Register to reply

Center of the Univers

by The Grimmus
Tags: univers
Share this thread:
Brad_Ad23
#73
Jul5-03, 09:43 PM
P: 499
Of course. Silly me. How could I forget all the scientists are concerned with is their status quo.


I remember I went through a phase where I thought every new idea was a good explination against the scientific community. You are going through that as well.

And my point about observations being off which are based off of gravity is very important.

At any rate, I have yet to find any explination anywhere about how the SS model explains the CBR. Perhaps you can do so for us quickly, and then we can turn more strictly to an analysis of Plasma Cosmology.
CrystalStudios
#74
Jul5-03, 09:51 PM
P: n/a
Hurkyl et al - Just forget this sub-troll guy. He's spouting off with random crap and trying to disprove the proven.

Like I said there is 100+ reasonings behind the BB. Just drop it and move on to some much more promising threads!
Hurkyl
#75
Jul5-03, 09:51 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,092
BBT is entirely dependent on the doppler interpretation of the Hubble red-shift.
Can you back up this claim?



Anyways, Einstein probably did use what could be called the "Newtonian unit of time". Why? He was trying to make predictions about what we measure, so amongst all the reference frames he could have chosen to perform the calculation, he opted to perform the calculations in a reference frame where the general relativistic meaning of position and time coincided as best as possible with the classical meaning.
subtillioN
#76
Jul6-03, 01:43 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can you back up this claim?


In the absense of the 'evidence' of an expanding Universe there is no Big Bang Theory. Isn't that obvious?



Anyways, Einstein probably did use what could be called the "Newtonian unit of time". Why? He was trying to make predictions about what we measure, so amongst all the reference frames he could have chosen to perform the calculation, he opted to perform the calculations in a reference frame where the general relativistic meaning of position and time coincided as best as possible with the classical meaning.
And so classical mechanics can deal just fine with the perihelion of Mercury, but so what? What does that have to do with BBT?
subtillioN
#77
Jul6-03, 01:48 AM
P: n/a
I remember I went through a phase where I thought every new idea was a good explination against the scientific community. You are going through that as well.
What are you my shrink?

I thought we were actually trying to debate cosmology?


Basically we have evidence and we have interpretation.
BBT is one interpretation of the evidence and Plasma Cosmology is another. I happen to know both of them quite well and it seems that none of you BBT proponents have any clue about Plasma Cosmology. Let us debate both of them in the open, and on fair ground.

Can you debunk Plasma Cosmology?

At any rate, I have yet to find any explination anywhere about how the SS model explains the CBR. Perhaps you can do so for us quickly, and then we can turn more strictly to an analysis of Plasma Cosmology. [/B]
from: http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm

"In addition to the previous comment that one would expect the observed gigantic galactic formations to cause irregularities in the isotropy of MBR reception, the observed spectrum of the MBR, corresponding to a near perfect black body temperature of 2.7 K, doesn't agree very well with temperatures predicted by various BB theorists. Those predictions had varied over a range of 5 to 50 K.(26) History also shows that some BB cosmologists' "predictions" of MBR temperature have been "adjusted" after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.
The prediction of 5 K (by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948),(27) which has been selected as a basis for agreement with the observed temperature, was made by those who had accepted a BB scenario that included concepts that were incorrect. Those included the idea that all of the elements of the universe were produced in the BB, which was later determined to be erroneous.
If the temperature of the universe was at absolute zero, all matter would collapse. The temperature of radiation from space might reasonably be expected to be some small number of degrees above that temperature. In fact, some physicists (including Sir Arthur Eddington in 1926 and Andrew McKeller in 1942)(28) had estimated temperatures in the range of 2 to 3 K; closer to that of the MBR than has been estimated by BB cosmologists."

Your knowledge is limited. And who is arguing for the SST? Not me.

Do you know Plasma Cosmology? Can you debunk it as well as I can debunk BBT?

We'll see....
CrystalStudios
#78
Jul6-03, 01:52 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by subtillioN
In the absense of the 'evidence' of an expanding Universe there is no Big Bang Theory. Isn't that obvious?

