The History of the Universe in 8 minutes:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Jul 25, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    ???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I just did.
    Or maybe you are unaware that his claim that the apparent size of the Moon to the Sun denotes a Moon that is not moving away.
    The Moon data I supplied confirms it is.
    In other words we are just plain lucky and fortunate that we are in an era where the Moon is at a distance 400 times closer to Earth than the Sun while being 400 times smaller in diameter.
    So we get total solar eclipses.
    In the past annular eclipses were not possible. The Moon being closer to Earth.
    In the future, total solar eclipses will be impossible and only annular possible.
    This of course is also strongly supported by the tides and tidal gravity effects, plus the slowing of the Earth's rotation rate.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    It was an eight minute video.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And obviously his speculative scenario about a Superforce certainly fits in with what we do know and the knowledge we have gained from our particle accelerators.
    No one is holding up any other theoretical approaches to the problem. As he said, its speculative at this time, but reasonably logical as well and in line with what we already know.
    My confidence in Tyson and his mainstream colleagues certainly over rides any confidence [or lack there of] I have with alternative hypothesis pushers that spend there days on science forums, the only outlets they have, trying to convert more to their errant ways. Not that it does any good. Like pissing into the wind.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    9,802
    Define this " anti-science " concept of yours pad.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Whatever....Not that interested other than to say Asimov was wrong.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Sure. Idiots that like to expound and preach about thinking for one's self, wearing it like a badge of honour, and ignoring the giants of the past, mainstream in general, and anything that smells orthodox or establishment.
    Paranoia about such institutions obviously plays such a part, coupled with this "thinking for one'self" fanatical exercise, sees them continually on the outside, looking in, making no difference, other than creating a nuisance on forums such as this.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    9,802
    So Newton , Einstein would have been a nuisance then. See you couldn't have understood either of them. So you would have insulted them both. You would not have known better.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Newton and Einstein were established scientists. They were not established pseudoscientists and cranks.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  11. river

    Messages:
    9,802
    You missed the point pad.

    You would have dismissed them both as being cranks.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    No, you have missed the bus in actual fact.
    They were established scientists. They broke new ground with new physics some of it intuitive.... but they adhered to the scientific method and their models had to run the gauntlet which they passed with flying colours.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    9,802
    But before both were established you have thought them as cranks.
     
  14. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    No, paddoboy, you did NOT Cite and supply the full quote of this ..."One of his claims in dmoe's link was that the Moon was not moving away from Earth".

    As far as this : "...maybe you are unaware that his claim that the apparent size of the Moon to the Sun denotes a Moon that is not moving away." - could you Please Cite and supply some sort of "Reputable" evidence to support that ...statement/claim...?
     
  15. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    ...
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_16.htm
    14. Moon Diameter: How does one explain the "coincidence" that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Again, Isaac Asimov responds,
    "There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.

    No I certainly have explained in reasonably simple terms how Asimov infers that the Moon is not moving away from earth.
    If you disagree that's your prerogative, but your interpretations have been somewhat askew in the past.
    If you like though we could ask a mod to judge on my replies to you today as to whether yours or mine Interpretation is the most obvious.


     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2015
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    And really dmoe, I'm sure you have been in conflict with trolling such as that before this?
     
  18. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    ...
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    It has been mentioned on the forum before, but the final outcome of this ritual gravitational tug o war between the EARTH/MOON system, will be a future of Lunar long Earth days, and the Moon much much further away.
    The Earth will always have one side permanently facing the Moon, just as the Moon always has one side facing the Earth.
    This same effect is not uncommon throughout our solar system, and certainly operational with Pluto/Charon system.
    Similar tidal locking effects are in vogue with many moons and their mother Planets, including the Jovian Satellites and Mar's Phobos and Deimos.
     
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Newton had Hooke as a detractor (and Hooke was really good).

    Einstein had detractors fron square one of his theory, and even more today, including hoards of neo-nazi propagandists who view him as a member of an inferior race and a traitor to nazi Germany.

    Under those constraints, the established science of which you speak has no basis in reality. In science, criticism doesn't stop when a theory is 'established'. If anything, it intensifies.

    I still like Tyson, but that video is not the reason. Tyson handles criticism of his ideas very well.

    It was gutsy of Tyson to share the latest ideas about inflation like that, but it also carries the risk of criticism.

    The answer you should have given was: 'conservation of energy', if anything, is what would give that line its rigidity. But the universe seems to be cooling off with no place for the energy (HOT to cold). to actually go. So this is a curve of both conservation and non conservation of energy, and it also covers from quantum to cosmological scales.

    Is energy conserved or not? On what scale? For how long? Where does the energy from inflation go? Will further cooling eventually lead to another phase change?

    So, fix it. As it stands, this is no GUT of any kind. It isn't even very high quality speculation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2015
  21. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    So...it is probably useless for me to ask you to provide anything at all to support this Spurious Claim : "The Earth will always have one side permanently facing the Moon," - if the Past is any indication!

    Yes, paddoboy, the Moon is indeed "Tidally Locked" with the Earth - so yes..."the Moon always has one side facing the Earth".

    However, you really should provide "Reputable Evidence" to support your Spurious Claim : "The Earth will always have one side permanently facing the Moon,"!

    ...so...according to your "claim/statement", which "side" of the Earth is "permanently facing the Moon,"?

    ...and...does this indicate that the people on the other "side" of the Earth - which must then be "permanently facing" away from "the Moon" - would never see the Moon in the sky?

    I am only asking you to provide "Reputable Evidence" that supports this Spurious Claim, paddoboy.
     
  22. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,010
    Given enough time that would certainly happen, but in all likelihood there is not enough time because the earth will most likely be engulfed by the sun during its red giant phase, before it becomes tidally locked to the moon.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    You folks discussing the moon realize, the whole moon discussion was beaten to death by Archimedes Plutonium in the 1990s. He was a crank who believed that the universe was a giant plutonium atom, and that the moon should be soft-landed in antarctica in order to preserve the Earth's current rate of rotation. Others tried to reason with him that this process could not be accomplished without increasing the rate of rotation of the Earth by a substantial amount.

    If you think the Earth's moon was originally a part of the Earth, that idea (increased speed of rotation) would be a clue, wouldn't it? So go do some science about it, and let us know what you discover.

    Plutonium didn't really have a viable plan for accomplishing this feat of celestial mechanical engineering, nor did he have any basis for believing the other weird science ideas he ranted about for over a decade. But at least he was occasionally entertaining.

    Tyson didn't mention anything about he moon in the video, or if he did, it wasn't a central point in the discussion. Tyson doesn't even care about something as large as Pluto, so why would he give a crap about the formation of the Earth's moon?

    Check the title and first post of the thread. Why are you hijacking and trolling your own threads? Can't stand the heat? Pardon me for messing up your thread by trying to respond to your OP.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2015

Share This Page