Right Handed Spiral Galaxies are Preferred

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by danshawen, Nov 8, 2015.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,856
    Of course. Almost everything can be used as a ruler. And as a clock too.
    And the SI definition of density measurements changes too. So, the measured density may not change at all.
    No. You have ignored the change in the definition of the density, which is what is related to the amount of fusion which happens in the Sun.
    Of course. Not checked the numbers, but, of course, they would shrink relative to the absolute distances, which we can measure only by comparison with far away galaxies.
    Yes. The point being?
    There is no dark side at all with these assumptions. This is simply what the equations of physics - not even my, but those accepted by the mainstream - tell us. They are covariant. And what follows is that the Earth, if moving with a different velocity than now (say, in half a year, when its velocity around the Sun is quite different from now) is Lorentz-contracted in a different way. Together with all its neutrons and protons.

    Of course, for making shrinking rulers unobservable, because everything I could use to detect this shrinking is shrinking itself, I need a covariant theory. But this is what the mainstream gives me. So, if you think that assuming a covariant theory is absurd, on the dark side or so, please argue with the mainstream. I accept this mainstream theory, at least partially, for all matter fields. My ether theory contains some non-covariant terms for gravity - but this is what makes me an outsider.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No, not mass. It like my 13.6 gram cube is defined by an object. You can change the ruler lenght all you like, but the defining object stays unchanged.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    U.S. National Prototype Kilogram. ©Robert Rathe
    SI Units: Mass
    The kilogram is the SI base unit of mass and is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram, a platinum-iridium standard that is kept at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM). The primary standard of mass for this country is United States Prototype Kilogram 20, which is a platinum-iridium cylinder kept at NIST. From: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/mass.cfm

    As I said earlier, yours is not an Alternative POV, it is nonsense / false. Implies all satellites must crash if it suddenly became true.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2015
    paddoboy likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,856
    So you can use the same cube also as a ruler, not? The first definition of the meter was based on a similar object, the international metre prototype. Thus, if the rulers shrink, your object shrinks too. Together with the platinum-iridium atoms inside. Not impressed.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,482
    Simply because DE is solely a property of spacetime, and as mysterious an entity as it is, we do know that much. I see it as an effect that evolves as spacetime expands.
    OK, I accept that you were not incorrect. The reason I believe DE as a constant throughout the universe is as stated above, and logically I see no reason why it would be stronger in patches of spacetime compared to other patches of spacetime.
    Of course! Totally agree.
    The following by Sean Carroll.
    http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...oes-dark-energy-make-the-universe-accelerate/
    extract:
    " It doesn’t dilute away as the universe expands. And this is even a fact that can be explained, by saying that dark energy isn’t a collection of particles growing less dense as space expands, but instead is (according to our simplest and best models) a feature of space itself. The amount of dark energy is constant throughout both space and time: about one hundred-millionth of an erg per cubic centimeter. It doesn’t dilute away, even as space expands".

    Good point. And I would say that gravity is an effect that depends on how much warpage/curvature that spacetime undergoes in the presence of mass. It certainly is not "constant" . So gravity depends on the amount of curvature and mass. DE though is purely a property of spacetime as I have described.
    Other links.....
    http://www.bigbangcentral.com/energy_page.html
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,482
    Unmitigated bullshit as usual. Read my previous post.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,482
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,482
    Incumbent mainstream theories are as they are for a reason. In essence they are the most reasonably logical interpretation on observations that most cosmologists hold.
    What either of you two renegades propose, think, or claim is neither here nor there.
    Schmelzer has shown himself to be dishonest in taking statements out of context as he did with me yesterday, and as I pointed out, totally wrong in how he interprets S/N.
    The less said about the other, the better.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    One has had a paper totally demolished and another rejected, the other has a paper on ether that languishes in obvlivion without any likley citations now or in the future.
    Mainstream cosmology remains as is, oblivious to such unsupported claims as our two friends are putting on this forum. Neither make any difference to the state of the nation as far as cosmology goes.
    I'm certainly totally comfortable with my own general mainstream aligned view as opposed to being brain washed and bullied by clowns.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2015
  11. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    At one time I mentioned, in another thread that your posts remained credible in part because you didn't fall into personalized responses. That seems to have changed.

    If your ideas and opinion have any merit, there is no need to talk at or critricize anyone. When you do you discredit your own position.
     
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,856
    Of course, you have a point here. But there is, on the other hand, the point that tit for tat remains a reasonable strategy too.

    The "sloppy speaking" quote was, BTW, not aimed at criticizing somebody. Sloppy speaking is something acceptable in such media as a forum, and also in popular presentations. And, even more, some amount of sloppy speaking is acceptable even in scientific papers. If, say, the paper itself contains a theorem which is accurately formulated and proven, there is no problem if the introduction and the conclusions contain some minor amount of sloppy speaking.

