Right Handed Spiral Galaxies are Preferred

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

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    No, I have tried to return to my issue, my reason for mentioning the SNs at all. For this issue, what happens with the outer parts is simply irrelevant. Because the issue was the similarity of the inner part, the part which forms the black hole, with a part of a time-reversed big bang.

    Of course, your personal issue will be different. But my issue was to answer this:
    To reject a "nothing like", I have to present "some thing like", I don't need any "always like". Moreover, my issue was not only to reject this claim, for the purpose of rejecting it, but to show that this is a quite typical thing - elements of an ether interpretation, with "space" as an innocent name for the ether. Because, understood in this way, the sentence makes sense. In the ether interpretation, we have a velocity of the ether itself. And then one can distinguish between a wave in the ether, in a situation where the ether is not moving, and an expansion of the ether, where the galaxies move with the same velocity as the ether. So, in popular descriptions scientists do not hesitate to use elements of an ether interpretation in disguise, elements which make no sense from the point of view of the pure spacetime interpretation.

    This would be an interesting point for you, not? This talk is common mainstream talk, so you are obliged to defend it, not? So, what is the difference between a movement in space and movement of space in the spacetime interpretation of GR? Interested.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    The issue was whether a S/N is an explosion or an implosion. Full Stop.

    Again origin was totally correct in what he was portraying and answering: A S/N explosion is nothing like the BB. The first is an explosion of matter caused by gravitational collapse...the second was an evolution of space and time.
    Again Schmelzer, and the above re-enforces my point, this is about whether a S/N is an explosion or Implosion.
    Again, I'm not playing your game of semantics...A S/N is an explosion as generally recognised and the BB is not. And yes I agree with origin also on the other issue you raise. The BB was an evolution OF space and time, while the BB occurs IN spacetime.
    Yes, that's how mainstream sees it, and it sees it that way for obvious reasons.
    You seem to forget Schmelzer that most mainstream theories were just hypothesis at one time, and they also needed to have run the gauntlet of peer review...they passed, again for obvious reasons.
    I'm afraid In general, I'm not into conspiracy games, either scientifically inspired or politically.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm not dancing my friend...you do enough for both of us.
    You obviously agree with me, but lack the balls to say so, hence your dancing and prancing around the issue.

    A REFERENCE!!!!!! Great stuff!
    Yep read it yesterday. I do not ignore reputable links as you do.
    Nothing though anywhere in the paper that says or infers in any way that a S/N is not an explosion as distinct from an Implosion.
    And certainly nothing inferring or saying that any S/N explosion is any way like the evolution of spacetime at the BB.
    They remain as rock solid as ever.


    Oh, As yet you have not acknowledged your DE faux pas.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    This was the issue of the discussion you have started, where I have not participated. So it is your issue.

    Ok, it was caused by my own sloppy speaking, I not corrected the sloppy talk about "a supernova" in a situation where "supernova" is nothing like a common name for very different things, and, even if I was talking only about one particular case - a big enough supernovae which leads to a black hole - I have continued to talk about "the supernovae". But you have not even understood that this was the error, because you make it too, talking about what "a S/N" is.

    And, as expected, you "agree with origin also on the other issue you raise. The BB was an evolution OF space and time, while the BB [sic] occurs IN spacetime". Of course, you agree, because, as I have mentioned, it is a sloppy speaking used by the mainstream, and you would follow the mainstream even if this would be plain stupid. So, the informational content of the fact that you agree is zero. The question if you have a single argument to support this mainstream position, defend it against my arguments, is also answered, and also in the expected way: You have not presented a single argument. "Yes, that's how mainstream sees it, and it sees it that way for obvious reasons." Reasons so obvious, that you cannot even explain them.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2015
  8. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Way back in post # 101 I stated as above, you immediately objected and started your dance, my position is unmoved....

    You changed your track very subtly as if none noted, in type II you added implosion as initiating process [which is correct but was not originally part of your argument, otherwise you would not have stupidly declared Scmelzer wrong when he talked of implosion].

    Good, you learnt something...
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2015
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Schmezer my old Son, wriggle all you like....and like I said mainstream is mainstream for the reasons already stated...Everything else is also rans including any ether hypothetical. I don't adhere to all your conspiracies, scientific or political.
    Funny you accuse yourself of sloppy speaking, then accuse mainstream of sloppy speaking. funny that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    What you need it seems Schmelzer is someone who is going to fall on his knees in front of you like some Saviour of 21st century cosmology. I don't do that with either you or mainstream scientists, despite what you infer in nearly every post along with the god.
    As a lay person, I follow common sense, logic and reasonabilty, when I cross an issue I do not fully understand.
    And this question at present is not one of them.
     
  10. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    I am still with what I said.....you will change but you will never admit.

    Please give a reference which substantiates your claim that DE is some kind of constant force like F = ma or F = ?? whatever...

    Yes, in reponse to Billy T, you gave following popo science link

    http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...oes-dark-energy-make-the-universe-accelerate/


    This is the first line of your this reputable link..

    """"""Peter Coles has issued a challenge: explain why dark energy makes the universe accelerate in terms that are understandable to non-scientists.""""""

