Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 39 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Hmm lets see you are the one using expletives and carrying on, I am merely saying you have the right to believe whatever you want even if it is really crazy smile

Lets see what the moderator does so complain away my old son because I have been nothing but civil. I have simply refused to bother arguing because it' far too stupid and for some reason that annoys you laugh

Hell I am hoping the moderator does act because then we have a standard that can be applied on all threads and somehow I don't think you are going to like that. Perhaps put in a prayer to the big guy up stairs and maybe your wish will be granted.

Last edited by Orac; 06/29/14 04:22 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
orac

I have taken your advice and made it a reality.

and I want you to understand why I decided to act
on your suggestion.

1) if your going to make claims , you need to be able and willing to back up those claims.

2) you cannot back up a claim simply through insult or flaming.

3) if you find that you are not able to back up your claim
then you should have the decency to express that your claim
was either incorrect or was a mere assumption or hypothesis.

here is my request to the moderators.

Quote:
in the "expanding space theory debunked" thread orac
is making claims in his post that he either will not defend
or cannot defend nor will he accept or admit that his claims
are incorrect , and as usual he has resorted to flaming to
cover up or hide his lack of understanding or knowledge , I (in similar words) explained to him that his post usually do not contain any worthwhile value that would compliment the discussion.

since we are trying to make the forum resemble a science
forum as earlier discussed I find I must ask you to remove his
post from this particular topics pages.

if his post were to express a more genuine respect to the
thread topic vs a selfish need to further an agenda that cannot withstand criticism I probably would not be asking you to remove his post.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Cool and I will simply ask that any post with science is evil blah blah blah be removed from threads that are not yours.

They meet all the same criteria you have described above and far far worse ... this will be great smile

What you didn't use the expletives when describing your argument to the moderator or was that the "(in similar words)" laugh

Lets see where this all goes shall we, I have long been advocating more moderator involvement.

Last edited by Orac; 06/30/14 01:42 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
I wish you 2 would get back to science and quite tittle-tattling. I'm not going to remove posts that are within the bounds of the discussion. As for myself, you can't make a box that will not expand with the space that is expanding, because all stuff is expanding, including the box and what it is made of. No, the box full of matter would not explode, it would simply seamlessly expand just like the matter inside and outside of it expands. You would not be able to tell it was expanding. Unless you have some sort of miracle matter that does not expand with the rest of the universe, your hypothesis will go unproven. Since all matter is part of the same universe, the matter that the box is made up of is going to expand at exactly the same rate as the rest of the universe. Your experiment is fallacious. You cannot make up some special matter that doesn't expand with the rest of the universe. Let's not be silly about this.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Your lets not get silly about this was what I was in trouble for so in the interest of impartiality and fairness I have to object on Paul's behalf ... that was a joke hopefully my English works smile

For my part I actually tried not to get in an argument for once, I know it is rare but I am short on time at the moment.

Take care and I will try and keep the my arguing down to a dull roar.

Last edited by Orac; 06/30/14 08:22 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Rose, your following statements are incorrect:

"all stuff is expanding, including the box...the matter that the box is made up of is going to expand at exactly the same rate as the rest of the universe".

- In fact, that's untrue at this particular point in the history of the universe. Currently, any stuff that is sufficiently bound by either gravity or the nuclear forces does not expand. That includes everything from an atom to a galaxy.

According to the Big Rip theory:
Since the rate of expansion is increasing, galaxies within galaxy clusters will eventually begin to move apart. In the remoter future, all currently observable galaxies will recede beyond the observable universe. Ultimately, the molecular structure of all things (including our hypothetical box) will disintegrate. So, it's a matter of degree, and space is not yet expanding to that degree***

So sayeth the theory. Don't blame me, it wasn't my idea grin

*** Presently, the Hubble constant (rate of expansion) is about 70 km/s/megaparsec. That's 1 nanometer (1 billionth of a meter) per second, per 441,000 km.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: redewenur
According to the Big Rip theory:
Since the rate of expansion is increasing, galaxies within galaxy clusters will eventually begin to move apart. In the remoter future, all currently observable galaxies will recede beyond the observable universe. Ultimately, the molecular structure of all things (including our hypothetical box) will disintegrate. So, it's a matter of degree, and space is not yet expanding to that degree***

So sayeth the theory. Don't blame me, it wasn't my idea.

