What Lies at the Center of the Universe?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
The Steady state model did not predict a CBR, nor does it have any reason to include a CBR.

You are wrong on that one. You are simply repeating a BBT mantra. Look up the ACTUAL history... I don't have the time to do it for you.

Planck radiation from interstellar gasses is BASIC physics. That is why none of you can argue against it. It was known to the SST physicists who made CBR predictions much closer than the BBT theory did.

NOTE: I am not arguing for SST either, but for the Plasma Cosmology model.

Not sure what you mean there...in the picture of galaxies ones at the edge look like the center? Or ones further away look like ones closer up? You are mistaken there. They do indeed look different. Generally they are more blob like than spiral shaped.

That is not true at all. I have seen the pictures and they look just the same. There are massive spiral galaxies and eliptical galaxies just like everywhere else. The spiral galaxies at the very limits of perception have had a mere two revolutions since the BB. That is not even close to enough revolutions to generate their spiral structure.

And unfortuantely for your position, plasma techniques and fusion in stars (indeed fission cannot occur past iron, just as fusion can't occur past iron) create the universal 23-24% helium concentration that is present.

You clearly have not studied Plasma Cosmology. The Plasma Cosmology model does indeed account for the production of ALL the elements. Learn it and then debate it.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

That site you linked to has some serious issues.

Namely how it treats mass as something that can vary. It cannot and does not, and indeed this has been verified by objects (probes) we send out to space. Their paths behave exactly like they should. And meters are suddenly longer on mecury now? Interesting.

Again I say D'oh!


Hurkyl, I think we have a lost cause here.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
That site you linked to has some serious issues.

Namely how it treats mass as something that can vary. It cannot and does not, and indeed this has been verified by objects (probes) we send out to space. Their paths behave exactly like they should. And meters are suddenly longer on mecury now? Interesting.

What are you talking about. Please quote the article and we will see it in context.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

The only physical mechanism responsible for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury results from the change of mass due to the gravitational and kinetic energy.

Following the change of the Bohr radius, quantum mechanics predicts a change of quantum levels, due to the change of electron mass, giving also a change of rate of atomic clocks [1]. It is also demonstrated that all matter, including organic matter and even human bodies, function at a different rate when electrons forming them have acquired or released some potential or kinetic energies.
Since Mercury in its orbit has a different gravitational energy and possesses a different kinetic energy, matter on Mercury (i.e. due to its Mercury distance from the Sun) has a different mass. In addition, clocks on Mercury are functioning at a different rate. We consider that Newton's laws are perfectly valid on Mercury (as everywhere else) using the masses and the clock rates that are existing on Mercury. This is the universality of the physical laws. This requires using all proper values on Mercury, taking into account that the standard kilogram and the clock rate on Mercury clocks are slightly different from the standard kilogram and the clock rate on Earth. Furthermore, since the principle of mass-energy conservation has modified the mass of the particles on Mercury, it would not make sense to use the mass of the particles on Earth to calculate the interaction of the particles on Mercury immerged in the solar gravitational field. Consequently, one must always use everywhere (here Mercury) the units of mass, of lengths and the clock rate existing at the location where the interaction takes place. The relationships transforming the units between locations at different gravitational potentials and different velocities have already been calculated [1]. We have seen that the number of units representing the physical length of an object in different frames, can be expressed with respect to any standard reference in any given reference location. This gives us the possibility to calculate the same absolute physical length, either using Mercury or Earth meters. Physical lengths can be expressed either in Earth meters [meterE] or in Mercury meters [meterm]. The physical length of the radius of the orbit of Mercury is a real physical quantity, therefore absolute. It is equal to the number of Mercury-meters times the length of the local standard Mercury-meter. The same orbit of Mercury can also be measured using the shorter standard Earth-meter. Then, the number of Earth-meters to measure the same physical orbit of Mercury is larger when it is measured using the shorter Earth-meter.
We must notice that Newton's laws of physics deals with the numbers that are fed into the equations. Since the number of meters to measure the same physical length (using the longer Mercury meters) is smaller than the number of Earth meters, we must not be surprised to find different physical results when Newton's laws uses the correct local (proper) number.
In physics, there exist several systems of units using meters, feet, kilograms, pounds, coulombs, statcoulombs, abcoulombs etc. that have been devised in a coherent way so that the coherent use of any set of units leads to answers which are compatible, independently of any system of units. In fact, one has a complete choice of systems of units that leads to the same physical answer, although represented by different numbers and using units having different names. However, contrarily to the above, when we apply the principle of mass-energy conservation, the relationship between the units of mass, energy, lengths and clock rates do not vary in the same proportion which previously led to the same physical result, when we switch to locations having different energies. Most importantly, the principle of mass-energy conservation must be satisfied. Consequently, the application of the same Newton's laws at Mercury location (with Mercury units) will give a different physical prediction than using Earth units. Of course, the correct calculation is the one existing at the place where the phenomenon takes place. Doing otherwise would be absurd. Physics does not depend on observer's location. We show here below, that this logical correction explains perfectly the advance of the perihelion of Mercury without any relativity principle.