    Need I say more, even then this guy nowhere states in the article that it is some kind of constant force. Let me ask you a question, What is a force and how it can be applied to space to cause acceleretad expansion it ?
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Like I said, it's you dancing my friend, as you always do.
    It's a shame you havn't learnt anything that is.
    My views have not changed since I corrected Schmelzer [unless you can show me where? or are you again pissing into the wind

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ]
    A S/N is an explosion, not an Implosion. The Implosion is obviously the initiator, but the S/N is an explosion. See the difference?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    As I said and as you ignore, the questions here were not on the mechanics of stellar evolution....You dragged that in to muddy the waters and try and promote yourself as an expert [

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] When all the time quoting the figures, numbers, mechanics from Bethe's excellent paper.
    Like I said, you really appear to agree with me but lack the balls to say so.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It's not hard you know.
    Oh and you have not yet acknowledged your total ignorance of the DE question.
     
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    At the end of the argument you always try to get away with this kind of non sense !! Its for everyone to see how you aligned with "implosion and then explosion"......I am as ever unmoved in my stand....

    By the way are you a spokesperson of a political party?? Those guys are terrible, they will use your kind of language, will keep changing, will say their language is taken out of context, blatant lies, but will never admit the nastiness...Good, people like you do exist in this world, you are not alone.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    I've given you the reference twice. Dishonesty must run rife in your family if you are any example
    Yes, that's the general cop out for cranks, nuts and pseudoscience adherents.
    You must realise my friend, that Sean Carroll would rub your nose in dog shit as far as any scientific knowledge goes on any subject.

    Here's the Sean Carroll link again.

    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".
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2015
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    • Please do not insult other members.
    More talk, blah blah blah.....or are you again in your own words, assuming your role as the village Idiot? or was that the forum clown?
    Are you drinking? Or on drugs?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Again though nice to see you link to Bethe's paper and even nicer to notice he did not refute anything I said...
     
  15. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    • Please do not insult other members.
    Phew..

    Only losers are capable of this kind of language........In abuses also you shoud maintain some dignity, no wonder one poster called you a shit picker..
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Yet that same poster has yet to ever back you up.
    Just stating it as it is.
    Let me reiterate here, I'll stand by the judgement of YOUR PEERS on this forum and my peers my friend, any day of the week.
    OK? You are a mitigated liar and have done since you started your rampage in these threads.
     
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    I have no problem to admit errors, even more sloppy speaking, if I do such things. Admitting does not mean defending this as good, thus, is in no way in conflict with accusing others to do the same things. BTW, there is also a difference between admitting and accusing.

    Of course, you would never admit an error, or sloppy speaking, or having done something bad. Or, after having admitted such a thing, never more accuse others of making errors, using sloppy speaking, or doing something bad, because this would be funny.
    The obvious fact is that you do it with the mainstream. But you err about me. I don't need any supporters. Mindless supporters, like the ones you describe, I would simply ignore, possible even despise.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Of course! And that's why your views are so questionable.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    My first post at post 56 questioning Schmelzer on the S/N question which shows you as the liar you most certainly are, and why so many have you on ignore........
    So much for the losers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    That's interesting and surprising. My views are questionable, because I don't need and like mindless supporters?

    Of course, the fact that I don't care about being attractive to mindless supporters makes my positions less attractive to mindless supporters. My positions are, clearly, inacceptable to mindless supporters, because they have only two possibilities: 100% agreement with their hero or complete rejection. The reasonable position - acceptance of some points, rejection of others, above decisions based on arguments, is impossible. But once I reject the mainstream in a lot of very different questions, every mindless person will find a point of disagreement with me: Mindless people usually follow mainstream prejudices, and where they reject the mainstream, they tend to follow some mindless alternative, which I would not support. This leads to complete rejection.

    Oh, I see the point! That's why my position will not become the mainstream position - the mainstream always needs the support of the mindless people. Given that it is, therefore, impossible for my position to become the mainstream position, this position becomes inacceptable to paddoboy.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    No you don't see the point. The point is that mainstream position and theories were also once hypotheticals and needed to run the gauntlet to achieve the credibility they deserve.
    You, like many other alternative hypothesis pushers, have a phobia about supposedly thinking for yourself, [while at the same time ignoring the giants that have gone before you] and wear it like a badge of honour.
    And then in trying to gauge as much credibility as is possible for your alternative position, see the need to fabricate conspiracies about what you deem mainstream science does to supposedly protect its position.
    The silly thing about your conspiracy notions is that if science and mainstream was as incalcitrant as you and others claim, we would not be where we are today.
    Let me also again add, that no new discovery, theory or any improvement will come from what is discussed and argued about on science forums such as this. That will not happen.
     
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Boring repetition of nonsensical conspiracy accusation and your "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member" version omitted, together with a sentence which makes not sense at all. What remains is:
    LOL for the phobia, but who are the giants I'm accused of ignoring?

    My theory of gravity has the Einstein equations of GR as a limit, and so I use the results which Einstein and Hilbert have found, and without GR, I would have hardly been able to find my theory. My ether model is based on the Standard Model of particle physics, the other great result of modern physics, and to construct this model would have been simply impossible without the SM. So, who are these mythical giants which I ignore? String theorists?
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Boring, repetitious maybe, but certainly not nonsensical. You have been offering your brand of conspiracies, both science and political since you started here. Most know where you are coming from. Bye Schmelzer.....As HAL said, "Dave, this conversation can serve no more useful purpose"
     

Share This Page