer that if you cannot explain the basics of your idea on a 3x5 card, then you do not really understand it yourself.

G'day mate!   
The short and sweet of it is the conditions that "create" black holes exist.   However, the outcome of those conditions do not support the creation of black holes.   Observation is incompatible with the notion of black hole/singularity.   Observation dictates the situation is reversed: rather than sequester the mass/energy, it is a complete release of it, like what you should expect from mixing matter and antimatter: poof!   Subsequently, it re-defines "nova" as that release.   That's about it.   

Oh no you don't.  You don't get to dismiss theoretical and observational findings of modern scientific thought with a bare assertion and a bit of hand waving.  There is a term for what you are saying here - arrant nonsense.

Quote from: Bluenose on March 19, 2018, 10:54:01 PM
Oh no you don't.  You don't get to dismiss theoretical and observational findings of modern scientific thought with a bare assertion and a bit of hand waving.  There is a term for what you are saying here - arrant nonsense.

Oh yes I do!    I will dismiss everything contrary to observation.   

Theories are comprised of roughly 2 elements: observation, and human translation of that data.   The theory that is more comprehensive and aligns with observation better is the more accurate theory.period.     The Nova Model (which includes these notions) is more comprehensive and aligns with observation better than EVERYTHING it challenges   Bare assertion and hand waving?   lol   not exactly, try: reconciled QM and Relativity.   

If you think you know better, then challenge my science!  Break it if you can!  Get the meanest pack of post docs and Nobel Laureates you can find while you're at it!  -you'll need them; not that any of you will get anywhere.

Okay, so how many peer reviewed papers have you published on this material? You don't get a free pass to just say everyone else is wrong and you are right. Science is not constrained to say what you say it dies. I'm not buying it, frankly it just looks like you've thought this forum would be a good place to spam your crackpot ideas. You were wrong.

I would like you to submit an executive summary, no longer than the second paragraph of your post. That would not just be kind to your audience, but is standard practice when presenting any hypothesis.

Quote from: Bluenose on March 20, 2018, 03:12:18 AM
Okay, so how many peer reviewed papers have you published on this material? You don't get a free pass to just say everyone else is wrong and you are right. Science is not constrained to say what you say it dies. I'm not buying it, frankly it just looks like you've thought this forum would be a good place to spam your crackpot ideas. You were wrong.

I have yet to publish my works.   Science will ultimately adopt the most accurate theory(s).    But since I'm not showing you my homework just yet, scientific rigor essentially renders this as speculation.   So don't worry about it.    You got some speculation from some jerk on the internet.   I'm deluded?  :pout:   I'll get over it.   What you think you know is safe.  All better now?

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 03:32:30 AM
I would like you to submit an executive summary, no longer than the second paragraph of your post. That would not just be kind to your audience, but is standard practice when presenting any hypothesis.

We've barely said a word about plasma physics.   Do you know why physicists don't fuck with that shit?   -because most of them don't have the capacity for it.   This universe is not as simple as tensor mathematics.   But I tell you what you get BBT, QM, and Relativity into a paragraph, and even with it being simpler than reality, I'll match it with Nova.


The universe has always been, will always be, and it runs on plasma physics.   any questions?

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 03:45:49 AMThe universe has always been, will always be, and it runs on plasma physics.   any questions?

Yeah, gimme a rundown on plasma physics?

Quote from: jumbojak on March 20, 2018, 03:53:37 AM

Yeah, gimme a rundown on plasma physics?

Oh fuck...  I don't know if I can do that man...   I mean, I think in 4d, with some whoop ass physics simulation capacity.  I can see how mathematical structures evolve.  And search and rescue was called out on me once, when I was 5, for studying physics from mother nature directly.   Then i got kicked out of second grade for studying spectroscopy...  been paying attention to mother nature for a long while...  I know how she moves too.   But that shit is not translatable into English.  It's scarcely characterizable in mathematics. 

You know anything about the maxwell equations?   The ones establishing light?   A couple of those equations are all about magnetic field: shit gets swirly, electric field: shit gets swirly...   well, plasma is both, they play off another.    You know, that's one thing that pisses me off about modern science: reducing everything to gravitation strips most of the universe's intrinsic beauty from it.   modern theory basically has dots that come and go.   that's pathetic.   na, particles dance on their own accord, and they get down together!  this everything in this universe is dancing together.   I mean check out Hannes Alfven!!!   <--he will be known as the most significant physicist of the late 20th century when BBT falls (sorry hawking).   There's the pinch effect within plasma physics, Birkeland Currents...  Wow man, I don't even know where to start.   Anthony Peratt's work too!    Just stay the hell away from the "Tunderbolts Project", "Electric Universe" people.    I've already put my claws into the mythologist founder Talbot....  Cant wait to get them into his little physicist lap dog Thornhill. 

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 03:45:49 AM

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 03:32:30 AM
I would like you to submit an executive summary, no longer than the second paragraph of your post. That would not just be kind to your audience, but is standard practice when presenting any hypothesis.

We've barely said a word about plasma physics.   Do you know why physicists don't fuck with that shit?   -because most of them don't have the capacity for it.   This universe is not as simple as tensor mathematics.   But I tell you what you get BBT, QM, and Relativity into a paragraph, and even with it being simpler than reality, I'll match it with Nova.


The universe has always been, will always be, and it runs on plasma physics.   any questions?

Unfortunately, if you want to be taken seriously, you will have to follow the standard rules of scientific discourse. No respectable physics journal will publish an article by you without a summary. These are the journals people like Steven Weinberg and Sean Carroll read to see what's new in physics. Again, unfortunately for you, they are the ones who will judge your hypotheses.

Anyway, it is possible to explain what QM is all about in a few simple words a 10 year old of average intelligence can understand (one example: https://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html).

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 04:21:06 AM
Unfortunately, if you want to be taken seriously, you will have to follow the standard rules of scientific discourse. No respectable physics journal will publish an article by you without a summary. These are the journals people like Steven Weinberg and Sean Carroll read to see what's new in physics. Again, unfortunately for you, they are the ones who will judge your hypotheses.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 03:40:06 AM
...since I'm not showing you my homework just yet, scientific rigor essentially renders this as speculation.   So don't worry about it.    You got some speculation from some jerk on the internet...

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 04:21:06 AM
Anyway, it is possible to explain what QM is all about in a few simple words a 10 year old of average intelligence can understand (one example: https://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html).

particles are fundamental.  Quarks are not fundamental, they are structure.   The structure has three oriented axis.   With 2 oriented axis, it permits only one unique form, rotationally symmetric.   But matter has 3 oriented axis, which produces 2 unique forms: the right hand rule, and the left hand rule; that difference is what distinguishes matter from anti matter.   what else do you want to know?

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 04:31:48 AM

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 04:21:06 AM
Unfortunately, if you want to be taken seriously, you will have to follow the standard rules of scientific discourse. No respectable physics journal will publish an article by you without a summary. These are the journals people like Steven Weinberg and Sean Carroll read to see what's new in physics. Again, unfortunately for you, they are the ones who will judge your hypotheses.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 03:40:06 AM
...since I'm not showing you my homework just yet, scientific rigor essentially renders this as speculation.   So don't worry about it.    You got some speculation from some jerk on the internet...

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 04:21:06 AM
Anyway, it is possible to explain what QM is all about in a few simple words a 10 year old of average intelligence can understand (one example: https://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html).

particles are fundamental.  Quarks are not fundamental, they are structure.   The structure has three oriented axis.   With 2 oriented axis, it permits only one unique form, rotationally symmetric.   But matter has 3 oriented axis, which produces 2 unique forms: the right hand rule, and the left hand rule; that difference is what distinguishes matter from anti matter.   what else do you want to know?

I am waiting for your executive summary, as you would have to supply when you submit your paper to the Journal of Physics. That is not what you have written, and will certainly not be accepted for publication. I am just trying to help you focus your mind and explain your hypothesis in clearer terms. At the moment your screed comes across as pseudo science, but that is not my problem.

When do you intend to submit your work to a scientific journal? Please send us references to the journal articles when they are published; at that time I will communicate my comments to you. Until then, I wish you luck.

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 05:28:09 AM
I am waiting for your executive summary, as you would have to supply when you submit your paper to the Journal of Physics. That is not what you have written, and will certainly not be accepted for publication. I am just trying to help you focus your mind and explain your hypothesis in clearer terms. At the moment your screed comes across as pseudo science, but that is not my problem.

When do you intend to submit your work to a scientific journal? Please send us references to the journal articles when they are published; at that time I will communicate my comments to you. Until then, I wish you luck.

I will share what I please when I please.   If you're not pleased with your glimpse into 21st century physics you are welcome to have admin throw it in the pseudo-science pile at any time.   

I'll publish this after I'm done saving the world.   I'll keep you posted on developments. 

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 06:49:36 PM
Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,
I invite you to join me on a stroll through the properties of the universe. Along the way we shall pay close attention what Mother Nature is telling us. We shall consider what modern theories tell us. We shall also look for discrepancies and try to better interpret mother nature's behavior if we find any. I suspect we will find discrepancies, but I digress, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here. Please accompany me on a journey along the frontiers of science.

Almost a hundred years ago, the Chandra Satellite's namesake, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was working out the effects of extreme pressures on subatomic particles in context of supermassive stars and supernovae. There's now a "Limit" named after him that's directly related to how much pressure it takes to crush electrons into protons, thus creating neutrons. Any star that surpasses that limit will crush protons and electrons together turning the object into a neutron star. More intriguing is what happens when we add even more pressure. A neutron star is made of the densest material possible. It cannot be crushed any further without something very remarkable happening. When Chandrasekhar tried to work out the math on crushing that system further the result was infinities. More precisely, he tried to work out what happens at neutron degeneracy pressures and infinity was the result. That still happens today. Every time we ask the mathematics of prevailing theory what happens at that threshold we get the same answer: infinities. "Infinity" is a nonsensical result. "Infinity" is no result at all. It's the mathematical equivalent of crashing and burning. "Infinity" is the math saying, "I don't know what you're talking about". This is an important point because anywhere we go from here is completely arbitrary. There is no scientific/mathematic precedence to direct us to a next step. We are completely blind here.