Thanks Rede. I knew I had seen that some where and wanted to throw it into this discussion, but couldn't find it.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Even that is not accurate or up to date probably start with Ethan's article but you also need to read the comments of WOW in it that fixes a couple issues up.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/...verse-combined/

From the QM field and the standard model we can also add in a few bits in but I will throw them when you get to them I don't want to be accused of having an agenda here ... you guys keep thinking.

What I will say there are a number of things currently in cosmology that run smack up against the standard model and you even get some nutcase cosmology professors who think they can somehow invalidate the standard model based on garbage cosmological observation. Meanwhile the standard model keeps proving reliable to an incredible accuracy laugh

Bill's man Prof Matt Strassler did a fairly good article on it this year which is worth a read. At the extreme technical I have one quibble with it but for a layman it's very good
http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/26/which-parts-of-the-big-bang-theory-are-reliable/

My only comment to provoke thought is no-one has thrown in the idea that we are one universe in a bigger bunch of universes and are being pulled apart. Whats wrong with the idea and how could you test it?

You are all literally thinking inside the box smile

Last edited by Orac; 06/30/14 02:13 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
What I will say there are a number of things currently in cosmology that run smack up against the standard model and you even get some nutcase cosmology professors who think they can somehow invalidate the standard model based on garbage cosmological observation. Meanwhile the standard model keeps proving reliable to an incredible accuracy

Yes the Standard Model does work with incredible accuracy. GR also works with incredible accuracy, don't forget that. I know you don't believe in GR but I will keep my faith until it is invalidated, while recognizing that there are conflicts between GR and QM.
Originally Posted By: Orac
My only comment to provoke thought is no-one has thrown in the idea that we are one universe in a bigger bunch of universes and are being pulled apart. Whats wrong with the idea and how could you test it?

I'm not too concerned with multiple universes. If they exist, and there is no real evidence that they do, then they still don't have much to do with our universe. That is the only one we can observe. We have to work with what we have, not what some people think may be.

Originally Posted By: Orac
You are all literally thinking inside the box

Of course we are thinking inside the box. Paul's box encloses the whole universe, so we have to think inside it.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
I know you don't believe in GR but I will keep my faith until it is invalidated, while recognizing that there are conflicts between GR and QM.

You keep saying that and I have no idea why I have repeated over and over so lets do it one more time in red

I believe in GR as much as I believe in QM but BOTH have issues.

You seem to ignore my issues underlying QM as it stands but focus on my issues with GR ... be consistent I either believe them both or don't believe either. I personally don't care which way you go but I think both have about the same standing so it's both together whichever way you want.

So lets clarify my issues once more

GR my issue is it is a theoretical and mathematical match to a problem with only partial direct evidence because we don't have solid understanding of the origin of gravity. I am completely sold on GR if there is a direct detection of a gravity wave which everything says should be there. That result should come from LIGO in the next couple of years and I will fully and happily accept that.

Science nor I accepted the Higgs without direct evidence so you can't say my stance is unusual or I hate GR or half the rubbish you try and intimate that I have towards GR.

If you look back at my historic posts I was actually betting against the Higgs which based on the new evidence I fully accept. I am no harder on GR than I am on any other part of science including the Higgs prior to confirmed discovery.

My issues with QM are totally different in that we have millions of direct observations of it at work but we have no underlying mechanism if we are going to throw out string theory. So right now you have a rather awkward choice of use QM and ignore the why or keep the why an pray the experiments ruling against string theory can be explained down the track. Ethan and Matt Strassler and all the media writers openly admit the same issue so I am not alone.

Again the idea that QM and GR are conflict is not a fact I would support, it is simply a possibility I couldn't rule out with certainty. I would say it is less likely now than it ever has been given we now understand a lot more of macro scale QM. There are several experiments underway, two will be launched next year, and this issue will be settled one way or another.

Originally Posted By: Bill
I'm not too concerned with multiple universes. If they exist, and there is no real evidence that they do, then they still don't have much to do with our universe. That is the only one we can observe. We have to work with what we have, not what some people think may be.

I guess my responses to that are simple

One of your alternative answers is dark matter and all searches for that keep turning up empty so does dark matter exist in Bill's science?

How do you know such a thing would not be observable exactly what are you basing your answer on Bill?

The problem with Paul's box runs around the very problem Bill S was on, you have to first assume you can put the whole universe in a box smile


Last edited by Orac; 06/30/14 07:58 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
GR my issue is it is a theoretical and mathematical match to a problem with only partial direct evidence because we don't have solid understanding of the origin of gravity. I am completely sold on GR if there is a direct detection of a gravity wave which everything says should be there. That result should come from LIGO in the next couple of years and I will fully and happily accept that.