    The "paddoboy level" was, of course, quite aggressive, but paddoboy has IMHO deserved it with his last postings. The "unfortunately for you" is indeed simply bad style, a side effect of too much arguing with some guy who regularly uses it. So, shame on me, even if it was a reply to origin, a guy who has attacked me with "If you need some more help to understand I can get you some more links, let me know". So, above examples can be justified with tit for tat. But, nonetheless, you are right, one should be careful about this, and to find the optimum between the "no personal attacks" and "tit for tat" (understood as an upper bound) is difficult.
     
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,856
    A statement which can be made by every mainstream follower, in every time, given that mainstream journals will be always prejudiced in favor of the mainstream. Indeed, this is almost unavoidable, even if one wants to be, as a reviewer, fair. As well, mainstream papers will cite mainly mainstream papers, simply because they write about mainstream theories and mainstream problems. Thus, the number of citations can tell you something about the status of somebody inside the mainstream, but will tell nothing about those outside the mainstream.

    It appears that things which one has to expect almost always if one follows the mainstream are sufficient to create comfort for the mainstream follower. This type of comfort is, reasonably, the reason why some people simply follow the mainstream.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,482
    Just as any alternative hypothesis pusher or independant scientists would also be prejudiced, perhaps even more so.
    At least mainstream peer review has the bulk in numbers to negate any prejudicial view.
    And of course as most alternative hypothesis pushers are apt to do, to justify their own positions, we have the conspiracy problems.....which of course is even more exaggerated when that alternative hypothesis pusher, also holds onto an inane political belief.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,482
    The paddo boy level of aggressiveness is generally called for, especially in the face of similar aggression, and many attempts to escape any perception of wrong doing or error, with pages of irrelevant rhetoric, lies, and inuendo as you so often do.
    Your failure of course to admit error, and wrong doing has been highlighted over the last few days with taking people out of context and making false claims, and failing to acknowledge you were wrong in your interpretation with origin on S/N.
    Let me finally say to you again, I will give as good as I get.
     
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Then it should not be growing stonger. I.e. its local effect would be constant - even if the total in the universe is incresing as the total volume of the universe (total space) does. The effects of more DE extremely far away, still can not reach nearby space due speed of light limitations.

    One should also expect some fall off with distance. - Inverse square would be my bet.
     
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,856
    Yes. To repeat, in principle I have no problem with peer review. Or, in other words, there is a problem, the mainstream reviewers will favor mainstream submissions, but I have no solution to propose. And, last but not least, even in the worst case - and the prejudice against the ether is the worst case, at least in physics - my theories have been published, despite this problem.

    Thanks for illustrating with your other posting, that was much more aggressive than my "paddoboy level" remark, that this remark has not violated the "an eye for an eye" rule understood as an upper bound. And, sorry, I will not discuss anything about SN with you. Guess yourself why.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,482
    It's not growing stronger per se...just that its constant while gravity needs to act over larger areas.
    As the universe expands, the effects of gravity due to diminishing densities, coupled with the constant nature of DE, results in the acceleration in the expansion.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,482
    If my explanation was wrong, and my supporting link was wrong, I'm guessing you would haul me over the coals.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Since you are not doing that, my guess is otherwise.
     
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,856
    There was a supporting link? Not even seen it. Anyway, usually your links are simply links to popular presentations of mainstream science, and usually have no relation to the question which is discussed, except that maybe the link shares a few words, like one has to expect for the first hit of google with these words.

    And, then, no, I'm not responding to everything what is wrong in your postings. Ok, usually I tend to answer. But in this case it was 1.) clear that you have not understood the point I have made, and 2.) to explain this point again, and to show that your answer was simply irrelevant, would have required too much time.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,482
    Another alternative pusher type cop out?
    The link was from Sean Carroll, not that I needed it. He just repeated exactly what I told you.
    Still cop outs are a rung or two above conspiracy fabricating.
    Well you were certainly wrong in saying a S/N was not an explosion and contradicting origin.....and as usual instead of recognising that, you deny it.
    Not a good look.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,482
    That's OK. I cannot find the damn debate but it went like this......
    origin said:
    A S/N is an explosion.
    Schmelzer said:
    No, a S/N is an implosion.
    paddo boy said:
    origin is correct Schelmzer and you are wrong.
    A S/N general type 11 occurs when a behemoth star starts to gravitationally collapse. A dense core [Iron/Nickel] forms which has the effect of suddenly halting the collapse, and seeing the outer layers of the star explode with such ferocity and brightness, that it out shines its entire galaxy, and in the process fuses even more heavier elements.
    Also type 1a S/N explosions occur when a binary pair which includes a WD, sucks off matter from its companion, reinitiating fusion and again a S/N explosion.
    I then included a link by Sean Carroll basically saying the same thing.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,482
    Found it, ! It went like this.....
    I was searching the wrong bloody thread!
    And it appears no link to Sean Carroll was given...so apologies for that bit, but my rundown is basically correct.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2015

Share This Page