Prevailing theory tells us the result of "crushing" neutrons is singularity/black hole. Again, this a completely arbitrary assumption in the mathematics of particles. (Other mathematical structures do lend themselves to the notion of singularity, but the scope of those models is not sufficient to dictate anything about this situation.) Once armed with this assumption theorists can build independent mathematics that describe the properties of this singularity/black hole, and then use some duct tape and glue to bind the independent theories together. It should be noted that this type of speculation is superb science!!!  We need to generate new ideas and then we need to see how said ideas align with what the universe is telling us. So now that we have this new idea, let's see how it aligns with observation... On the surface, singularity is a very reasonable solution to the question of neutron degeneracy, but if we dig deeper we may find that solution isn't telling us the same story the universe tells us.

One issue we find involves quasars/active galactic nuclei. [This one is more mathematically intensive than the other points and I want to keep this essay accessible to all, so please comment if you would like further elaboration on this point, or any point.] Modern theory relies on the angular momentum of accretion disks to generate the cosmic jets that exist at the axis of rotation. The problem is there is far more energy within the jets than the accretion disk can account for.   Clearly, we need to take a honest and in-depth look at the mechanisms within prevailing theory to find out what's going on there. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals there are no mechanisms to be found at all. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals the substance of the theory is essentially this: the supermassive object in the center simply must be a black hole, so it's a black hole; and the jets can't be coming from a black hole, so it simply must the angular momentum from the accretion disk powering them...   ...And that's it!  That is the full extent of modern "scientific" description involving quasars/active galactic nuclei/galactic jets.  The truth is prevailing theory doesn't understand what's going on there...  At best, using accretion disks to power the jets is a hypothesis.   It is, in fact, a poor hypothesis.   There is no trait within any area of physics that could even potentially explain how to focus the energy of accretion discs into a perpendicular jet.  Not to mention the fact the total energy contained within accretion discs is regularly dwarfed by the energy emanating out of the jets.   Ultimately, if we were really honest about the situation, we would have to acknowledge there is NO process within that approach that can account for the energy being released in cosmic jets, at all. -if you do the math, constrained by the physics of prevailing theory, cosmic jets don't add up, no matter what. Now that is interesting... Perhaps we can make some sense of it... I'm certain we are going to find out....

Another issue with black hole/singularity theory involves what happens during a supernova explosion. Stars that are massive enough will crush neutrons when they run out of nuclear fuel. They will collapse under their own weight and matter in the core will achieve Schwarzchild Radius. [To achieve Schwarzchild radius you need to exceed neutron degeneracy pressures. When you have squeezed a fixed amount of neutrons together so tightly they cannot be squeezed into a smaller space without destroying them, smaller yet is Schwarzchild Radius.]  According to modern theory, Schwarzchild Radius is the threshold that creates a black hole.   Schwarzschild radius IS the event horizon of a black hole. By unconventional yet mathematical definition, event horizon and Schwarzchild radius are same; for any given mass, the event horizon of a black hole is located at Schwarzschild radius.   Mass that gets trapped within Schwarzchild radius is doomed; that much is certain. Is that mass doomed to singularity as prevailing theory describes? If singularity were the case it would set very specific parameters on the behavior of supernovae. The mathematics/physics of the system would demand the system evolve in certain ways. The physics of prevailing theory dictates this: the core will collapse into singularity thus forming a black hole.   ...and that's about all the math says.   Prevailing theory does however, seemingly arbitrarily, add in a shockwave that creates a "nova", though it's not really clear where that shockwave comes from. You see, the initial collapse would press the core into Schwarzchild Radius.  Nothing escapes Schwarzchild radius/the event horizon; we are talking about the inside of a black hole: nothing gets out!    Thus, this potential shockwave didn't originate within the core, it could not have gone though the core, nor could it be associated with bouncing something off of the event horizon. So, the shockwave remains a mystery, but I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow this phantasmic shockwave to power the nova anyway. Thus prevailing theory says the when a supermassive star collapses the core turns into a black hole, and there's some shady shockwave which creates a nova.   Please note: the physics of prevailing theory demands that whole process takes less time than it took you to read that last sentence. Huston, we have a problem: there are discrepancies between that story and what observation tells us.

First of all, supernovae are known to outshine their own galaxy.   We graciously allowed the shockwave, but who said anything about it having enough energy to enable one star to outshine its entire galaxy? ONE star!!! -outshine hundreds of billions of stars?!? That's asking a whole lot. It's asking too much -there is no process in the physics of prevailing theory that can explain how this could be.  According to the physics of prevailing theory, one star should not be able to outshine its galaxy; it's not permitted!!!   There's no room for it in the physical system the math represents.   We witness observations that are quite literally against the laws of physics as we know them.  Even worse is we have observed varying periods of maximum intensity. Varying periods of maximum intensity is a problem because there is no mechanism within prevailing theory to support anything of the sort. That proposed shockwave is going to come and go in an instant. The physics of prevailing theory demands the process happens very quickly. The math says we should not be observing supernovae that have extended periods of maximum intensity, at all. They should only last for mere seconds, but that's not what we observe: some last for weeks. This is inexplicable within prevailing theory. I think we're have to face the possibility prevailing theory is not telling the same story the universe is telling us.

There seems to be a trend within the above examples. In both cases we find observations prevailing theory cannot explain. Also in both cases, the intensity of the objects is one of the most pertinent and troublesome issues. We are talking about the most vivid objects in the universe! We have a lot of energy to account for! And thinking in terms of black hole/singularity doesn't seem to be accounting for what we observe. I think we should try to throw some other ideas out there to see if there's another concept that fits observation better. Einstein, where are you now? We could use your help here. "E=mc^2", you say? Yea, I know, Einstein; you rock. Wait a second, that could be it!!!  ...So we're back at square one, looking at Chandrasekhar's work, also wondering what happens when we crush neutrons beyond their breaking point. We explored singularity; it was less than completely convincing. Let's explore the reverse. What if E=mc^2 was the answer to what happens when matter achieves neutron degeneracy/Schwarzchild radius? Let's explore the properties of that story and see how it relates to observation.

What if E=mc^2 is the answer to what happens when we achieve neutron degeneracy/Schwartzchild radius? I suppose we should start by clarifying what we mean by that. In contrast to the singularity notion that sequesters the mass, we are now going to experiment with releasing the mass. We are going to hypothesize when neutrons get crushed beyond their breaking point their energy gets released from particle state and is freed to roam as radiative energy. How much energy is released is simple: all of it! -as per E=mc^2. We are essentially experimenting with a new definition of "nova". The idea we are toying with says nova is the energy released by neutrons that get crushed beyond their breaking point. Nova isn't related to shockwave, it's a change in the state of matter/energy. It's exactly what we should expect from mixing matter and antimatter: complete conversion of mass into radiative energy. If we break a neutron, it literally becomes a nova; that outburst of energy is nova.

Okay, we have a different definition of "nova" to test out; one where we think neutron degeneracy means the mass of the particle gets released as radiative energy. What is a supernova then? Say we have a supermassive star that's collapsing. We know it's going to achieve Schwarzchild radius in the core. Within our current thought experiment, that means all the mass in the core will be converted into radiative energy, as per E=mc^2. That is a huge amount of radiative energy. Stars shine thanks to nucleosynthesis, or fusion, by turning lighter elements into heavier elements. They manage to scrape off a minute portion of the mass in the process and use that energy to shine. But in our supernova here, it is utilizing all of the mass of those particles. That is seriously a huge amount of energy. Complete conversion of mass into energy within Schwarzchild Radius would produce enough energy for one star to outshine an entire galaxy.  Hmm, perhaps that's how supernova can be so intense: they got a better energy source.   It seems as though our new concept is doing okay so far. It just neatly explained something that couldn't be explained previously!

Observation tells us supernovae have greatly varying periods of maximum intensity. Some are very short lived, some last for weeks. This cannot be explained within prevailing theory. Our current notion of nova, on the other hand, has an elegant solution for this one too: it's a matter of how massive the star is. Say we had a supermassive star that was just barely massive enough to crush a few neutrons. It would not have very far to go before it reached equilibrium. Subsequently, it would reach equilibrium rather quickly and the period of maximum intensity would be very short. Thus is the nature of our short-lived supernova. There are also supermassive stars that bring the term "supermassive" to new heights. With this much larger variety, there is much more mass to burn off before equilibrium can be reached. Those stars will subsequently have much longer periods of maximum intensity. [Incidentally, Gamma Ray Bursts are the signature of "nova". Maximum intensity in visible wavelengths is not as directly related to the collapse as the GRBs are.]

Our thought experiment is enjoying some successes! As we've seen above, it can account for the intensity of supernovae. And now we see it can account for their varying periods of maximum intensity as well. If we scrutinized all the other properties observed within supernova in relation to this approach, we would find the same thing: our new story better matches the story observation is telling us. The singularity story isn't standing to observation as well. While inspiring, we scientists at heart must press on. It seems quasars, active galactic nuclei, and cosmic jets were a part of this discussion too. We must find out what they have to say about our concept.

Quasars/active galactic nuclei are the most energetic objects in the universe. Prevailing theory cannot explain this intensity but our new found definition of nova can. Gravitational acceleration of accretion disks is a wholly insufficient explanation of the origin of cosmic jets, it fails by magnitudes; if cosmic jets were an ocean, accretion disks could barely power a puddle. Conversion of mass into pure energy as per E=mc^2 can explain their intensity, however. If we dug deep enough we would find that's the only way it can be explained. No other mechanism known to science could produce the amount of energy we observe emanating from those structures.

