Big Bang or Big Bounce Model of the Universe?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Magneto_1, Jun 15, 2011.

  1. Magneto_1 Super Principia Registered Senior Member

    Wellwisher, good try!

    But, I believe that the, "Prince Of The Power Of The Air" will not let you win; with moving back towards physics; which is what I would prefer!

    I am with you Wellwisher, let's do Physics.

    I am not sure what you mean by ""vector addition" will slow the speed at which they appear to approach" I am sure that you mean galaxies. But why you would use the term "Vector Addition"?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magneto_1 Super Principia Registered Senior Member

    Why, because the way that I answered his questions, proved that I did not plagiarize.

    And you want oh, so desperately to try and prove a case for plagiarism.

    Don't you have some physics to work on, that will be a better expenditure of your time??

    I have addressed all of yours and others libel accusations, in very clear way already. Therefore, let it go!!

    Find some productive physics to work on!!

    That paper on that website was modified by the owner of the website: Vernon Brown. The modification paper on Vern's website only list what he considered important and is not comphrensive of the final results of the paper. Which is a new and modified set of Maxwell's Equations. He is more pushing the new photon model listed in the paper.

    The exhaustive paper without modification: THE QUANTIZATION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC CHANGE
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tach Banned Banned

    "exhausted", all right! You need to learn English, mr. Kemp.
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magneto_1 Super Principia Registered Senior Member

    I know, it is crazy; I moved that conserved energy into mathematics.
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator Note: Magneto_1 has been banned from sciforums for 3 days for plagiarism - i.e. the passing off of the work of others as his own without acknowledgement.

    Members are urged to hit the "report" button on any instances of plagiarism that they discover. Members found to be plagiarising will always be banned from sciforums.
  9. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Wow, I spend the evening watching TV and everyone jumps on Magneto for me!

    You quoted a picture from a paper. When you provided the paper (I had to ask) and I read the paper it was clear, ie the paper explicitly stated it in several places including the label to the figure you'd posted, that the picture wasn't 'literally an electron' as you'd claimed but a diffraction distribution. My correction of you was not a personal attack or an attempt to claim to be an authority in things I am not, I pointed you to parts of the paper, which you claimed to have read and understood, where your claim it was 'literally an electron' were refuted. The authors are authorities on what their experiment involved and showed, I quoted them directly and said as much.

    You're lying, once again. Why do you do all this talk about slander and libel and yet lie so blatently and in a way which is so easy to refute?

    I take it from your silence you don't have any evidence I have sock accounts other than your desire for it to be true. Desiring something doesn't make it reality.

    Not a professional research scientist though. Everyone with a job is a professional something.

    Still thinking insulting someone (in this case me, since you think Guest is me, not that you have any evidence) for being well educated is going to actually insult them. Yes, I'm so embarrassed I've achieved something you clearly have a chip on your shoulder about.
  10. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Oh, dear. So much nonsense, so little time.
    You did not. I explained why the idea/expression divide is irrelevant. I explained why fair use and other copyright issues are irrelevant. You did not address those points at all.

    Anyway, let's ignore your self-documented plagiarism for a while (in fact, I'll probably leave that to rpenner), and only look at a few nuggets from your post.
    Which, of course, is simply wrong. (Well, it may be true that you believe it, but the belief that plagiarism requires verbatim copying is false.) It shows a complete lack of understanding of the concept of plagiarism. Literally the first sentence of the first hit shows how wrong you are.
    Fair use is not an "Act". For someone who purports to understanding copyright law through and through, you make an awful lot of fundamental mistakes.
    "Written a paper" suggests that you have a published (peer-reviewed) paper in a reputable journal or other reputable scientific medium. An unrefereed .pdf on your own website does not establish credentials as an expert. Rather, it's a red flag that you're probably not an expert. (Which is also supported by the fact that you cannot even come up with your own description of Maxwell's equations.)
    This is a lie. See above.
    No, I don't think so. (Well, for a few days, maybe.)
  11. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    My approach of flaming people who were flaming people seems to have run into a little glitch. I don't think that this thread was the cause of M1's problems but his book and unaccredited sources has lead to this thread becoming the site of those problems coming to a head. The first page of posts seemed to me to be a discussion of a new topic and it was one that I'm interested in so I participated. In my first post I suggested that this topic might belong in Pseudoscience. I didn't know that M1's reputation would follow him and interrupt the discussion but I should have known.

    Also, since my interests seem to be about the incompatibilities between mainstream consensus theories, and about speculatively discussion of how nature itself somehow solves those incompatibilities I generally post my content on my own Pseudoscience thread. The OP topic is Pseudoscience because we don't yet have the tools to observe the depths of nature at the micro or macro levels and though a "bounce" is working its way into acceptable alternative theories it is far from mainstream. I discuss it in Pseudoscience and I suspect that is the right place for such discussion.

    Sorry to have been so aggressive toward the flaming and for being mistaken about what constitutes trolling.
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Even if the universe is expanding, relative to the galaxies, the galaxies themselves are contracting relatie to the matter within each galaxy, The galactic matter is making stars so this matter is contracting into stars and no expanding into gas clouds from stars.

    If the space-time of the universe is expanding, and individual galaxies are contracting relative to their own matter, into spirals and stars, we have two opposing actions occurring in space-time, at the same time within the galaxies themselves. By vector I was adding the expanding universe, which I assume is the dominate, with a local galaxy that is contracting matter, locally, inspite of this dominate.