there you go.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Again I say D'oh!

Homer,

Einstein used Newtonian time to to explain the perihelion of mercury, not relativistic time. This calculation had already been done previous to Einstein through classical methods.

You are attempting to shift the focus onto Relativity theory which does not prove BBT. You claim that BBT is proven yet you cannot list any argument that does not have a better explanation in a nonBB theory.

 

[subtillioN]

“To Einstein’s law of gravitation Newton’s law is an extremely close approximation so that these laws give results in our own solar system which are indistinguishable from those of Newton except in one place, namely, the motion of the perihelion of Mercury. The law which is usually used was first given by Schwarzschild and it indicates an advance in the perihelion of Mercury of 43 seconds of arc per century greater than that indicated by Newton’s Law. Now it happens that there were two small discrepancies between the implications of the Newtonian theory and the observations. One of these is a slight irregularity in the motion of the moon, and the other is that the perihelion of Mercury is advancing 43 seconds per century faster than the theory indicated. Einstein’s theory would explain one of these, but not the other.
“That Einstein’s law of gravitation should fit one of these discrepancy so perfectly and ignore the others altogether is a bit puzzling. But naturally the relativists seize upon this one agreement as a striking confirmation of their procedure.
“The electromagnetic theory was based upon the concept of an ether, and it is the relativists themselves who put the ether into the discard. This is one of the defects of the doctrine of relativity for it does not say anything about how light is propagated. Both the emission theory and the wave theory give clear notions on this point. They may not be adequate, but the doctrine of relativity gives nothing at all.
“We of the present generation are too impatient to wait for anything. Within thirty years of Michelson’s failure to detect the expected motion of the Earth with respect to the ether we have wiped out the slate, made a postulate that by no means whatever can the thing be done, and constructed a non-Newtonian mechanics to fit the postulate. The success which has been attained is a marvelous tribute to our intellectual activity and our ingenuity, but I am not so sure with respect to our judgement.
“It is not our normal mode of procedure to assume, after two or three failures, that by no means whatever can the thing be done. It is particularly distasteful to do so when such an assumption involves the conclusion that our experience can no longer be interpreted in terms of the time and space of our intuitions, and that we have accordingly reached the limits of what is intelligible .
“It will be observed that in the preceding discussion I have granted all of the claims of the relativists, and still I have denied their conclusion that the relativists are the sole dispensers of the truth and that we must all become relativists. The situation is something like that of a boy and his bed clothes. The boy grew but discovered that his little toes were sticking out from under the covers and he was decidedly uncomfortable. Try as he would the bed clothes could not be stretched far enough to cover them up.
Suddenly he had a bright idea. All he had to do was to slip the entire bed covers down six inches. His feet went under beautifully and he was so happy about it that it took him some time to discover that now his neck was uncovered and that he had merely shifted the seat of difficulty for the bedclothes were no longer than they were before. The relativists have succeeded in covering up the little terms of order two, but in doing so they have robbed us of all ideas as to how light is propagated in space, and that problem is even more important than the little difficulties at the other extremity.
“Let us turn attention now to another of the so-called proofs of Einstein theory. This is the advancement of the perihelion of the planet Mercury. It is well known that the orbits of the planets are ellipses. It has been observed that the orbit of Mercury slowly rotates about the sun. Leverrier computed the path of Mercury, taking account of the attractions of Earth, Venus, Jupiter, and three other bodies. He found that the actual and calculated motions failed to agree by an amount which would be nearly 38 seconds of arc per century. Leverrier could not understand this discrepancy and suggested that there might be unknown masses of matter near the sun. Since that time some matter has been found and exactly where Leverrier predicted that it should be. In 1895, Newcomb repeated the calculation and by slightly reducing the eccentricity of the orbit he slightly increased the rotation and obtained 41 seconds per century.
“Now Einstein by the use of the equations of relativity has calculated that the perihelion of Mercury should rotate 43 seconds per century due to the supposed change in space and time in the neighborhood of the mass of the sun. It has been pointed out by Professor Poor that, in making these calculations, Einstein failed to use his relativity unit of time, but used instead our constant Newtonian unit of time. The agreement between the calculated values of Leverrier and Newcomb on the one hand, and of Einstein on the other has been considered definite proof of relativity. But it must be remembered that Newcomb was forced to guess the density of Mercury and the other planets. Hence, Figure 9-7 may be far in error. Since the so-called verification by the calculations of Einstein, the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury has been recalculated and values 33 and 29 have been announced. We have here a variation of 27 percent.


