The Big Bang: Science's Greatest Blunder?

Yes, credit where it's due. Kaneda puts things in a new perspective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right - a severely distorted perspective! :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tell us again about how you worked in science and all you know about science. Every time I read one of your science-free posts whose only answer to any question is insults, I keep forgetting how much you claim to know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read-Only. You remind me of AlphaNumeric, claiming a good education but unable to understand the simplest of things which stray a millimetre off of the accepted norm. I can see why you used Read-Only as an alias. ROM but no RAM.

 

I have written to a few people in the past on different points but whether the recipient thought: "This guy's an idiot" or "That's good, I'll borrow that", no one has ever bothered answering.

 

Sure

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Since when have you tried answering me? You make a few pronouncements, a few insults and that's it. What a nobody.

You were probably one of the people who got Reiku banned from here by labelling him a troll too. He emailed me (a message I still have) that after his first short ban he had tried to kill himself because of the sheer nastiness he had had to put up with here. Now banned permanently, he has possibly succeeded on another attempt so you may have managed to get someone to commit suicide. How will you celebrate when you boast to your friends about it?

 

superluminal. We do not float off into space. That is proof that invisible demons are holding us down. As there are ever more people, ever more invisible demons are needed so their inbuilt hellfire is causing global warming. More proof that invisible demons exist. Just because you have a result, the reasoning used to get there is not necessarily correct.

So how is Feynman's "Partons" coming along? Those silly people who talk of quarks are obviously wrong.

Einstein couldn't even see how the double slit experiment worked. Child's play.

No, what I am attacking is your idea of invisible demons. We know for a fact that the Earth is not a sphere, so no comparison. We can only assume that certain things like the BB are true because of invisible demon-level reasoning which provides one particular interpretation of two pieces of evidence (redshift and CMB) and ignores all other possibilities.

You debate? How is saying; "My textbook is right" debate? Check the meaning of the word since you obviously do not know :

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate

 

Uh oh. He's completely lost it. I can only hope that he didn't read my post correctly (he seems to not have a very good reading comprehension) where I said:

I sincerely hope he's not going to start arguing for a flat earth.

And I have no idea what to make of the magic demon stuff. Anyone have any ideas?

 

Or... just maybe... ACTUAL EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS?

Whaddya think? Want to explain again how photons lose energy by interacting with interstellar hydrogen? I can't wait. I'll take notes this time.

P.S. How can anyone possibly "debate" with you when you decide to toss (or just plain don't know) fundamental physics that any college freshman knows? Physics (like the behavior of photons - which are particles - as they interact with matter)? Give us all a break.

Unless you really do think the earth isn't an oblate spheroid...?

 

I stray quite often several millimeters off the beaten path - unlike you who takes GIANT leaps into areas where the answers are already known (to pretty much everyone but you) and you totally lack a place (basis) from which to make that leap.

Say, have you ever noticed where practically no one ever agrees with your hare-brained take on science? I wonder why that is...

 

Borrowing one line from my last response to you, "I wonder why that is..."

Could it possibly be that they read the first few lines and tossed it into the garbage where it belonged? Surely NOT!!!! Why, that was actually written by kandea - the tower of knowledge of physics who is smarter than Einstein and all of the world's professional physicists combined!!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

7926 miles diameter at the equator and 7920 miles diameter at the poles. So not a sphere.

I used demons to illustrate that an explanation may fit known facts but is not necessarily true.

 

I should imagine such people get lots of letters from people like us and most probably are only worth tossing in the bin and the rest not worth the time needed to read hundreds of letters to find something worthwhile.

I remember author Piers Anthony trying to let his letter writing fans down delicately by telling them that the more time he spends reading fan mail, the less time he has to write books for them.

 

The BB would only have provided a set amount of energy which would slow down over time as the universe expanded ever larger.

 

If I wasn't here -

Read-Only: What do you think of page 79 of QM for Dummies?
superluminal: I, of course agree with evcerything they say.
losfomoT: They had some nice pictures on that page.

How can you debate when everyone agrees with you?

 

superluminal. The BB-ers make it up as they go along. Hey, look. According to what we believe the universe started expanding faster several billion years ago. How can that happen. FUDGE ALERT! How about we say that gravity sometimes repels as well as attracts (they did). No, that doesn't sound right. How about a mysterious energy? Sounds good. Call it dark energy as we can't detect it.

And they still haven't detected it. Still no evidence for this stupid fudge. And you criticise me for not having everything proven. Double standards.

As to interstellar material, maybe Raman scattering? Then again, maybe space itself could be taking energy from light over cosmic time? We know if you gravitationally bend space, you bend the light going through it so space is not just a "nothing" but an actual material. Maybe the effort of going through space over such distances will take energy from photons and so redshift them?

 

Wow, you are a sadistic SOB aren't you?

For the record, I have never labeled Reiku as a Troll, I have only ever implied that he was a brown-noser. However, looking at Reiku's posts, I would have to agree that he acted like a Troll many times, and I am surprised that the moderators put up with him as long as they did. I do not think you will last as long as he.

I figured you for a Troll for a long time, but after you wouldn't even admit the obvious difference between slowing down less and speeding up... it seems pretty obvious that either:

A- You are too stupid too understand even the simplest physics, and therefore we are wasting our time trying to sway you from your misguided ideas. (personally I don't think you are that stupid... I am sure it must be B)

or,

B- You simply won't admit when you are shown to be wrong, so you dismiss the answer outright, or you dodge it... and then continue arguing the same points that have been shown to be wrong. Arguing for the sake of arguing... you are a Troll.

Sometimes you make me smile.

On the off chance that A is the correct description of you, I am going to jump in again for a short while and help try to show you the error of your way.

Space is not a material thing that bends. That is an analogy that is used to describe gravity.

Redshifting of light from objects moving away is a real thing. It is a proven thing. It is NOT a huge leap of faith to assume that the redshifting of light that we see in distant galaxies is due to the fact that they are moving away from us. It is actually quite a common sense assumption. Saying that the redshift we see MIGHT NOT be from expansion velocities is fine as well... anythings possible, science is not rock firm on the subject, science is open to possibilities. Giving a bunch of unsubstantiated MAYBEs (that WOULD require a huge leap of faith) to explain away the most substantiated possibility, is NOT fine.