The cores of quasars ["active" galaxies, like our own] are insanely massive, far bigger than any star we've discussed above. And because of that, they have a much more stable structure. A supernova is a firecracker by comparison. These celestial bodies largely maintain their structure while burning incredible amounts of neutrons in the core. These things don't thrive on nucleosynthesis like most stars do, these guys are powered by nova; they maintain Schwarzchild radius!   Supernovae only get to experience that highly energetic state for a brief period of time, quasars live there. Quasars are able to maintain their jets because they are continuously being fed by the rest of their Galaxy. If we give it some thought, we might see the core of a quasar is bound to be the craziest place in the universe. It is somewhat like a laser in there, only made of the most unusual medium you can imagine: pure energy! In its simplest terms, a laser is a mirrored box that you pump some energy into until whatever is trapped inside resonates. Lasers can be made of various different states of matter, including pure energy. Everything caught within Schwarzchild radius is pure energy, and being stuck in the center of a quasar means that energy's chances of escape are severely compromised. We have a case of full-spectrum resonance occurring in a medium of pure energy. That is, without a doubt, some craziness! Most of the energy that does manages to escape does so at the weakest points in the system, along the magnetic poles, contributing to the cosmic jets.

That treatment of quasars was excessively short and sweet, and probably needs to be elaborated on, but it made a significant achievement! It could be purely circumstantial, but our thought experiment just wrote out the most clear, concise, and comprehensive description of quasars known to humanity. And while brief, the story it tells matches the story observation tells us better than any other theory. Actually, that's the only viable model of quasars humanity has EVER produced; before this, humanity didn't have a plausible explanation.  I'm beginning to suspect our thought experiment is turning up something valid. Wait a second, we have a new observation coming in!!! That will certainly help us sort out what's going on here.

"Just about a year ago, astronomers from Ohio State University using an optical telescope in Hawaii discovered a star that was being pulled from its normal path and heading for a supermassive black hole. Because of that exciting find, scientists have now for the first time witnessed a black hole swallow a star and then, well, belch! When a black hole burps, it quickly ejects a flare of stellar debris moving at nearly light speed, a very rare and dazzling event.
Astrophysicists tracked the star—about the size of our sun—as it shifted from its customary path, slipped into the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole, and was sucked in, says Sjoert van Velzen, a Hubble fellow at Johns Hopkins University.
"These events are extremely rare," says van Velzen, lead author of the study published in the journal Science. "It's the first time we see everything from the stellar destruction followed by the launch of a conical outflow, also called a jet, and we watched it unfold over several months."
-Courtesy of: http://www.sciencerocksmyworld.com/astronomers-see-star-pulled-into-black-hole-and-what-happened-next-amazed-them/

What is Mother Nature telling us here? Is that observation consistent with black hole theory? Um no, it isn't. The event horizon is not a structure, there is nothing to hit there. And it's a one way street once you're inside. The notion that hitting a black hole with something would result in significant signal is ridiculous. What we're left with is a star passing through a thin and diffuse plasma structure in orbit. That would not produce a cosmic jet. That would be more like trying to submerge a piece of ice in a warm stream. Sure, the plasma in orbit would mess with the star a bit, but a galactic jet is magnitudes more energetic than anything could ever expect from that type of interaction.

This observation provides further support to the validity of the notions within our thought experiment. A massive neutron star on the verge of neutron degeneracy pressures that gets another star dumped on top of it will behave exactly as we see here. The added mass will force particles into Schwarzchild radius, convert those particles into pure radiative energy, create plasma jets, and blow chunks of star at relativistic speeds into the cosmos.

Personally, I trust the universe more than I trust the opinion of humans. Modern theory is telling me one thing, but I can see the universe trying to tell me something else. I'm going to go with the universe on this one. The E=mc^2 approach to redefining nova elegantly explains all known properties of the discussed structures. Not only does the singularity approach fail to provide a clear and concise description of the physics it champions, that approach also undermines the tools needed to explain the physics behind the most energetic objects in the universe. The only physics known to humanity that can explain the intensity of these objects is E=mc^2, nothing else comes close. The only model of the universe that takes that approach is the Nova model. That is to say the Nova Model is the only model known to humanity that will survive achieving Schwarzchild radius in the lab. Every other model of the universe seems to think the sample will go singularity. We know the sample will go nova. Well, I, at least, know the sample will go nova. I, therefore, know with confidence: black holes don't exist! -Mother Nature told me so.

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 05:28:09 AM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 04:31:48 AM

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 04:21:06 AM
Unfortunately, if you want to be taken seriously, you will have to follow the standard rules of scientific discourse. No respectable physics journal will publish an article by you without a summary. These are the journals people like Steven Weinberg and Sean Carroll read to see what's new in physics. Again, unfortunately for you, they are the ones who will judge your hypotheses.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 03:40:06 AM
...since I'm not showing you my homework just yet, scientific rigor essentially renders this as speculation.   So don't worry about it.    You got some speculation from some jerk on the internet...

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 04:21:06 AM
Anyway, it is possible to explain what QM is all about in a few simple words a 10 year old of average intelligence can understand (one example: https://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html).

particles are fundamental.  Quarks are not fundamental, they are structure.   The structure has three oriented axis.   With 2 oriented axis, it permits only one unique form, rotationally symmetric.   But matter has 3 oriented axis, which produces 2 unique forms: the right hand rule, and the left hand rule; that difference is what distinguishes matter from anti matter.   what else do you want to know?

I am waiting for your executive summary, as you would have to supply when you submit your paper to the Journal of Physics. That is not what you have written, and will certainly not be accepted for publication. I am just trying to help you focus your mind and explain your hypothesis in clearer terms. At the moment your screed comes across as pseudo science, but that is not my problem.

When do you intend to submit your work to a scientific journal? Please send us references to the journal articles when they are published; at that time I will communicate my comments to you. Until then, I wish you luck.

And please, not one of those predatory journals prowling the academic savannah. Those will take just about anything...

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 04:15:08 AM

Quote from: jumbojak on March 20, 2018, 03:53:37 AM

Yeah, gimme a rundown on plasma physics?

Oh fuck...  I don't know if I can do that man...   I mean, I think in 4d, with some whoop ass physics simulation capacity.  I can see how mathematical structures evolve.  And search and rescue was called out on me once, when I was 5, for studying physics from mother nature directly.   Then i got kicked out of second grade for studying spectroscopy...  been paying attention to mother nature for a long while...  I know how she moves too.   But that shit is not translatable into English.  It's scarcely characterizable in mathematics. 

You know anything about the maxwell equations?   The ones establishing light?   A couple of those equations are all about magnetic field: shit gets swirly, electric field: shit gets swirly...   well, plasma is both, they play off another.    You know, that's one thing that pisses me off about modern science: reducing everything to gravitation strips most of the universe's intrinsic beauty from it.   modern theory basically has dots that come and go.   that's pathetic.   na, particles dance on their own accord, and they get down together!  this everything in this universe is dancing together.   I mean check out Hannes Alfven!!!   <--he will be known as the most significant physicist of the late 20th century when BBT falls (sorry hawking).   There's the pinch effect within plasma physics, Birkeland Currents...  Wow man, I don't even know where to start.   Anthony Peratt's work too!    Just stay the hell away from the "Tunderbolts Project", "Electric Universe" people.    I've already put my claws into the mythologist founder Talbot....  Cant wait to get them into his little physicist lap dog Thornhill.

Indeed I do know something about Maxwell's equations. At least I did years ago when I studied physics.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 09:49:56 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 19, 2018, 09:41:52 PMThat is not the only justification, and even if it were, that would mean that it's not arbitrary.

I'm afraid you lost me.   Say the steps you've taken lead to your math producing infinities.   Precisely how do you take a non-arbitrary next step beyond that?

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.

Quote from: Rift Zone

Quote from: Davin on March 19, 2018, 09:41:52 PMThen I await your post that makes sense.

I'll probably continue to disappoint you.  You might consider running along, satisfied your understanding of physical reality will stand for all time.

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

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 20, 2018, 11:26:23 AM

And please, not one of those predatory journals prowling the academic savannah. Those will take just about anything...

Oh 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. 

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 04:15:08 AM

Quote from: jumbojak on March 20, 2018, 03:53:37 AM

Yeah, gimme a rundown on plasma physics?

Oh fuck...  I don't know if I can do that man...   I mean, I think in 4d, with some whoop ass physics simulation capacity.  I can see how mathematical structures evolve.  And search and rescue was called out on me once, when I was 5, for studying physics from mother nature directly.   Then i got kicked out of second grade for studying spectroscopy...  been paying attention to mother nature for a long while...  I know how she moves too.   But that shit is not translatable into English.  It's scarcely characterizable in mathematics. 

You know anything about the maxwell equations?   The ones establishing light?   A couple of those equations are all about magnetic field: shit gets swirly, electric field: shit gets swirly...   well, plasma is both, they play off another.    You know, that's one thing that pisses me off about modern science: reducing everything to gravitation strips most of the universe's intrinsic beauty from it.   modern theory basically has dots that come and go.   that's pathetic.   na, particles dance on their own accord, and they get down together!  this everything in this universe is dancing together.   I mean check out Hannes Alfven!!!   <--he will be known as the most significant physicist of the late 20th century when BBT falls (sorry hawking).   There's the pinch effect within plasma physics, Birkeland Currents...  Wow man, I don't even know where to start.   Anthony Peratt's work too!    Just stay the hell away from the "Tunderbolts Project", "Electric Universe" people.    I've already put my claws into the mythologist founder Talbot....  Cant wait to get them into his little physicist lap dog Thornhill.

You're not the first, self described genius that thinks they are the only ones who can see how the world truly is and that everyone else has is wrong, to come through here. None of them had been able to refrain from trying to bolster themselves in attempts to bolster their arguments. Which doesn't make much sense because that only creates fallacious support (which is no support at all really), instead of just supporting their own claims.

Maybe you will be different and this flurry of shameless self promotion was a fluke. I doubt it though.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 01:59:57 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 20, 2018, 11:26:23 AM

And please, not one of those predatory journals prowling the academic savannah. Those will take just about anything...