----------------

Max Born, “Einstein’s Relativity,” pp 132-133.

Abstracts from “A Debate on the Theory of Relativity.” M. E. Hufford, “Is the Experimental Evidence of Relativity Conclusive?” and W. D. MacMillan, “Postulates of Normal Intuition,” pp 56-86, noninclusive. The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1927.

 

[Hurkyl]

according to your link

The only physical mechanism responsible for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury results from the change of mass due to the gravitational and kinetic energy.

according to other sources

As seen from Earth the precession of Mercury's orbit is measured to be 5600 seconds of arc per century (one second of arc=1/3600 degrees). Newton's equations, taking into account all the effects from the other planets (as well as a very slight deformation of the sun due to its rotation) and the fact that the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference, predicts a precession of 5557 seconds of arc per century. There is a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century.

Hrm...

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Hrm...

"Now Einstein by the use of the equations of relativity has calculated that the perihelion of Mercury should rotate 43 seconds per century due to the supposed change in space and time in the neighborhood of the mass of the sun. It has been pointed out by Professor Poor that, in making these calculations, Einstein failed to use his relativity unit of time, but used instead our constant Newtonian unit of time. The agreement between the calculated values of Leverrier and Newcomb on the one hand, and of Einstein on the other has been considered definite proof of relativity. But it must be remembered that Newcomb was forced to guess the density of Mercury and the other planets. Hence, Figure 9-7 may be far in error. Since the so-called verification by the calculations of Einstein, the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury has been recalculated and values 33 and 29 have been announced. We have here a variation of 27 percent.
"

Read my latest post before this one.

I will be back later to continue this discussion...

Anyway enough of this diversion from the Big Bang Theory... Can you successfully defend it? We'll see...

 

[Brad_Ad23]

I have yet to see ANY account of a SS model that incorperates A)The CBR and B)A reason why such a thing exists, and C)A mechanism for how matter is continuously created to keep the universe steady if one assumes it expands.

2. The Big Bang flows naturally out of GR. It calls for an expanding universe. Hence I think that is why Hurkyl went that avenue.

3. Relativistic time is time under extreme gravitational or near light speed time. What he used was curved spacetime.

4. Plasma cosmology asserts that the universe is governed primarily by the electromagnetic force, not gravity. In other words, it claims such things as black holes, or neutron stars are not necessary. However, we know neutron stars exist. Indeed black holes are almost certainly for real. However other problems I see with it are the flat out denial that the standard model is at all useful (it is not the ultimate word, but very useful), the prediction of faster than light processes, and the claim that the work done by Alan Aspect shows light is not the fastest thing. Quantum tunnelling and delayed choice experiements such as that, do not send useful information. That is the often ignored consequence of relativity--no information may travel faster than c. Also, how would the electrical force be dominant over the universe when it is oddly enough, mroe or less neutral? If it did play a big part, we would be moving much faster towards other galaxies (such as Andromeda) and a lot of observations would be very much off.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I have yet to see ANY account of a SS model that incorperates A)The CBR and B)A reason why such a thing exists, and C)A mechanism for how matter is continuously created to keep the universe steady if one assumes it expands.