I thought the fact that there is a great deal of observational evidence for predictions made by GR was pretty good direct evidence. GR has a solid understanding of the origin of gravity. Gravity is the result of the distortion of space by mass-energy. That is just as good as the observational evidence for QM. I don't see that direct detection of gravity waves will necessarily validate or invalidate GR. If we don't detect gravity waves then it may require a change to GR, but all of its other predictions will still be fully valid. In my opinion we will detect gravity waves. If we don't I will be surprised, but will wait for people who understand this sort of thing to come up with the needed corrections.


Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: Bill
I'm not too concerned with multiple universes. If they exist, and there is no real evidence that they do, then they still don't have much to do with our universe. That is the only one we can observe. We have to work with what we have, not what some people think may be.


I guess my responses to that are simple

One of your alternative answers is dark matter and all searches for that keep turning up empty so does dark matter exist in Bill's science?

How do you know such a thing would not be observable exactly what are you basing your answer on Bill?


I'm not quite sure what dark matter has to do with multiple universes. As far as I know multiple universes will be totally unobservable. They will be completely separated from our universe by whatever it is that separates the universes. As far as dark matter is concerned, there is something that is causing galaxies to move wrong according to Newton. Whatever that is acts like it has gravity. Gravity is associated with matter (or energy). Therefore dark matter is as good a tag for it as anything. I realize that some people are looking at Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), but MOND doesn't match well with GR, which works extremely well in other situations. Right now I think that most people that are working on it will go with dark matter.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
I thought the fact that there is a great deal of observational evidence for predictions made by GR was pretty good direct evidence.

There are only two sources of partial direct evidence data around a supernova explosion still disputed and the release of the BICEP2 data a few weeks ago also still disputed. Perhaps review the background on direct evidence of GR again.

Outside of that what we have is lots and lots of very very strong correlation to theory (I could add more very's if you like). If you asked me to bet then I would bet on GR being right but that differs from me being able to say conclusively.

As I said go back to the Higgs it lived in exactly the same condition as a theory, was I supposed to accept the Higgs before it's formal detection?

Gravitational waves are a direct consequence of GR theory if it is correct they have to be there which is the point that is important they can't be explained any other way.

Quote:
GR has a solid understanding of the origin of gravity. Gravity is the result of the distortion of space by mass-energy. That is just as good as the observational evidence for QM.

But you haven't defined what mass or energy is you can only scale it to observation and round and round the classic physics merry go round you go. I am not trying to create and argument here they are the facts everyone agrees on, I know you have read Matt Strasslers discussions on this.

So if you use that criteria then go the whole way please because using that criteria and I also don't accept QM for the same reasons. As I said it's both or neither for me depending how you set the criteria on "believing". I guess if we were in climate science stupidity we could apply the 97% rule and by that standard I am off the hook with you and a GR and QM believer.

Originally Posted By: Bill
I don't see that direct detection of gravity waves will necessarily validate or invalidate GR.

By that argument we didn't need to build the LHC then because it was obvious the Higgs existed ... science doesn't work like that.

Originally Posted By: Bill
If we don't detect gravity waves then it may require a change to GR, but all of its other predictions will still be fully valid.

Haha that's the whole problem is modified GR still actually "GR" it would be the same question if we found a slightly different Higgs to the standard model Higgs ... is it still "the Higgs" then.

Remember gravitational waves are a direct consequence of Einstein's theory and a prediction of it. I am not sure I would call anything that didn't have them Einsteins theory or GR.

There is no right and wrong on that it's a perception thing and because the Higgs was so spot on it is hard to have any evidence of what happens in that case.

Originally Posted By: Bill
In my opinion we will detect gravity waves. If we don't I will be surprised, but will wait for people who understand this sort of thing to come up with the needed corrections.

I totally agree I expect the solution they have the detector working now to the QM limit as reported last week

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-smallest.html

So if LIGO doesn't see a gravitational wave at that point then you have to say it either doesn't exist or QM and GR are both missing something.

So we are back to the none or both scenario again for me.

It's not like this is an argument that has no hope of answering we are in the same position as the moments before the LHC was fired up. LIGO will give us a definite answer to the question but what you are asking me to do is jump the gun before the result all so you can put it in your little "in" box.