Oh hell no!   
This universe is 99.999+% plasma, the primary state of matter.

Are you sure about that? Plasma would fall into the 4% of things that astronomers can see. The other 96% is stuff we cannot see. So why don't you go ahead and support that claim that 99.999+% of the universe is plasma. Provide some astronomical observations of various techniques, some papers, or anything other than bare assertions.

Quote from: jumbojak on March 20, 2018, 12:16:42 PM
Indeed I do know something about Maxwell's equations. At least I did years ago when I studied physics.

I'll see what I can do about collecting some good info for you to check out!

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 01:59:00 PM
[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?   I suppose should have thought of that.   I've just been conducting seances and having the originators of the concepts teach them to me.    You can reach the live ones too!  -providing they say the magic words: "are you fucking kidding me man?"    The notions of modern science have been, it appears, successfully challenged, by a guy who didn't read the theories?   lol   cool story, bro.   

What do you want to hear?   That Relativity supports singularity?   Aye!   That's where we got the notion in the first place.   But wait, you know that whole relativity isn't talking to QM thing?   -They don't get along?   Among other things, it means Relativity breaks down when you get into the nuances of particle physics.   So as much as you may think otherwise, it's not applicable to this situation; applying Relativity to it is a violation of scientific rigor: arbitrary, no matter how you slice it.   

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 01:59:00 PMOr... 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.

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 02:10:54 PM
You're not the first, self described genius that thinks they are the only ones who can see how the world truly is and that everyone else has is wrong, to come through here. None of them had been able to refrain from trying to bolster themselves in attempts to bolster their arguments. Which doesn't make much sense because that only creates fallacious support (which is no support at all really), instead of just supporting their own claims.

Maybe you will be different and this flurry of shameless self promotion was a fluke. I doubt it though.

Me?   Oh no, I'm fully content with the notion that I'm seriously bat-shit crazy.    I couldn't be a genius...  sure, they say crazy shit too, but they know what they're talking about.

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 02:15:34 PM
[Are you sure about that? Plasma would fall into the 4% of things that astronomers can see. The other 96% is stuff we cannot see. So why don't you go ahead and support that claim that 99.999+% of the universe is plasma. Provide some astronomical observations of various techniques, some papers, or anything other than bare assertions.

lol   darkwhateverthefucks?   really?   We'll see about that.   

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 02:36:51 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 02:10:54 PM
You're not the first, self described genius that thinks they are the only ones who can see how the world truly is and that everyone else has is wrong, to come through here. None of them had been able to refrain from trying to bolster themselves in attempts to bolster their arguments. Which doesn't make much sense because that only creates fallacious support (which is no support at all really), instead of just supporting their own claims.

Maybe you will be different and this flurry of shameless self promotion was a fluke. I doubt it though.

Me?   Oh no, I'm fully content with the notion that I'm seriously bat-shit crazy.    I couldn't be a genius...  sure, they say crazy shit too, but they know what they're talking about.

Then why do all the bolstering bullshit?

Quote from: Rift Zone

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 02:15:34 PM
[Are you sure about that? Plasma would fall into the 4% of things that astronomers can see. The other 96% is stuff we cannot see. So why don't you go ahead and support that claim that 99.999+% of the universe is plasma. Provide some astronomical observations of various techniques, some papers, or anything other than bare assertions.

lol   darkwhateverthefucks?   really?   We'll see about that.

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.

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 03:08:55 PM
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.   

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 03:08:55 PM
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?

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 03:41:11 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 03:08:55 PM
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?

Quote from: Rift Zone

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 03:08:55 PM
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."

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.   

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 03:57:36 PM
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.

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 04:54:51 PM
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?   

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 05:30:42 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 04:54:51 PM
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.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 05:30:42 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 04:54:51 PM
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?

Quote from: Rift Zone-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.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 02:32:04 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 01:59:00 PM
[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.

Quote from: Rift Zone

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 01:59:00 PMOr... 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.

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 06:52:08 PMI 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. 

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 06:52:08 PM
If you provided science, I would address it.

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

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 10:45:55 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 06:52:08 PM
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.

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 11:36:21 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 10:45:55 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 06:52:08 PM
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:

Quoteblurb 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.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 12:10:44 AM

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 11:36:21 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 10:45:55 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 06:52:08 PM
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:

Quoteblurb 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.

Quote from: Tank on March 21, 2018, 07:57:09 AM

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.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 12:10:44 AM

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 11:36:21 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 10:45:55 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 06:52:08 PM
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.

Quote from: Rift Zone
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:

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: Rift Zone^that's impeccable science, actually.

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

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 11:35:49 AM

Quote from: Tank on March 21, 2018, 07:57:09 AM

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.

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

Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 01:39:56 PM

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: Rift Zone^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.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 03:58:54 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 01:39:56 PM

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: Rift Zone^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.

It only sounds like gibberish because you've failed to make the connections they imply.

No, it sounds like gibberish because it is.

Quote from: Rift ZoneYes, 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.

Why would you not expect different points in the same galaxy to have varying values of red shift?

Quote from: Rift ZonePlaying 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.

Here's a modern science paper that discusses something called "gravitational red shift:"
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439

They have been accounting for gravitational effects on red shift since at least 1959.

Quote from: Rift ZonePublicly challenged?    i have yet to see a challenge.

Sure... sure.

Quote from: Rift ZoneCant 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.

What are you talking about with "density distribution?" Do you mean that there is space between plasma? I wonder how much of the universe could possibly be space between plasma when plasma makes up 99.999+% of the universe. If the universe were made up of 99.999+% of plasma, it would be dense with plasma. I suppose it could if in your generous allotment of < 0.001% of the universe, however that doesn't give plasma enough room to be seen through.

Here is a glass orb with a ball of plasma inside it:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencekids.co.nz%2Fimages%2Fpictures%2Ftechnology%2Fplasmaball.jpg&hash=58d6e358b43b13970b0ca95fe821591032f0ff0f)
How much of the "universe" inside that orb would you say the plasma takes up?

Some nice images of cosmic plasma.

(https://imgur.com/9qjXu0G.jpg)

(https://imgur.com/BmlSrM5.jpg)

(https://imgur.com/s1Iw17P.jpg)

https://www.thoughtco.com/lightning-and-plasma-photo-gallery-4122966

You can just about see through it but if it just about filled the universe . . .

Or is there "Dark Plasma" I wonder?

Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 04:25:28 PM
No, it sounds like gibberish because it is.

I see someone around here who favors the employment of logical fallacies in their discussion.   They have the wrong thread.    Every step they take will be approved by mother nature or they can get the fuck out of here.   

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 04:41:39 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 04:25:28 PM
No, it sounds like gibberish because it is.

I see someone around here who favors the employment of logical fallacies in their discussion.   They have the wrong thread.    Every step they take will be approved by mother nature or they can get the fuck out of here.

If I have committed logical fallacies, then point them out. I suspect though, that that is yet another baseless claim.

Care to discuss any of my objections and questions or are you ceding to me?

Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 04:46:35 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 04:41:39 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 04:25:28 PM
No, it sounds like gibberish because it is.

I see someone around here who favors the employment of logical fallacies in their discussion.   They have the wrong thread.    Every step they take will be approved by mother nature or they can get the fuck out of here.

If I have committed logical fallacies, then point them out. I suspect though, that that is yet another baseless claim.

Care to discuss any of my objections and questions or are you ceding to me?

in scientific discourse you propose a point then support it.   I've let your hit and run approach to this slide long enough.   If you feel as though you have any ground to stand on at all, I suggest you name your ground and firmly establish why that notion thinks it has a chance of invalidating Nova.   anything less than that constitutes whining and you will be subsequently coddled.   

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 04:55:38 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 04:46:35 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 04:41:39 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 04:25:28 PM
No, it sounds like gibberish because it is.

I see someone around here who favors the employment of logical fallacies in their discussion.   They have the wrong thread.    Every step they take will be approved by mother nature or they can get the fuck out of here.

If I have committed logical fallacies, then point them out. I suspect though, that that is yet another baseless claim.

Care to discuss any of my objections and questions or are you ceding to me?

in scientific discourse you propose a point then support it.

I have.

Quote from: Rift ZoneI've let your hit and run approach to this slide long enough.

Hit and run? I'm not running, I'm right here keeping things on point constantly bringing you back to the discussion every time you try to avoid.

Quote from: Rift ZoneIf you feel as though you have any ground to stand on at all, I suggest you name your ground and firmly establish why that notion thinks it has a chance of invalidating Nova.

How about we start where you ceded to me:

Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 04:25:28 PM

Quote from: Rift ZoneYes, 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.

Why would you not expect different points in the same galaxy to have varying values of red shift?

Quote from: Rift ZonePlaying 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.

Here's a modern science paper that discusses something called "gravitational red shift:"
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439

They have been accounting for gravitational effects on red shift since at least 1959.

Quote from: Rift ZonePublicly challenged?    i have yet to see a challenge.

Sure... sure.

Quote from: Rift ZoneCant 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.

What are you talking about with "density distribution?" Do you mean that there is space between plasma? I wonder how much of the universe could possibly be space between plasma when plasma makes up 99.999+% of the universe. If the universe were made up of 99.999+% of plasma, it would be dense with plasma. I suppose it could if in your generous allotment of < 0.001% of the universe, however that doesn't give plasma enough room to be seen through.

Here is a glass orb with a ball of plasma inside it:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencekids.co.nz%2Fimages%2Fpictures%2Ftechnology%2Fplasmaball.jpg&hash=58d6e358b43b13970b0ca95fe821591032f0ff0f)
How much of the "universe" inside that orb would you say the plasma takes up?

Quote from: Rift Zoneanything less than that constitutes whining and you will be subsequently coddled.