The SS model predicted CBR more accurately than BBT. If you don't know about it that is because it is not taught in your Standard Model classes. would you expect them to want to upset their status quo? It is part of history. nonetheless.

"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."

I am not arguing for SS so your other points do not apply to my argument.

2. The Big Bang flows naturally out of GR. It calls for an expanding universe. Hence I think that is why Hurkyl went that avenue.

BBT is entirely dependent on the doppler interpretation of the Hubble red-shift. This interpretation has been falsified by Halton Arp and the redshift is much better inter[reted by Plasma Cosmology.

4. Plasma cosmology asserts that the universe is governed primarily by the electromagnetic force, not gravity.

Electromagnetism is evident in every region of space. It is orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. The Plasma Cosmology model only makes sense and it does not require the existence of hypothetical dark matter/energy entities such as WIMPS MACHO's and the like.

In other words, it claims such things as black holes, or neutron stars are not necessary. However, we know neutron stars exist.

Neutron stars are an interpretation. They have not been observed.

The entire HR diagram is much more consistently explained in the Plasma Model.

Indeed black holes are almost certainly for real.

another interpretation from the Standard model.

However other problems I see with it are the flat out denial that the standard model is at all useful (it is not the ultimate word, but very useful)

It has obvious limits that Plasma Cosmo goes beyond.

Also, how would the electrical force be dominant over the universe when it is oddly enough, mroe or less neutral? If it did play a big part, we would be moving much faster towards other galaxies (such as Andromeda) and a lot of observations would be very much off.

Non Sequiter.

EM is orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. You do the math.

It is also visible in the heart of our galaxy and strongly at the surface of the sun.

 

[Hurkyl]

2. The Big Bang flows naturally out of GR. It calls for an expanding universe. Hence I think that is why Hurkyl went that avenue.

That was half of my reasoning. The other half is that the experimental evidence for the BB presumes GR in its interpretation, so there's no point in discussing BB unless we can agree on GR.





Anyways, back to your explanation of Mercury's orbit. Your link keeps harping on properly mass-energy conservation... but mass-energy conservation is always applied in Newtonian mechanics; mass is conserved and energy is conserved. Orbits work by trading gravitational potential energy for kinetic energy... no change in mass is required.

And there is a fundamental problem in doing things in "mercury units". The article states that mercury meters and mercury seconds are different because of the gravitational potential well at mercury is different than that of earth...

But the primary source of gravitational potential energy at mercury's surface is... *drumroll* Mercury! Mercury units would be different for an observer on the top of a mountain or in the bottom of a valley. The rationale in the article would then imply that these two observers would compute different answers, which would be a contradiction.

 

[subtillioN]

Forget about that article. Consider this instead.

"Now Einstein by the use of the equations of relativity has calculated that the perihelion of Mercury should rotate 43 seconds per century due to the supposed change in space and time in the neighborhood of the mass of the sun. It has been pointed out by Professor Poor that, in making these calculations, Einstein failed to use his relativity unit of time, but used instead our constant Newtonian unit of time. The agreement between the calculated values of Leverrier and Newcomb on the one hand, and of Einstein on the other has been considered definite proof of relativity. But it must be remembered that Newcomb was forced to guess the density of Mercury and the other planets. Hence, Figure 9-7 may be far in error. Since the so-called verification by the calculations of Einstein, the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury has been recalculated and values 33 and 29 have been announced. We have here a variation of 27 percent.
"

Can you deal with it?

 

[Brad_Ad23]

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 explanation 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 explanation 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]

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]

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]

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]

I remember I went through a phase where I thought every new idea was a good explanation 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 explanation 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

We have a rule here at PF. We don't debate trolls.

 

[subtillioN]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
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]

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 existence is completely incorrect.