All I am saying is the argument will be definitively and positively answered once and for all by LIGO to the QM limit of measurement and I will hold judgement until that point and I will be accepting that answer not some speculation of today.


Originally Posted By: Bill
I'm not quite sure what dark matter has to do with multiple universes.

The issue isn't multiple universes it's the fact we have failed to detect any sign of it other than some theories use it. So is this in or out of your science standards? I am trying to work out what criteria you are using to decide what is in and out of what you accept since what I do and don't say I accept causes you issues.

Originally Posted By: Bill
As far as I know multiple universes will be totally unobservable.

Again I am not answering either way I want you to tell me why you believe that because there is an interesting fact in the background to it.

Last edited by Orac; 07/01/14 07:42 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Orac, There is no positive evidence for any modern physical theory. There is just an overwhelming lot of evidence that they work. You will find many places where people explain that there is no expectation of full confirmation. Theories are accepted as long as they work. Both GR and QM work so they are accepted. If gravitational waves are found they will be one more confirmation that the theory works, but they still won't prove that it is right. It will just be one more confirmed prediction.

I love it when I make a statement and you come back with a statement like: "Again I am not answering either way I want you to tell me why you believe that because there is an interesting fact in the background to it". It would give me a lot more confidence in your statements if you would show why I was wrong instead of implying that you are smarter than I am because you know something I don't. Then of course you don't really show that you know something I don't. If you do know something tell us. If you don't really know something don't imply that you do.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
That was refreshing, Bill; and exactly right.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
I love it when I make a statement and you come back with a statement like: "Again I am not answering either way I want you to tell me why you believe that because there is an interesting fact in the background to it". It would give me a lot more confidence in your statements if you would show why I was wrong instead of implying that you are smarter than I am because you know something I don't. Then of course you don't really show that you know something I don't. If you do know something tell us. If you don't really know something don't imply that you do.


If I tell you the answer then I am accused of lecturing or trying to steer the conversation etc. Personally I have long since given up caring what anyone on this forum says or believes I just practice my English and maybe provoke some actual thought if people are interested.

So I will go out on a limb and actually answer this stupidity you are discussing. Note I am not going to argue this garbage I will give you a statement of the stupidity of the argument take it or leave it. Personally I care little of what you make of my answer.

The problem with Paul's box is nothing to do with the sort of physicality that you are all discussing it means the universe as a SYSTEM IS CLOSED that is it's technical name call it what it is.

The problem with that is simple, energy comes from spacetime translational invariance which does not exist in general relativity and you now want to close the system good luck with that. If you need that dumbed down then energy of movement etc has nothing to do with gravity it works just fine with or without gravity.

You can try and derive the energy density in general relativity and when you do you will get zero. The variation of the action to the metric tensor gives you something that must vanish. Why?? Well because the metric tensor is a dynamical degree of freedom in general relativity and the action must be stationary with respect to all the dynamical degrees of freedom (in layman words your moving object needs to see gravity like a stationary object) - which now includes the metric tensor, too! Technical way of saying your stuffed because your energy value must disappear under Einstein's equations of general relativity.

So now you have a problem Noether's theorem mathematically proves that any boundary (ie. any asymmetry )in time or of a smooth continuous physical space with linear translation and/or angular translation, specifically means that conservation laws of mass-energy, linear momentum and angular momentum respectively, are violated at those boundaries.

Now I am afraid it gets worse not better under QM, Shan Gao did a recent article which neatly covers then problem. It's highly technical but it covers the problem in depth of how QM which we now know is correctly describing energy must sort of meet GR.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9969/1/STSCH_v9.pdf

So I am sorry this garbage about putting the universe in a box is beyond stupid and why specifically I didn't want to get into arguing about it.

Now what is the connection to gravity waves well I will refer you to Phil Gibbs who is an expert you might accept and gets the argument right while explaining it to a student.

Please read his answer carefully at number 5
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2597/energy-conservation-in-general-relativity

You will note he correctly identifies that even Einstein changed his mind back and forward on whether gravity waves would exist and why ... he must be a GR denier like me smile

Now in the article Phil also gives the cosmologists some latitude but that was in 2011 lets just say they have a whole lot less wiggle room in 2013.

So there you have it the connection between GR, gravity waves and conservation of energy and the argument goes all the way back to Einstein himself ... which I thought was an interesting fact about this garbage you guys were discussing.

You guys can dribble all you like about how you think science works but when you run hard against mathematical and observation proofs layman, crackpot cosmologist professor or a media writer you are about to go down in flames no matter how science actually works.

