Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by The God, Nov 25, 2015.
you going back to religion, best avoid that before you get a ban.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Stars through nuclear fusion, create the heavier elements, and those heavier elements [the star dust] are scattered throughout the Universe as they go supernova, and thereby creating even heavier elements during the S/nova process.
That stellar debris then goes into formation of other stars and planets composed of all those elements. Then through a process not yet completely understood, life arises and evolution commences.
That's the basic understanding of the reason why we are all star dust.
The idea of any magical pixie in the sky is being, and will finally be pushed back into oblivion.
Hope that helps. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You skipped your med's or you need some prescribed, seek help my friend.
Then it gets pressed into tablets, which you should look into acquiring.
Not really true my boy, and won't be really true until we understand all.
The advent of SR certainly raised non intuitive applications of the Universe we inhabit, but is now generally understood.
The probable existence of nothing before the BB, is another non intuitive aspect we now need to consider...The eventual fate of the mass that goes into creating BH's is as yet unknown, and the non intuitive applications of quantum/Planck levels at which such mass is probably existing, ignoring the mathematical singularity.
Although you are correct, that a lot of this is speculative, it is far more likely and scientifically sound than any imaginary, mythical pixie.
? Wow! Best you have a good lay down my boy. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You need to accept, that the total invalidation of any deity/pixie or whatever shit you chose to nominate, is slowly and surely being discarded, and pushed into oblivion and the cesspool where it belongs.
I wish you the best, take it easy and lets both look forward to learning, being patient and trying to understanding each others perspective.
PS: thanks for the fun Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
Physicists who write research papers, lecture notes and text books on the subject of General Relativity - like me - often receive mails by amateur scientists with remarks and questions. Many of these show a genuine interest in the subject. Their requests for further explanations, as well as their descriptions of deeper thoughts about the subject, are often interesting enough to try to answer them, and sometimes discussions result that are worthwhile.
However, there is also a group of people, calling themselves scientists, who claim that our lecture notes, text books and research papers are full of fundamental mistakes, thinking they have made earth shaking discoveries themselves that will upset much of our conventional wisdom.
Indeed, it often happens in science that a minority of dissenters try to dispute accepted wisdom. There’s nothing wrong with that; it keeps us sharp, and, very occasionally, accepted wisdom might need modifications. Usually however, the dissenters have it totally wrong, and when the theory in question is Special or General Relativity, this is practically always the case. Fortunately, science needs not defend itself. Wrong papers won’t make it through history, and totally ignoring them suffices. Yet, there are reasons for a sketchy analysis of the mistakes commonly made. They are instructive for students of the subject, and I also want to learn from these mistakes myself, because making errors is only human, and it is important to be able to recognize erroneous thinking from as far away as one can ...
Examples of the themes that we regularly encounter are:- "Einstein’s equations for gravity are incorrect";
- "Einstein’s equivalence principle is incorrect or not correctly understood";
- "Black holes do not exist";
- "Einstein’s equations have no dynamical solutions";
- "Gravitational waves do not exist";
- "The Standard Model is wrong";
- "Cosmic background radiation does not exist";and so on.
Much more at the link........
If you chose to be a clown, that's your problem.
I'll stick to science and discuss to the best of my ability.
You said you married some 40 years back, that means on a conservative estimate your physical age is around 65. At this age if you do not follow God, then in this lifetime there is almost nil chance that you will ever do that. Thats your choice, we all respect, at least I have no problem with that. Similarly there are people of various age group who follow God like your wife does. Why prick them? Respect their choice.
You can object if any God follower says that science is BS and everything is God, which in my opinion not the case in this thread. You are unnecessarily provoking people by bringing in anti God rant of yours. Keep that away.
You label people as God fearing nuts, call God as magical pixie, all kind of unwarranted nonsense, where is the need? In this thread also you started with this nonsense, you called me religeous guy, while none of my post on this sub forum has any argument which invokes God against science. I never bring God in science argument, yes in one of my exchange with Billy etc, I did hint at something inexplicable when certain unexplained things happen in our lives, thats it. You are creating problems and you are not realising it. Then when attacked you start abusing, thus (s)crapping the thread.
Remember, science needs nobody's protection or support. It manifests itself and no amount of majority support can safeguard a nonsense, and no amount of sceptics can throw a bonafide theory to dustbin.
And one more thing, not every body needs your mainstream popular copy pastes, people are already aware of that, restrict your copy pastes to people whom you feel have to start with basics. I was shocked when in that inexplicable thread you gave a googled reference on 'basics of probability theory', it may be a novelty for uninitiated but not to other participants.
Discuss, argue and show some amount of intelligence and acuity. If you do not agree to a certain point of view, does it mean that you will drop civility and start abusing?