Coddled? Oh no, being coddled sounds sooooooo bad.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/icBqSBiwMUH4s/giphy.gif)

Please, no coddling. Do anything else you want, but don't throw me into the coddle patch!
(https://i.imgur.com/2DSsxKN.gif)

your point is?   the support is?    kindly don't waste my time with insipid trains of thought that lack scientific rigor, i get enough of that elsewhere.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 05:08:16 PM
your point is?   the support is?    kindly don't waste my time with insipid trains of thought that lack scientific rigor, i get enough of that elsewhere.

Very well, I accept that you are ceding to me.

(https://i.imgur.com/O4G2tQr.gif)

Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 05:13:36 PMVery well, I accept that you are ceding to me.

(https://i.imgur.com/O4G2tQr.gif)

Come on back the next time you feel like getting played!  I'd be happy to oblige you again.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 05:16:48 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 05:13:36 PMVery well, I accept that you are ceding to me.

(https://i.imgur.com/O4G2tQr.gif)

Come on back the next time you feel like getting played!  I'd be happy to oblige you again.

If I can manage to see through all this plasma that is taking up 99.999+% of the universe. If only the universe had more than <0.001% for the plasma to be sparse enough to see my keyboard.

They were good times though. Hey, remember that time you were all like, "it neglects gravitational contribution, which observation shows to exist," and I showed you a scientific paper that showed that we had been accounting for gravitational effects on red shift since 1959? Hilarious. Those were good times.

I wish you could have answered my question about, why would you not expect different points in the same galaxy to have varying values of red shift, but I guess I'll just have to live with you cowering away from that question.

Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 05:24:25 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 05:16:48 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 21, 2018, 05:13:36 PMVery well, I accept that you are ceding to me.

(https://i.imgur.com/O4G2tQr.gif)

Come on back the next time you feel like getting played!  I'd be happy to oblige you again.

If I can manage to see through all this plasma that is taking up 99.999+% of the universe. If only the universe had more than <0.001% for the plasma to be sparse enough to see my keyboard.

They were good times though. Hey, remember that time you were all like, "it neglects gravitational contribution, which observation shows to exist," and I showed you a scientific paper that showed that we had been accounting for gravitational effects on red shift since 1959? Hilarious. Those were good times.

I wish you could have answered my question about, why would you not expect different points in the same galaxy to have varying values of red shift, but I guess I'll just have to live with you cowering away from that question.

i neglected to see a point or anything that supports anything reminiscent of a point.   Subsequently, your drivel constitutes nothing and can be discounted with a similar ease in which it was created.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 07:06:22 PMi neglected to see a point or anything that supports anything reminiscent of a point.   Subsequently, your drivel constitutes nothing and can be discounted with a similar ease in which it was created.

You shouldn't neglect to see points if you want to have honest discussions.

But hey, you do and say whatever it is you have to say to make yourself feel better about the rubbish you presented.

Anyone wiht more than juvenile argumentation skills, and scientific knowledge, would have been able to see how lame your argument was all along.   Throwing out some half formed notion is a waste of time of grown ups who want to talk science.   

Fire is plasma, you can see through that. 

you challenge 99.999+ is not plasma? then what is the rest of it?  do you see the precarious position your position is in?  aspire for greater than 3rd grade scientific discourse.

my science cannot be broken.  anything you think you have only demonstrates your ignorance.   ;)

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 07:52:50 PM
Anyone wiht more than juvenile argumentation skills, and scientific knowledge, would have been able to see how lame your argument was all along.   Throwing out some half formed notion is a waste of time of grown ups who want to talk science.

I'm juvenile now? Maybe you should spend less time trying to attack me and more time trying to answer my questions and objections.

Quote from: Rift ZoneFire is plasma, you can see through that.

As long as it's small/thin. But if a room is 99.999+% fire, then no one could see through the room.

Quote from: Rift Zoneyou challenge 99.999+ is not plasma? then what is the rest of it?  do you see the precarious position your position is in?  aspire for greater than 3rd grade scientific discourse.

I challenge that the universe could not be made up of 99.999+% of plasma because we wouldn't be able to see very far in the least, because there would be no free space for light to get through. Considering that plasma is very hot, so another problem is that we'd all be cooked.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 08:03:33 PM
my science cannot be broken.  anything you think you have only demonstrates your ignorance.   ;)

That's not very open minded of you. Self aggrandizement: because no one else will.

My science cannot be broken is a statement of mathematical alignment with the known properties of the universe...  there are no inconsistencies.   
Your thought process is juvenile, yes.   I also mentioned the other ~.001% of the universe was gaseous, solid, and liquid...    Lets look back to the start of a logical fallacy you been desperately holding onto for days now:

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 01:59:57 PM
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.

Where do you see "the rest of it is open space" in that?    No, the rest was clearly defined, and the question of mass distribution/density never came up; yet in your fantasy, I made determinations about density.  It never happened, your argument is juvenile, petty, and rife with logical fallacy.

Furthermore!

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 03:58:54 PM
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.

your infantile reasoning hinges on density, and I already mentioned you might have difficulties with density, as noted above, so I was trying to hope you evolve, at least to the next grade. 

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 08:43:27 PMWhere do you see "the rest of it is open space" in that?

What are you talking about? Did you have difficulty reading what I wrote?

Quote from: Rift Zoneyour infantile reasoning hinges on density[...]

Oh, infantile now? Your personal attacks don't bother me, but I am not the only person here and it does mean that you are breaking the forum rules.

Quote from: Rift Zoneand I already mentioned you might have difficulties with density, as noted above, so I was trying to hope you evolve, at least to the next grade.

If the universe were made up of 99.999+% of plasma, there would be a lot of difficulties with density. That's just one of the problems. We can already tell that it's not true, because we can see pretty far.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finapcache.boston.com%2Funiversal%2Fsite_graphics%2Fblogs%2Fbigpicture%2Fcafires_09_02%2Fc33_20163443.jpg&hash=cf299b41e98c7cf5394eb6b8a39f0c68596d5cd5)
Look at that plasma burning off of other "plasma" and turning into "plasma." If that filled up 99.999+% of the universe, it sure wouldn't be easy to see anything. In fact, if the universe were made up of 99.999+% of plasma, that picture wouldn't be possible because the camera would be inside some thick plasma.

your fallacy has already been defeated Davin.   Give it up.   You're now not demonstrating your infantile nature, you're proving it.   

oh, Jumbojack, i got something for you to check out!   

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:11:51 PM
your fallacy has already been defeated Davin.   Give it up.   You're now not demonstrating your infantile nature, you're proving it.

What fallacy? Give what up? Why do you keep up with the personal attacks? Rationally, it doesn't mean shit, but you are breaking the rules of the forum.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:12:55 PM
oh, Jumbojack, i got something for you to check out!   

Yeah, watch that video if you want a good laugh.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:12:55 PM
oh, Jumbojack, i got something for you to check out!   

You are basing your argument on something like this, put together by a composer?

O.K, no reason why a composer should not adhere to the scientific method, but that looks more like a van Dänikenism in style to me.

Quote from: Dave on March 21, 2018, 09:24:43 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:12:55 PM
oh, Jumbojack, i got something for you to check out!   

You are basing your argument on something like this, put together by a composer?

O.K, no reason why a composer should not adhere to the scientific method, but that looks more like a van Dänikenism in style to me.

You're trying to insinuate, what, precisely?     I suggest you apply some scientific rigor to your stance before you bring it to me.   

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 08:03:33 PM
my science cannot be broken.  anything you think you have only demonstrates your ignorance.   ;)

Then it's not science, it's faith.

Quote from: Tank on March 22, 2018, 07:40:41 AM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 08:03:33 PM
my science cannot be broken.  anything you think you have only demonstrates your ignorance.   ;)

Then it's not science, it's faith.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 08:43:27 PM
My science cannot be broken is a statement of mathematical alignment with the known properties of the universe...  there are no inconsistencies.   

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:11:56 PM

Quote from: Tank on March 22, 2018, 07:40:41 AM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 08:03:33 PM
my science cannot be broken.  anything you think you have only demonstrates your ignorance.   ;)

Then it's not science, it's faith.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 08:43:27 PM
My science cannot be broken is a statement of mathematical alignment with the known properties of the universe...  there are no inconsistencies.   

Well, only my unscientific and untutored opinion, based on empiricism from 70 odd years of experience: that sounds like neither science nor faith to me - more like self-delusion.

Quote from: Dave on March 22, 2018, 12:18:40 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:11:56 PM

Quote from: Tank on March 22, 2018, 07:40:41 AM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 08:03:33 PM
my science cannot be broken.  anything you think you have only demonstrates your ignorance.   ;)

Then it's not science, it's faith.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 08:43:27 PM
My science cannot be broken is a statement of mathematical alignment with the known properties of the universe...  there are no inconsistencies.   

Well, only my unscientific and untutored opinion, based on empiricism from 70 odd years of experience: that sounds like neither science nor faith to me - more like self-delusion.

Try not to take it out of context.   

If I was dealing with decent people who like to have decent conversations about decent things, I would have never gotten anywhere near saying anything of the sort.   I was taunting a rival there.   I suggest all who see it leave it at that or the subsequent bitching will have me double down on that and i'll really start hurting the feelings of the inept.

Quote from: Dave on March 22, 2018, 12:18:40 PM
Well, only my unscientific and untutored opinion, based on empiricism from 70 odd years of experience: that sounds like neither science nor faith to me - more like self-delusion.

i mean, find it man!!!    you are absolutely right!!! there is bound to be an inconsistency in there somewhere, right?!?    find it!    Discount Nova!  I want you to!  ;)

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:41:49 PM

Quote from: Dave on March 22, 2018, 12:18:40 PM
Well, only my unscientific and untutored opinion, based on empiricism from 70 odd years of experience: that sounds like neither science nor faith to me - more like self-delusion.

i mean, find it man!!!    you are absolutely right!!! there is bound to be an inconsistency in there somewhere, right?!?    find it!    Discount Nova!  I want you to!  ;)

I already had found a few, and you cowered away from my objections to hide behind personal attacks.

