Dark Energy – Required to explain a plausible mistake ?

Paddoboy

To put it straightforward, subject to moderation...

1. No one can stop any one from becoming the member of this forum.
2. No one can stop any one from posting any stupid crap on this forum.

So the best thing is avoid such guys with crisp reply in one or two posts and ignore them. The other option is keep deriding them, and keep responding to their agitations.

I am not defending, I am just stating the way, such guys to be handled to maintain the harmony and peace in such open public forums, bulldozing will not work, shouting will not work.... Only thing will work is: ignore if they insist stupidly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you had posted this answer at very first instance of Dawyne post, would it have not been fantastic? At the worst he would have insisted with his argument, then you had the right to remain silent, instead of messing up in last 7-10 posts. Dawyne was very defensive when he left the usage of the Titanium to others, which he does not know. I cannot comment, but even if his post was absurd, it cannot be stated that it was offensive. I do not know about any past unfriendly interactions you had with him, but that should not matter in a new post unless he writes the same thing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Common knowledge that anyone even vaguely interested in the astronomy/cosmology sciences would know.

No, he was here long before me it seems, and yes, his post was absurd, just as absurd as his "moon within the atmosphere of Jupiter" causing its great red spot.
A shame you did not pull him up yourself and question his ideas and motives.
We do have another closet anti mainstream supporter that believes in treating such nonsense with kid gloves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course it was offensive.
It was anti-rational, anti-science and anti-logical.
Posting utter crap on a science site, let alone posting crap as science, is inherently offensive to anyone with a working brain.

 

Pretty simple explanation actually......Atoms, Molecules, you, me any object, planets, stars, galaxies, are held together by the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, covalent bonds, EMF, and gravity........the force responsible for the large scale expansion of the Universe is "out stripped" in close quarters by the other forces.

The strongest of those forces, strong and weak nuclear, only act over short distances, while the EMF and gravity have virtually limitless ranges.

 

Well, given your statement, I want you use your brain on this one: what is wrong with the use of Titanium or the suggested use of titanium.

Certainly you have no current direct means to measure such a factor as the motion of the local group of stars.

Lastly do you really expect people to agree with you given the conditions of argument in this issue. mind you have had several people read your statement and those statements within the topic, and so far your considered delusionial. along with paddyboy.

Which is what i meant when i said must be some transmission disturbance.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

It's quite simple.
Titanium has f*ck all to do with "the motion of the local group of stars". And vice versa.

Since you have (and have presented) zero evidence for your insane claims [sup]1[/sup] then I'm pretty damned sure what the readers of this exchange think regarding your delusions.

The only "disturbance" here is the one of your mind.


1 That includes not just this thread but any and all other threads where you have

 

So what if his post was absurd or he is older member, that does not give a right to you to bash him. Let moderators decide. It is the idea sharing forum, and out of thousands of absurd ideas, one may be brilliant. I am not here to pull up or pull down some one and I am not ashamed of maintaining other's dignity. But I am surprised this is exactly what you are doing, how many times do I have to convey that theory not the people should be the target in such forums. But you pop up with your argumentative nature.

Let me ask you: Have you listened to my sensible approach of handling such guys? (I may not be superior to you in my knowledge of cosmology but I can figure out that I am far more superior to you in handling chaos under me). Still you have not listened to me. You come up with counter arguments justifying pulling up (or down) such people. You are sticking to your script of bashing such people, which is creating trash. How can you say that you are different from such people? They are proposing their ideas, if ideas are absurd or stupid, then just draw their attention once or twice and ignore afterwards. Let them argue in blank. You are also proposing your idea of handling such people with adult-gloves, you will never succeed, but still you continue to impose this idea of yours. I am afraid, gentleman, You are in the same category.

Remember one thing in a prolonged argument between a stupid person and an intelligent person, the stupid person succeeds at least on one front: That is, he pulls down the intelligent person to his level of intelligence. How many times you would like to get pulled down to a lower level of intelligence then you possess. You decide [PERIOD].

 

If I may change the subject from psychology to the original OP question. I still have an unanswered question which I have posted twice.

ASSUMING that the fabric of the universe is fractal in nature.

Looking at a Mandelbrot set, there is clearly an area which is completely filled with fractals and can no longer accommodate additional fractalization and is no longer dynamic. On the outside of the M set the dynamic fractals continue dynamic fractalization, as can be seen by deep fractal representations.

I have included a link to a stunningly deep fractal, where at a certain depth the entire Mandelbroth set is apparent but the dark area is completely white, instead of black.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ma6cV6fw24&list=PLVpz0r12yrZjr-CCXGb1qd0WFYBy3IjU_&index=5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Has anyone ever done the math to see if the dark portion of the complete M set has any relationship to our understanding of the ratio of Dark Matter (and/or Dark Energy) to the total mass of the universe? The link below starts with the M set with a white dense area (dark energy?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsq5tdY_WV8

from wiki,

I wonder if the dark portion of the M set constitutes 84.5% of the complete M set? And if we add the appearance of the M set where the dark portion is pure white (energy?), would it not be awesome if this then added up to 95.1% of the totality of the M set?

The mathematics of the Mandelbrot set math must be readily available to a learned fellow interested in CDT (causal dynamic triangulation). If I could i would do it myself but i do not possess the knowledge to make such calculations.

In any case, CDT is very much of interest in todays cosmology and this is why this comparison (if it can be made) came to mind.

 

Way way above my pay grade Write4U!

The main thing about this debate is the original thread title and the excessive presumptions that were made.


I'm quite open to new ideas, new hypothesis, Innovative and Imaginative scenarios, but in the final analysis, all we need to gain acceptance in scientific mainstream circles, is that any observations, and predictions, match the theories being put..
Despite what some of our alternative pushers and conspiracy adherents think, mainstream science isn't just religious like faith based.
It is a body of work, that has been scrutinised and passed peer review, and must at all times be taken into consideration if one has something to add, subtract, or simply to change the accepted results of that model.

 

I liked the CDT thing. thanks! Makes sense.

Inside the set isn't 'filled with fractals', it's the set that didn't diverge in the iteration. The interesting places are always at the edges, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's an attempt at quantum gravity. like loop quantum gravity it says nothing about cosmology since it doesn't even say anything about the standard model of quantum physics. What I mean by that is it doesn't recover the standard model in it's quantum domain of applicability. It just seems to me that will be a requirement for a theoretical model of quantum gravity. Just an opinion. Probably naive.

 

Naive you say?...Naive!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Absolutely bloody brilliant, when compared to some of the looney, crazy ideas we have had here over the weekend.
Holey shit, everything from the red spot on Jupiter being a moon, and Titanium causing the Universal expansion!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!