    I used the analogy of the two ants to represent matter in a given galaxy. The balloon was used to model the entire expanding universe since this is often used for that purpose. The ants shows two directions of motion at the same time. Being on the balloon they expand with the balloon. But since they are attracted to each other, they also walk toward each other like the matter in galaxies. I used the term vector since it denotes direction with vector additions the final directional sum of the ant motion.

    Let me do this with math. Say the ants move at 1 meter per hour. The expansion will be 1mm per hour in the opposite direction just to use a number. Now the ants only move 999 mm/hour with the vector pointing toward the galaxy.

    The entire situation creates a paradox. The galaxy ants are appearing to go slower at 999. There is an apparent time dilation, due to the expansion of space-time; go figure. However, since the distances are stretching out due to the action of the two opposing space-time vectors, we also have distance expansion occurring. Time and distance are out of phase using the expanding space-time leading assumption in light of the contractions within galaxies.
  13. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    This is really cracks me up. If only I had know this when I went to college, I would only have to come up with 20% of my own material for papers and just copied other people's ideas for the rest.

    So I guess it is safe to say that Magneto_1 is just as versed in "Copyright Law" as he is in "Physics". He is the complete package.
  14. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Not being well versed in "Copyright Law" I realized that maybe I did not understand plagiarism. I was thinking that he was saying you could copy 4 sentences and then insert one of your own and repeat until you were done with the paper. But it may be that you can only copy 4 lines of another persons work and pass it off as your own on a per paper basis. I assume since Magneto_1 had multiple sentences that he lifted, that they don't have to be 'sprinkled' throughout the paper.

    This legal stuff is very confusing and should be left to the people that are "well versed" in it. I think that it might make the most sense not misrepresent something copied as your own, and just avoid the whole issue. Course I'm not a published author, so what do I know....
  15. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    When you copy someone else's written words and don't credit the source, that's plagerism.

  16. keith1 Guest

    Yes, interesting.
    Space-time expands.

    --Less confinement= significantly greater strong force, that counters gravity.

    --Runaway inflation eventually checked by expanded quark particle field, which is "force competitive" against original "singularity strong force-induced inflationary field".

    Run this out into the distant "space-time expanded" future:

    --Confined quarks grow distant from each other, inducing an increase in the strong force, causing new rapid inflationary field production and spread across space-time.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2011
  17. Rod Farmer Registered Senior Member

    This is all very distasteful. The true thread here is that of personal animosity. Must

    science be used as a weapon in order for it to develope? You have taught me here

    that, right or wrong, the more persistant opinionator carries the day.

    This is a shame because each of us has something to learn and something to teach.
  18. Rod Farmer Registered Senior Member

    Sorry, my last post was about a exchange between Alpha Numeric and Quantum Wave.

    It got posted out of place.
  19. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    What do you mean by 'carries the day'? My criticism of q_w is to do with how he approaches science, in that his approach isn't a scientific one at all and will lead to large amounts of wasted time and nothing to show for it. 'Carrying the day' in that regard has nothing to do with being opinionated, the yardstick by which the validity of our views are evaluated is the production of (or lack of) valid work by someone following q_w's method.

    This also relates to things q_w has said in defence of Magneto, such as him appearing to be a stand up guy (I think those were q_w's words). The resultant discussion in this thread as to Magneto's plagiarism, and it is plagiarism, and his unwillingness to accept correction on even the most obvious and explained mistakes of his provide evidence for my claim that q_w's assessment of Magneto isn't particularly accurate.

    The issue, or at least one of a few, I have with both q_w and Magneto is that they think they are engaging in something close to valid scientific methodology by waxing lyrically about buzzwords. In this thread Magneto has attempted to claim numerous times he has expertise in electromagnetism because he's written a pdf document on Maxwell's work. I contest that, as would any reasonable rational person. q_w has numerous lengthy threads in pseudo talking about whatever he decides to make up and when I point out that such a method is unscientific he throws a hissy fit. If either of them wish to 'carry the day' all they need to do is demonstrate my dismissal of their claims/work for being vapid and/or wrong and/or unscientific was wrong. To do that they just need to get somewhere with it, get it into a journal or be taken seriously by researchers, not forum members.

    Let me make it clear, I don't mind people pitching batshit crazy stuff, so long as they are aware it's not scientific. When people pitching any old crap they pulled out of their backside and proclaiming it is scientific or justified or gives them expertise, then I have issues with them.

    When Magneto can get his work published in a relevant reputable peer reviewed journal he'll be taken seriously. Until then his misunderstanding of plagiarism, principles of authorship, the scientific methodology, the research community, academic credentials, general relativity, quantum mechanics, basic calculus all contribute to my view (and I don't think I'm alone in this regard) he's got an utterly unjustified exaggerated unrealistic rose tinted view of his capabilities.
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Don't do me any favors, lol. As soon as you mention me the flaming will start and we don't need any more fuel added to that past history.
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Oops, too late. Oh well.
  22. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    If you classify a detailed explanation of the faults in your approach to science as 'flaming' then you only further justify my conclusions.
  23. hardalee Registered Senior Member

    Current evidence shows acceleration of the univese with no end in sight. No need for a bounce, just a cold dark remainder with black holes that used to be galaxies waiting to desolve when they get warmer than the surroundings. Other theories abound, but with assumptions not based on existing scientific evidence.

Share This Page