Quote from: Davin on March 22, 2018, 01:31:37 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 12:41:49 PM

Quote from: Dave on March 22, 2018, 12:18:40 PM
Well, only my unscientific and untutored opinion, based on empiricism from 70 odd years of experience: that sounds like neither science nor faith to me - more like self-delusion.

i mean, find it man!!!    you are absolutely right!!! there is bound to be an inconsistency in there somewhere, right?!?    find it!    Discount Nova!  I want you to!  ;)

I already had found a few, and you cowered away from my objections to hide behind personal attacks.

your approach clearly showed its desperation toward the end of the night.   I see we're starting pretty close to that now.   

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 22, 2018, 02:42:49 PM
your approach clearly showed its desperation toward the end of the night.   I see we're starting pretty close to that now.

So how's that misrepresentation that modern science doesn't account for gravitational effects on red shift going for you?

Why would you expect all points in a galaxy to have the same red shift value if red shift is a relative velocity measurement?

How can you see through a room that is filled up to 99.999+% plasma?

This thread too.




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 21, 2018, 09:12:55 PM
oh, Jumbojack, i got something for you to check out!   

I was looking for more of a "plasma physics for dummies" type thing than a history lesson with subtitles. Sorry RZ, but I couldnt make it past the halfway point.

An example of good scientific communication.

Excellent, Hermes!

Good find.

Quote from: jumbojak on March 22, 2018, 11:50:37 PM

I was looking for more of a "plasma physics for dummies" type thing than a history lesson with subtitles. Sorry RZ, but I couldnt make it past the halfway point.

We call that big bang universe.    lol     J/K   

I'm sorry jumbojak, there's not much out there, at any level of aptitude/exposure.   

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 23, 2018, 06:33:04 AM
An example of good scientific communication.

you again?    you still hoping for an abstract?   you know you're tripp'n right?   I'll be holding on to them intellectual property rights.   anything else you want out of me?

Quote from: Dave on March 23, 2018, 08:22:54 AM
Excellent, Hermes!

Good find.

I have to agree.   it's a pretty worthy vid.   

"The capacity to ask a question is of far greater importance than the capacity to answer one.   To answer a question is to share a thought, feeling, idea, value, concept, or belief.   To ask a question is the attempt to grasp new concepts or establish new relations within our universe.   Inquiry is an act of exploration.   The possibility of unique knowledge is forged within the formulation of a question.   The answer serves only to confirm, deny, or elaborate."   -Rift Zone

You guys know how a quasar works, don't ya, out of a paragraph?   then we'll assume i'm not all that bad with explanation and you guys are free to ask questions if you want a bigger picture. 

Just in case people are wondering what this all means...     The single action of re-defining nova in the manner expressed in the original post breaks all of modern physics.   It's not compatible with Relativity, the Standard Model of QM, and clearly not with Big Bang Theory.    Furthermore, that conclusion is about as definitive as you get without publishing the math behind it.    Black holes don't exist; mother nature is kicking them to the curb all over the place.   The description above is a perfect representation of observation; this is precisely how nova happens.   So modern physics is already toast.   The "Time!" essay describes a bit about what QM and our relativistic universe really looks like.   

furthermore, let it be known that I only make sport out of punks trying to get a piece of me.   I treat decent people with kindness, humility, and respect.   being inquisitive and ruthless with ideas is what we're supposed to do, it's our nature.   So, I'm at you disposal if you want to explore what this crazy fuck thinks.  ;)

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 01:57:03 PM
furthermore, let it be known that I only make sport out of punks trying to get a piece of me.   I treat decent people with kindness, humility, and respect.   being inquisitive and ruthless with ideas is what we're supposed to do, it's our nature.   So, I'm at you disposal if you want to explore what this crazy fuck thinks.  ;)

That's a very good description of Davin.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 12:56:49 PMThe single action of re-defining nova in the manner expressed in the original post breaks all of modern physics.

You used the term "prevailing theory" 21 times in the original post, but not once did you specifically mention even one of those prevailing theories. Which theories at what points do you disagree with and what is your model and how does your model work better. To be clear, I'm not interested in words, I'm interested in the math and the tests and the peer reviews.

Also, the idea that one thing can break "all" of modern physics is something that will require some demonstration (severe under exaggeration in case it wasn't clear). For instance, using modern physics to determine the paths and jet thrusts required to launch rockets into space and then land them safely, works quite well.


Does this Nova thing break those modern physics models that have been demonstrated to work?

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 01:57:03 PM
furthermore, let it be known that I only make sport out of punks trying to get a piece of me.   I treat decent people with kindness, humility, and respect.   being inquisitive and ruthless with ideas is what we're supposed to do, it's our nature.   So, I'm at you disposal if you want to explore what this crazy fuck thinks.  ;)

Good luck with that!
I've been waiting 8 years for something like that to happen to me around here. Some have been waiting longer.
:snicker:

Quote from: Davin on March 23, 2018, 05:56:25 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 12:56:49 PMThe single action of re-defining nova in the manner expressed in the original post breaks all of modern physics.

You used the term "prevailing theory" 21 times in the original post, but not once did you specifically mention even one of those prevailing theories. Which theories at what points do you disagree with and what is your model and how does your model work better. To be clear, I'm not interested in words, I'm interested in the math and the tests and the peer reviews.

Also, the idea that one thing can break "all" of modern physics is something that will require some demonstration (severe under exaggeration in case it wasn't clear). For instance, using modern physics to determine the paths and jet thrusts required to launch rockets into space and then land them safely, works quite well.

Does this Nova thing break those modern physics models that have been demonstrated to work?

I assumed it would be evident the previaling theory in question had a lot to do with black holes and singularity.   It just turns out the conclusion is incompatible other facets (other theories).   

When we create schwarzchild radius in the lab we will have direct experimental evidence that says, yes modern physics models that have been demonstrated to work will be demonstrated to not work well enough.   

I'll share my homework on that another day.   So we're not dealing with a model that's competing for dominance within academia on proper turf: mathematics, so I'm not trying to convince anyone to adopt this model, only to let you guys know another model that says very different things is being developed.  -that's all.   

Quote from: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 06:19:19 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 01:57:03 PM
furthermore, let it be known that I only make sport out of punks trying to get a piece of me.   I treat decent people with kindness, humility, and respect.   being inquisitive and ruthless with ideas is what we're supposed to do, it's our nature.   So, I'm at you disposal if you want to explore what this crazy fuck thinks.  ;)

Good luck with that!
I've been waiting 8 years for something like that to happen to me around here. Some have been waiting longer.
:snicker:

lol   Cool, leaving me be in obscurity would work too...  I like it there.   =)

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 07:43:59 PM

Quote from: Davin on March 23, 2018, 05:56:25 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 12:56:49 PMThe single action of re-defining nova in the manner expressed in the original post breaks all of modern physics.

You used the term "prevailing theory" 21 times in the original post, but not once did you specifically mention even one of those prevailing theories. Which theories at what points do you disagree with and what is your model and how does your model work better. To be clear, I'm not interested in words, I'm interested in the math and the tests and the peer reviews.

Also, the idea that one thing can break "all" of modern physics is something that will require some demonstration (severe under exaggeration in case it wasn't clear). For instance, using modern physics to determine the paths and jet thrusts required to launch rockets into space and then land them safely, works quite well.

Does this Nova thing break those modern physics models that have been demonstrated to work?

I assumed it would be evident the previaling theory in question had a lot to do with black holes and singularity. It just turns out the conclusion is incompatible other facets (other theories).

Which "prevailing theory" are you talking about? There are a lot of scientific theories and none of them are named "prevailing theory." And what theory is this conclusion that you're talking about coming from?

Quote from: Rift Zone
When we create schwarzchild radius in the lab we will have direct experimental evidence that says, yes modern physics models that have been demonstrated to work will be demonstrated to not work well enough.

If it hasn't been demonstrated yet, then it doesn't matter yet. It's nice that you're moving away from the hyperbolic statements like "breaks all of modern physics" and moved onto something halfway reasonable like "[modern physics] [don't] work well enough."

Quote from: Rift ZoneI'll share my homework on that another day.   So we're not dealing with a model that's competing for dominance within academia on proper turf: mathematics, so I'm not trying to convince anyone to adopt this model, only to let you guys know another model that says very different things is being developed.  -that's all.

So you're just here to say that all of modern physics is wrong and then you're not going to back it up? Also, a model is being "developed" means that it's not demonstrated yet. So it's probably wrong anyway. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Quote from: Tank on March 23, 2018, 04:55:20 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 01:57:03 PM
furthermore, let it be known that I only make sport out of punks trying to get a piece of me.   I treat decent people with kindness, humility, and respect.   being inquisitive and ruthless with ideas is what we're supposed to do, it's our nature.   So, I'm at you disposal if you want to explore what this crazy fuck thinks.  ;)

That's a very good description of Davin.

Davin has been willfully engaging in behavior unbecoming of scientific discourse, so that remains to be seen. 

however, to defend the quality of his character, as well as my own, I'd like to point out we did the online equivalent of getting on a sparring mat, facing, bowing, and fighting.   So I imagine every party present wasn't exactly on their best behavior.   And I'd personally like to apologize to HAF staff for our choice of venue.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 08:08:11 PM

Quote from: Tank on March 23, 2018, 04:55:20 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 01:57:03 PM
furthermore, let it be known that I only make sport out of punks trying to get a piece of me.   I treat decent people with kindness, humility, and respect.   being inquisitive and ruthless with ideas is what we're supposed to do, it's our nature.   So, I'm at you disposal if you want to explore what this crazy fuck thinks.  ;)

That's a very good description of Davin.

Davin has been willfully engaging in behavior unbecoming of scientific discourse, so that remains to be seen. 

however, to defend the quality of his character, as well as my own, I'd like to point out we did the online equivalent of getting on a sparring mat, facing, bowing, and fighting.   So I imagine every party present wasn't exactly on their best behavior.   And I'd personally like to apologize to HAF staff for our choice of venue.