END OF STORY.

Last edited by Orac; 07/01/14 07:41 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Orac, whilst your misrepresentation of the thread contents can be attributed to your apparently limited ability to understand English, that doesn't excuse your unsavoury and discourteous use of such English as you have mastered. You prattle excessively, it may be said; but perhaps that's excusable. More to the point, you prattle rudely and abusively - frequently and regularly - and that's inexcusable. Stop it, if you can. If you can't, you will not be missed.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
The problem with Paul's box is nothing to do with the sort of physicality that you are all discussing it means the universe as a SYSTEM IS CLOSED that is it's technical name call it what it is.

Since I was one of the first to complain about Paul's box I am surprised that your study of English hasn't led you to recognize irony when you see it.

Originally Posted By: Orac
The problem with that is simple, energy comes from spacetime translational invariance which does not exist in general relativity and you now want to close the system good luck with that. If you need that dumbed down then energy of movement etc has nothing to do with gravity it works just fine with or without gravity.

And I wasn't aware that GR was about energy. I thought it was about gravity. Of course gravity is closely related to the mass-energy of objects and radiation in space. And of course objects are moved around by the interchange of energy. It is all tied together, just as it is in Newton's Laws. As far as closing the system. We don't know that the universe is a closed system, but it can certainly be handled that way. After all we cannot detect any effects created by objects that are beyond the observable universe. Therefore we are essentially in a closed system.

And then we have a lot of piffle which doesn't explain anything except that once again you know more than we do and can't be bothered to tell us poor ignorant peasants.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
And there you go it's all my fault that you can't understand the problem you are up against which you can't argue around, no-one can.

Cool I will accept that I have broad shoulders and it's not my problem I don't need or want to convert you smile

I have given you the prompt Einstein flip-flopped on this issue and the underlying problem if you are interested you will bother to read and understand why I will not argue it because I will get in trouble.

I will give you a small hint at part of your problem Bill which you should be able to understand and it is embedded in this comment

Quote:
After all we cannot detect any effects created by objects that are beyond the observable universe. Therefore we are essentially in a closed system.

You sit there and you don't feel like you are moving. Only as we pull back we realize you are spinning around the earth's axis. Pull back further you are also moving in an ellipse around the sun. Historically people thought the earth was flat and the earth was stationary using your exact logic in that statement. Hopefully that makes you see the issue that lack of detected effects in no way implies a closed system it simply means lack of observation. The only way to close a system is to IMPLICITLY KNOW the system is closed or be able to prove it. The proof part gets interesting you might like to read up on that and it starts at Noether's theorem as a start point for you.

The other side I was trying to get you to think about that even under what you have expressed 75% of the energy is MIA in dark energy/dark matter. So you actually know that you don't have all observational data explained and still you want to close the system? That is why I questioned what you thought of Dark matter/Dark Energy as I assume you don't believe it from that statement.

For me personally I can't and won't close the universe system and so our disagreement starts there and gets worse and worse at every level and hence I am not going to bother arguing it.

What you, Rede say about the issue is your view frankly and in some ways differs little from Paul to me. So I bow out of this topic leaving you all to free to continue discussing it.

Last edited by Orac; 07/02/14 03:05 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Somehow things seem to be shifting again. We started out with Paul claiming that the expansion of the universe wasn't real. Now somehow this becomes a problem with dark matter and dark energy. Is it just that I am too dumb to follow the track or is Orac once again trying to shift the field when he gets to a point that he doesn't have a good response to? The last point I was trying to address was gravity waves. That doesn't seem to have much to do with dark matter or dark energy.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted By: orac
why I will not argue it because I will get in trouble.


you see , it is a cult , orac has stated that he will get
in trouble if he talks about it.

its not much about science either , its a cult that deprives its followers the ability to reveal certain aspects of their
belief system.

also I just need to clear this up again , Bill.

Originally Posted By: Bill
We started out with Paul claiming that the expansion of the universe wasn't real.


I never have claimed that the universe wasn't expanding.

I have claimed that the expansion of space

( as described in the expanding space theory ,wherever it is)

itself is not what is carrying everything with it as space expands
thereby causing everything in the universe to expand away
from everything as if everything were in a type of water current.

1) the universe is expanding.
2) its expanding because of the momentum of the big bang.
3) the acceleration of the expansion is due to loss of mass and less resistance to movement.

try to remember that please.









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 4 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5