You're a troll and so I'm going to treat you as one:

1. First off the BBT does NOT, I repeat does NOT need the doppler evidence to support it. This is but one of the many ways the BBT has been proven.

2. Secondly. the BBT can be proven with or without the universe expanding. It's that simple.

3. BBT can give rise to:

A. An expand-contract universe in which we are currently expanding.

B. An expand-contract universe in which we are currently contracting

C. An expand contract universe in which we are currently at bay - and the detection of the slight expansion or contraction is currently undetectable to us.

D. Any number of other possibilities which still do not rule out the BBT.

To conclude troll - an expanding universe is NOT required for the BBT to be (as it is) the truth.

Isn't that obvious?
CrystalStudios
#79
Jul6-03, 01:54 AM
P: n/a
Subtrolls arrogance has failed him.

He says that plasma cosmology needs to be debunked.

Wrong again.

Evidence proves BBT. Unless a challenging theory can completely and totally encompass or surpass all the knowledge of the BBT it is 100% false.

BBT has, among other things, proven the universe came from, well, a BB! Thus unless plasma cosmology is nearly identical to the BB - in which case it is not unique, it is completely false.

I don't even have to know a dammed thing about plasma cosmology to debunk it, you see? It's pure logic - the terms are useless!
subtillioN
#80
Jul6-03, 01:57 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
You're a troll and so I'm going to treat you as one:


Ad hominem is the weakest form of argument.


1. First off the BBT does NOT, I repeat does NOT need the doppler evidence to support it. This is but one of the many ways the BBT has been proven.

2. Secondly. the BBT can be proven with or without the universe expanding. It's that simple.

3. BBT can give rise to:

A. An expand-contract universe in which we are currently expanding.

B. An expand-contract universe in which we are currently contracting

C. An expand contract universe in which we are currently at bay - and the detection of the slight expansion or contraction is currently undetectable to us.

D. Any number of other possibilities which still do not rule out the BBT.

To conclude troll - an expanding universe is NOT required for the BBT to be (as it is) the truth.

Isn't that obvious?
In the absense of evidence it is PURE speculation. Go ahead speculate all you want. You have ZERO evidence to back up your outlandish claims.
subtillioN
#81
Jul6-03, 02:00 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
I don't even have to know a dammed thing about plasma cosmology to debunk it, you see? It's pure logic - the terms are useless! [/B]
So you have admitted your Dogmatism....

You don't know a damned thing about the alternative that you are dismissing on logic that you have never shown.

If you have any logic against a theory which you know nothing about please bless us with with your wisdom.
CrystalStudios
#82
Jul6-03, 02:03 AM
P: n/a
Ad Hominem? Ha! You're a troll plain and simple - I could care less if I committ an Ad Hominem towards you!

I have no evidence to back up my BBT claims?

What a cracker!

The Plasma Cosmology Hypothesis is a very weak one. First off, it doesn't even coincide with String Theory, and it states that Black Holes don't exist (and yet we know them too) and also states that dark matter doesn't exist!!

Now that's outlandish!
CrystalStudios
#83
Jul6-03, 02:05 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by subtillioN
So you have admitted your Dogmatism....

You don't know a damned thing about the alternative that you are dismissing on logic that you have never shown.

If you have any logic against a theory which you know nothing about please bless us with with your wisdom.

Like I said - BBT has been proven. Unless another theory encompasses all the proof of the BBT, then it is obviously contradictory to the BBT (which is contradictory to the truth) and is thus false.
subtillioN
#84
Jul6-03, 02:05 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Ad Hominem? Ha! You're a troll plain and simple - I could care less if I committ an Ad Hominem towards you!

I have no evidence to back up my BBT claims?

What a cracker!

The Plasma Cosmology Hypothesis is a very weak one. First off, it doesn't even coincide with String Theory, and it states that Black Holes don't exist (and yet we know them too) and also states that dark matter doesn't exist!!