I don't think it was a sparring match. Didn't seem adversarial at all to me.

The theories I refer to are the ones Nova competes with: Big Bang Theory, the Standard Model of QM, and Relativity.   I'm sorry, I'm used to the science saavy, where that is very clear.

If it don't matter, then don't worry about it.   
observation decides what gets broken.   ^^That shit is already history.   The only thing to decide now is what to replace it with.

Modern physics is wrong.

QuoteThe theories I refer to are Big Bang Theory, the Standard Model of QM, and Relativity.

I did demonstrate it.   You'll have your mathematical proof when I'm tired of making sport out of fools...   after all, who will fuck with me then?

Well, RZ, if you tell us specifically what you are talking about, not make sweeping statements/claims you might get a little more respect and attention.

But you still cannot expect any thinking person to accept what you claim without backing those  claims up with evidence that they can understand.

If your proofs are so esoteric that we stand little chance of understanding them then you have, perhaps, chosen the wrong platform.

If I may borrow, and edit, one of the bits of wisdom in the bible (and risk getting it in the neck from my fellow members!) "Do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

Oink, oink!

:grin:

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 08:13:26 PM
The theories I refer to are Big Bang Theory, the Standard Model of QM, and Relativity.

Nothing you've presented even challenges Big Bang Theory.

Nothing you've presented contradicts the Theory of Relativity, so there are no presented challenges to it.

Nothing in what is presented challenges the Standard Model.

Directly say what you're specifically challenging and how this new undemonstrated and undeveloped "model" works better to describe what those theories describe. Stop being vague and let's get into it.

Quote from: Rift Zone
If it don't matter, then don't worry about it.   
observation decides what gets broken.   ^That shit is already history.   The only thing to decide now is what to replace it with.

It's not history though, that shit are still in use, is being tested and demonstrated, and withstanding the test of time.

Quote from: Rift Zone
Modern physics is wrong.

QuoteThe theories I refer to are Big Bang Theory, the Standard Model of QM, and Relativity.

I did demonstrate it.   You'll have your mathematical proof when I'm tired of making sport out of fools...   after all, who will fuck with me then?

Why wait? Still retreating back into personal attacks?

I don't mind you, I don't hate you, I'm not frustrated by you, I don't think of you as an enemy or adversary... that doesn't mean I like you, it's more like a neutral zero level. You're just some person saying things that aren't true. It happens all the time, it's no big deal.

If relativity is wrong RZ how come sat navs work?

Quote from: Dave on March 23, 2018, 08:41:37 PM
Well, RZ, if you tell us specifically what you are talking about, not make sweeping statements/claims you might get a little more respect and attention.

But you still cannot expect any thinking person to accept what you claim without backing those  claims up with evidence that they can understand.

If your proofs are so esoteric that we stand little chance of understanding them then you have, perhaps, chosen the wrong platform.

If I may borrow, and edit, one of the bits of wisdom in the bible (and risk getting it in the neck from my fellow members!) "Do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

Oink, oink!

:grin:

If I didn't explain myself well enough, then that's one thing and it should be looked at, but i'm not exactly sure where these unsupported wide sweeping claims are at...    Could you help me find them?   I'd be happy to deal with em if I knew what you were talking about.     

That original post is about as watered down as you can get while still considering it a scientific discussion.    -we both know that.   But the writing is on the wall already!!!    I feel that OP was fairly accessible.   ...that is was something the layperson can understand and confirm for themselves.    The time essay, ya, that one is a bit rougher.   

lol  I knew what i was getting myself into...  it's always the same.   =)

Quote from: Tank on March 23, 2018, 08:45:53 PM
If relativity is wrong RZ how come sat navs work?

Relativity is wrong only in the sense that it's a behavioral model that makes faulty predictions about the physical structure of the universe.    It's got time dilation right, and calculates it perfectly, but time is not a dimension, and in general, some of the structure of relativity falls apart when reconciled with notions found in these geek posts, including the re-defining of nova.

RZ, I think I found a good avatar for you.  :reading:
(https://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/He_ef0a43_2468833.jpg)

Quote from: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 09:21:03 PM
RZ, I think I found a good avatar for you.  :reading:
(https://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/He_ef0a43_2468833.jpg)

lol   :love:

seen my rabbit hole thread?   -I'm hoping that's the case.   

Quote from: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 09:21:03 PM
RZ, I think I found a good avatar for you.  :reading:

So, do you recognize my avatar?   do you know where it came from?    Who knows what that is?   

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 10:00:52 PM

Quote from: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 09:21:03 PM
RZ, I think I found a good avatar for you.  :reading:

So, do you recognize my avatar?   do you know where it came from?    Who knows what that is?

Yes, I know...You pervert!  >:(

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 07, 2018, 04:55:13 PM
(https://scontent.fpoa13-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28870293_166882167442941_6589595876267457220_n.jpg?oh=6a5b63cc4d3a4d7f78431ff5eaf941ba&oe=5B055117)

Quote from: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 10:22:28 PM
Yes, I know...You pervert!  >:(

Neytiri, come to me!   

I've got that tattooed across my chest; origin is my left of center and the long line wraps behind my arm a bit.   ..."home sweet home", written in the language of the science age.

Quote from: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 09:21:03 PM
RZ, I think I found a good avatar for you.  :reading:
(https://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/He_ef0a43_2468833.jpg)

I might have to steal that now that Don Quixote dissappear ed.

Quote from: jumbojak on March 24, 2018, 01:47:31 AM

Quote from: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 09:21:03 PM
RZ, I think I found a good avatar for you.  :reading:
(https://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/He_ef0a43_2468833.jpg)

I might have to steal that now that Don Quixote dissappear ed.

you should rock it bro!   that'd look great on you.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 11:06:29 PM

Quote from: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 10:22:28 PM
Yes, I know...You pervert!  >:(

Neytiri, come to me!   
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/3pDwzu7sYmF4k/200w.gif)

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 11:06:29 PM
I've got that tattooed across my chest; origin is my left of center and the long line wraps behind my arm a bit.   ..."home sweet home", written in the language of the science age.

Pictures, please.  :reading:

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 10:00:52 PM

Quote from: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 09:21:03 PM
RZ, I think I found a good avatar for you.  :reading:

So, do you recognize my avatar?   do you know where it came from?    Who knows what that is?

It's the location of Earth as defined on the Voyger information discs.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 09:10:47 PM

Quote from: Tank on March 23, 2018, 08:45:53 PM
If relativity is wrong RZ how come sat navs work?

Relativity is wrong only in the sense that it's a behavioral model that makes faulty predictions about the physical structure of the universe.   ...

Please give an example of faulty prediction.

Quote from: Magdalena on March 24, 2018, 03:52:24 AM
Pictures, please.  :reading:

pfft...   no one wants to see that.   tattooed geeks are bound to be the saddest thing in the universe. 



Right you are Tank!    -It's "Mother Nature", in binary, and geek speak.

Quote from: Tank on March 24, 2018, 07:24:33 AM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 23, 2018, 09:10:47 PM

Quote from: Tank on March 23, 2018, 08:45:53 PM
If relativity is wrong RZ how come sat navs work?

Relativity is wrong only in the sense that it's a behavioral model that makes faulty predictions about the physical structure of the universe.   ...

Please give an example of faulty prediction.

"Wormholes".   -perfectly legit in Relativity, fully smoking crack in reality.   Time is not a dimension, there is no space-time fabric, there is no traversing time or traveling subspace, black holes don't exist, blackholes that don't exist certainly won't find themselves linked to multiple space-time fabrics that don't exist either, the whole story is a sham.  kinda cute, but no.

Once again, RZ, bood, sweeping statements without even any attempt to provide evidence, let alone proof. If you think your proofs are beyond our understanding present your theories for objective peer review and publication and send us the linjs for citations.

Sounding more like a religion with every post!

Quote from: Dave on March 24, 2018, 12:18:50 PM
Once again, RZ, bood, sweeping statements without even any attempt to provide evidence, let alone proof. If you think your proofs are beyond our understanding present your theories for objective peer review and publication and send us the linjs for citations.

Sounding more like a religion with every post!

Time is not a dimension was addressed in the "Time!" essay.  Black holes don't exist was addressed in the OP of this thread.   these things have been well established in this conversation.  ( try to keep up!)   The rest is natural consequences of the other two premises.   

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 24, 2018, 12:41:26 PM

Quote from: Dave on March 24, 2018, 12:18:50 PM
Once again, RZ, bood, sweeping statements without even any attempt to provide evidence, let alone proof. If you think your proofs are beyond our understanding present your theories for objective peer review and publication and send us the linjs for citations.

Sounding more like a religion with every post!

Time is not a dimension was addressed in the "Time!" essay.  Black holes don't exist was addressed in the OP of this thread.   these things have been well established in this conversation.  ( try to keep up!)   The rest is natural consequences of the other two premises.

Strength to your arm, others diss 'em but I think Trolls can invigorate a forum.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 24, 2018, 11:59:04 AM

Quote from: Magdalena on March 24, 2018, 03:52:24 AM
Pictures, please.  :reading:

pfft...   no one wants to see that.   tattooed geeks are bound to be the saddest thing in the universe. 

I don't know...Davin is a little bit, "geeky," and he showed us his nice chest tattoo. Even Arturo showed us his tiny chest tattoo.

Anyways, I noticed you got one strike already. Show us before you get two more. You're not "chicken" are you?
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/l0HU6mZGLr8ppuZBm/200w.gif)

:grin:

Quote from: Magdalena on March 24, 2018, 05:33:47 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 24, 2018, 11:59:04 AM

Quote from: Magdalena on March 24, 2018, 03:52:24 AM
Pictures, please.  :reading:

pfft...   no one wants to see that.   tattooed geeks are bound to be the saddest thing in the universe. 

I don't know...Davin is a little bit, "geeky," and he showed us his nice chest tattoo. Even Arturo showed us his tiny chest tattoo.