I hope that was addressed to BdS.
Go back and read each post by this ad hominem spouting individual, which is not in any way a credit to religion (of any kind) or to serious discussion of *encountering reality*
A real professional what? Con-man? Politician? Lowlife lawyer?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well at least p'boy and I can agree not to drag god(s) or magic pixie(s) in to explain the unknown!
So p'boy believes the universe was created, created from nothing by nothing! Asserting a universe finite in time makes p'boy a creationist (14,000,000,000 years or 6,000 years is a difference of degree only, not of kind).
A finite universe leads its preachers to trivialize the universe, trivialize our natural environment and trivialize humanity. Space exploration is meaningless since according to Einstein BS we can't travel fast enough even to get out of the solar system. The process is finite anyway since space & matter are, according to Big Al Einstein - head honcho of the Prohibition Era (i.e. nothing can travel faster than light; no one shall criticize Einstein negatively) - finite! When the universe is treated as a free lunch - doomed to decay by entropy - everyone is out for as good as they can get, just as we see now with shrinking hydrocarbon reserves and global warming wrecking the climate. The rich of the 1960s had the better cuts for the lunch - we will soon only be left with scraps and bones to eat and fight over. Hence the essential savagery of the "Universe from Nothing - Free Lunch" philosophy.
Luckily for us, p'boy's own essential savagery is blunted by his obtuseness - e.g. his fantasizing himself as a caped super-hero ever-ready to defend the Einsteinian way against heretics and 'eternal universe freaks'.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Are you his wife? I'll accept the mods decision and the punishment they decide I deserve. Why do you want to get involved?
I apologise to TG for causing a mess in this thread and I dont mind if the mods remove my posts or ban me, but I wont stand idly by while he spouts his nonsense that I find highly offensive and does not belong in here.
Yep! Too right, so...
...I support BdSPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!!
The bolded portions are the sum contribution of BdS to this discussion. They speak for themselves.
And NO, I am not his wife, but do appreciate paddoboys' posts and frank observations, and not in the least the time he has taken to providing links to authoritative sites, which has given me valuable information on the subjects under discussion.
OTOH, from you, BdS, I have seen not a single usefull post in this thread. Only derision and vulgar ad hominem. I am glad you apologized to TG, although I am sure it was an afterthought, when you realized your inexcusable behavior. You may not have noticed that I refrained from commenting on your posts, but that was only because none of them contained any substance worth commenting on.
IMO, you also owe an apology to other posters and especially to all non-posting viewers who have since witdrawn from what was a lively, entertaining, and civilized discussion until you showed up.
I am sorry to hear that FOLZONI......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I dont need to accept anything you're peddling, why should I? because you have nothing but silly speculation and bad logic backing you up. Your OCD anti religious behavior has nothing to do with any of that, does it? Its got more to do with your personal vendetta against TG. This was your tactic to get this thread relegated. You post anti religious bait here to purposely derail the thread and then wait for the mods to move the tread as is indicated by your post. That is very deceitful and the mods do nothing? WTF? I can start using the same gorilla tactics in all the threads on this forum...
It sure does speak for itself, any opposition to it or is it a given?
You mean until Paddoboy showed up and insulted my beliefs, that he knows he is not allowed to post in that section of the forum.
Just as I didn't comment on any of yours for the lack of substance.
From that answer (plus my compilation of all you post in this thread), I'd say it's a given that you have nothing meaningful to say.
Paddoboy was there from the beginning (see post #2). You didn't show up until the 3rd page. (post 54)
and with an incomprehensible (illogical) statement at that.
??? Where does paddo's statement that science has pushed Theism back to only a "God of the gaps", proves its existence?
Moreover, the OP title is *Cosmology at the threshold of encountering reality* which seems an all-inclusive title allowing for discussion on a range of subjects pertaining to Reality. If you believe God created reality, then a discussion of God is perfectly allowable. Instead you start whining about *attacks on people's religious views* and complaints that this does not belong in this thread.
To me, this is when a lively and interesting discussion became pure trash. But then, I have never seen a post by you before so I'll withold judgement to place you on my ignore list, for now.
That makes you the only one . I have had civilized and informative discussions with all the other posters of all stripes, and received agreement on several of my statements from other thoughtful *open minded* participants.
Try to make a list of my posts and see if they lack substance, either in my statements or my quotes from authoritative sources to clarify any part of my posts which were not scientifically or philosophically correct or improperly presented.
I know my limitations, do you?
Even more lucky is the fact that the unscientific rants of our friend folzoni, does not change anything [except perhaps to give himself a warm inner glow] and is confined on a small amount of cyber space that most real scientists are oblivious to anyway.
Ahhh, such is the affliction of delusions of grandeur.
Separate names with a comma.