Now that's outlandish!
You don't know the difference between data and theory. And you still cannot debate my points.

Why are you so emotional about a theory anyway.... That to me is a warning sign of a non-scientific (in the true sense of the term) religious dogmatism.
CrystalStudios
#85
Jul6-03, 02:07 AM
P: n/a
We have a rule here at PF. We don't debate trolls.
subtillioN
#86
Jul6-03, 02:08 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
We have a rule here at PF. We don't debate trolls.

Let me translate that for you:
"We have a rule not to accept any challenge to our favorite theories."

All I have done is show an alternative. You have a rule not to look at alternatives? How scientific is that?

Give me a break.


Is that supposed to compensate for your inability to debate my points?
subtillioN
#87
Jul6-03, 02:14 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Like I said - BBT has been proven. Unless another theory encompasses all the proof of the BBT, then it is obviously contradictory to the BBT (which is contradictory to the truth) and is thus false.
That is the most dogmatic statement I think I have ever read.

Basically you are saying that your precious BBT is beyond reproach. Are you that attached to it? That is a serious warning sign that you are being unscientific.
CrystalStudios
#88
Jul6-03, 02:21 AM
P: n/a
You love to call things dogmatic. I bet you don't know what that really means.

Look troll - plasma cosmology is a strange idea that is less than one year old. It has 100% no experimental evidence while BBT has tons.

Theoretical evidence isn't much of any evidence at all. Your theory doesn't take into account dark matter, black holes, superstrings, Higgs fields, and many other things.

It also disregards the fact that everything in the universe is moving away from the same point........

.....it's a weak theory.

Shoot man - string theory has now taken over physics, and plasma cosmology doesn't even agree with string theory!!!!!!


What the hell do you expect?
subtillioN
#89
Jul6-03, 02:33 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
[B]You love to call things dogmatic. I bet you don't know what that really means.
Is it some complex idea? No it is obvious when someone refuses to admit that his favored interpretation is not a proven fact.

Look troll - plasma cosmology is a strange idea that is less than one year old. It has 100% no experimental evidence while BBT has tons.
Do you realize how childish your name-calling is? What is this... Kinder-garten?

Either way the very same evidence that the BBT has claimed for its own 'proof' actually is more coherent when interpreted via Plasma Cosmology. If you don't know a damn thing about it how can you sit there and claim that it is wrong?

Theoretical evidence isn't much of any evidence at all. Your theory doesn't take into account dark matter, black holes, superstrings, Higgs fields, and many other things.
The BBT is FAR more theoretical than Plasma Cosmology. If only you knew the difference.

It also disregards the fact that everything in the universe is moving away from the same point........

.....it's a weak theory.
You don't even know what you are talking about. Try debating the actual theory... oh yeah... that means actually LEARNING it.


Shoot man - string theory has now taken over physics, and plasma cosmology doesn't even agree with string theory!!!!!!


What the hell do you expect?
I expect serious debate which you are incapable of.. Instead all I get is a barage of name calling for even challenging your pet theory.

String Theory is a joke and so is the state of physics... So what if Physics is taken over by a faulty theory, it certainly isn't the first time.
Rogue
#90
Jul6-03, 03:18 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by subtillioN
String Theory is a joke and so is the state of physics.
I hate to take this thread (judging by the main heading - I didn't read it all) in the wrong direction, but string theory a joke? String theory has united all of physics, solved all the problems of the differences in the forces - and you think it is a joke? So you're arguing an irrational theory which goes against all the structures of physics, and indeed you also deny the exist of string theory as the proven structure behind physics - and expect someone to listen to that? You're basically saying that everything in physics down to it's very existance is completely incorrect.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Center of gravity (it's not center of mass ) General Physics 28
The geometric center of the Earth and the center of mass Classical Physics 9
U think that the univers is realy expanding? think again Cosmology 10
Can two objects with the same center of mass oscillate about that center? Introductory Physics Homework 0
The center of Mass perfectly match the center of Force-> General Physics 9