Anyways, I noticed you got one strike already. Show us before you get two more. You're not "chicken" are you?
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/l0HU6mZGLr8ppuZBm/200w.gif)

:grin:

You're supposed to start with the bare chest shots!  ...and bent over a desk. 

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 24, 2018, 07:26:08 PM
You're supposed to start with the bare chest shots!  ...and bent over a desk.

I'm not sure what this means.  :notsure:

Quote from: Magdalena on March 24, 2018, 08:06:20 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 24, 2018, 07:26:08 PM
You're supposed to start with the bare chest shots!  ...and bent over a desk.

I'm not sure what this means.  :notsure:

Twerk?   

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 25, 2018, 02:40:17 AM

Quote from: Magdalena on March 24, 2018, 08:06:20 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 24, 2018, 07:26:08 PM
You're supposed to start with the bare chest shots!  ...and bent over a desk.

I'm not sure what this means.  :notsure:

Twerk?

Oh, boy...
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3pDwzu7sYmF4k/200w.gif)
...You are "geeky" aren't you?

Quote from: Magdalena on March 25, 2018, 03:01:17 AM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 25, 2018, 02:40:17 AM

Quote from: Magdalena on March 24, 2018, 08:06:20 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 24, 2018, 07:26:08 PM
You're supposed to start with the bare chest shots!  ...and bent over a desk.

I'm not sure what this means.  :notsure:

Twerk?

Oh, boy...
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3pDwzu7sYmF4k/200w.gif)
...You are "geeky" aren't you?

lol   yes ma'am, guilty as charged.   Then again, I'm alpha (as defined by strength of presence; invariably mine is most pronounced, been described as intimidating. i'm worse in person), so I could be inept here, or I could be having fun with the situation...   Probably inept.   

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 25, 2018, 01:55:06 PM
...been described as intimidating...

I'm genuinely curious...why is that?

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 25, 2018, 03:00:48 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 25, 2018, 01:55:06 PM
...been described as intimidating...

I'm genuinely curious...why is that?

I'm a mild mannered science geek, most of the time.   I mean, I'm INTJ, introvert, very much immersed in the little world that is my work, I'm often that quiet guy in the background no one pays any attention to.    By my strength of being/presence is insane, i'm emotionally one of the strongest people alive, and I'm very socially adept, navigating virtually any social setting with ease, from black ties and dignitaries, to thugs in the hood, to geeks in labs, and nearly everywhere inbetween.  So i can come off as quite extroverted if I'm feeling it: life of the party, lead geek among geeks, outspoken in general...  Anyway, take my primal passion for nature, mix in that strength of presence, add a dash of my tendency to break things that stand against me, and yea, both my strength of presence and I have been described as intimidating.   

For my defense, I only take myself seriously when I need to.    -makes life funner that way.   

Went to a "meet-up" organized on INTJforum.com once.   I was found to be unique among them.  They did have nice things to say about me:

"the posture and composure of a yogini with a youthful vibrance and presence..."

"this guy made me rethink my whole idea of introverts.  Full of energy and confidence, very sociable."

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 25, 2018, 03:23:29 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 25, 2018, 03:00:48 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 25, 2018, 01:55:06 PM
...been described as intimidating...

I'm genuinely curious...why is that?

I'm a mild mannered science geek, most of the time.   I mean, I'm INTJ, introvert, very much immersed in the little world that is my work, I'm often that quiet guy in the background no one pays any attention to.    By my strength of being/presence is insane, i'm emotionally one of the strongest people alive, and I'm very socially adept, navigating virtually any social setting with ease, from black ties and dignitaries, to thugs in the hood, to geeks in labs, and nearly everywhere inbetween.  So i can come off as quite extroverted if I'm feeling it: life of the party, lead geek among geeks, outspoken in general...  Anyway, take my primal passion for nature, mix in that strength of presence, add a dash of my tendency to break things that stand against me, and yea, both my strength of presence and I have been described as intimidating.

That's interesting. I know I intimidate some people IRL but can't fathom why. Like you, I'm mild mannered most of the time. I don't consider myself to be outspoken - I pick my battles -  but do consider myself to be open to new ideas and meeting new people. I also consider myself to be emotionally strong, I went to Hell and back and would do it all again, but it's not like I go around "flexing my emotional muscles" for all to see.

:notsure: Maybe it's because I'm tall compared to the national average. :lol:  I tower over a lot of other Brazilians.   

Quote:notsure: Maybe it's because I'm tall compared to the national average. :lol:  I tower over a lot of other Brazilians.   

Ah! Junoesque or statuesque?

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 25, 2018, 04:49:23 PM

That's interesting. I know I intimidate some people IRL but can't fathom why. Like you, I'm mild mannered most of the time. I don't consider myself to be outspoken - I pick my battles -  but do consider myself to be open to new ideas and meeting new people. I also consider myself to be emotionally strong, I went to Hell and back and would do it all again, but it's not like I go around "flexing my emotional muscles" for all to see.

:notsure: Maybe it's because I'm tall compared to the national average. :lol:  I tower over a lot of other Brazilians.   

People trip on inherently strong people, cuz not all are like that.    I'm fairly tall too.    Yea!   -not much opportinity to flex them emotional muscles...   i guess it's fortunate it's not always needed.   I don't need to worry about it all in crisis situations cuz i don't think, I act; I'm just a machine that handles it: graduated top of my class for wilderness first responder, self-reliance of adventure trekking, been thanked by fire departments for putting out oil kitchen fires, twice...

Quote from: Dave on March 25, 2018, 05:16:31 PM

Quote:notsure: Maybe it's because I'm tall compared to the national average. :lol:  I tower over a lot of other Brazilians.   

Ah! Junoesque or statuesque?

I dream of being dignified tall, but whenever I try, some people say I'm a snob. "Don't look down on me!" they say. "I can't help it! I reply.

;)

So I guess I'm awkwardesque :lol:

When I was a kid (way back when . . .) we used to draw "Esque" figures. There was, of course, an "Esquemo", and a "Statuesque", an "Arabesque" got in there as well others I forget.

The other thing was "Nerks":
(https://imgur.com/XHnJiPV.jpg)

Most prominent of those in my memory is:
(https://imgur.com/aiURGHP.jpg)

We are talking 1950s here, cold war era.

And my artistic ability sucks!

:lol: Love the Nerklier Explosion!

Just to note that the pervasive "alpha/beta" analysis of human interaction is absurdly oversimplified and rooted in debunked ideas about wolf behavior.

"Why everything you know about wolf packs is wrong" | io9 (https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629)

QuoteThe alpha wolf is a figure that looms large in our imagination. The notion of a supreme pack leader who fought his way to dominance and reigns superior to the other wolves in his pack informs both our fiction and is how many people understand wolf behavior. But the alpha wolf doesn't exist—at least not in the wild.

[. . .]

"The concept of the alpha wolf as a "top dog" ruling a group of similar-aged compatriots," Mech writes in the 1999 paper, "is particularly misleading." Mech notes that earlier papers, such as M.W. Fox's "Socio-ecological implications of individual differences in wolf litters: a developmental and evolutionary perspective," published in Behaviour in 1971, examined the potential of individual cubs to become alphas, implying that the wolves would someday live in packs in which some would become alphas and others would be subordinate pack members. However, Mech explains, his studies of wild wolves have found that wolves live in families: two parents along with their younger cubs. Wolves do not have an innate sense of rank; they are not born leaders or born followers. The "alphas" are simply what we would call in any other social group "parents." The offspring follow the parents as naturally as they would in any other species. No one has "won" a role as leader of the pack; the parents may assert dominance over the offspring by virtue of being the parents.

While the captive wolf studies saw unrelated adults living together in captivity, related, rather than unrelated, wolves travel together in the wild. Younger wolves do not overthrow the "alpha" to become the leader of the pack; as wolf pups grow older, they are dispersed from their parents' packs, pair off with other dispersed wolves, have pups, and thus form packs of their own.

[Continues . . . (https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629)]

^ Someone tell that to Cesar Milan.

(Argh I can't stand him.)

I may be anthropomorphising here but there are so many similarities between wolves and humans it's uncanny. :P

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 25, 2018, 01:55:06 PM
...I'm alpha (as defined by strength of presence; invariably mine is most pronounced, been described as intimidating. i'm worse in person)...

Well, my dear, Mr. Alpha, but not Omega, how is that working for you?

(https://ugc.kn3.net/i/origin/https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7762254336/h25FDC6B1/)

Quote from: Recusant on March 25, 2018, 10:35:33 PM
Just to note that the pervasive "alpha/beta" analysis of human interaction is absurdly oversimplified and rooted in debunked ideas about wolf behavior.

Yea.    All true.   We have our own dynamics.   

Quote from: Magdalena on March 25, 2018, 10:49:05 PM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 25, 2018, 01:55:06 PM
...I'm alpha (as defined by strength of presence; invariably mine is most pronounced, been described as intimidating. i'm worse in person)...

Well, my dear, Mr. Alpha, but not Omega, how is that working for you?

(https://ugc.kn3.net/i/origin/https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7762254336/h25FDC6B1/)

^yea, that's me alright.
Omega, the iconoclasts, right?   That might fit me better, seeing as how I don't need the population for my dominance, nor do I seek their approval/support of it.   I'm not really sure what to make of myself in all that; the only thing I'm clear on is I'm not built like the rest of em.   

Wolves rock.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 26, 2018, 01:56:54 AM
... the only thing I'm clear on is I'm not built like the rest of em.   

...

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/TL6poLzwbHuF2/200w.gif)
...Deep down we're all very similar.  :sad sigh:

Quote from: Magdalena on March 26, 2018, 02:27:30 AM

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 26, 2018, 01:56:54 AM
... the only thing I'm clear on is I'm not built like the rest of em.   

...

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/TL6poLzwbHuF2/200w.gif)
...Deep down we're all very similar.  :sad sigh:

Yea, can't argue against that.   Besides, in spite of having some complex thoughts, I find myself to be a very simple person, with simple needs/desires.