|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 8, 2011 13:58:33 GMT 1
Which doesn't surprise me one whit! you have repeatedly shown an almost total unwilingness to actually put some effort in and try and LEARN stuff.
You also have the totally predictable response of assuming that when you don't understand what I'm saying, that means it is probably wrong, as you musing about supposedly trying to hide inconsistencies behind language shows -- although I might also wonder what exactly you do consider acceptable language, since it seems to include anything written by anyone with a vocabulary slightly above the level of Eastenders................
This proferssor line is laughable -- all sorts of idiots become professors, I work with them every day, and most are totally hopeless at explaining anything to the general public -- in fact, almost a pre-requisite for the post.....................
If you don't like my language, why don't you just go off and try and read some of the links I give you? Answer -- because you don't actually WANT to learn, its too much like hard work! Whereas feeble insults and entrenched prejudice is MUCH easier, requires no work whatsoever......................
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 8, 2011 14:07:20 GMT 1
I could do that but it is not so easy to find a site or even a basic book that puts over the main principles to the general reader in a fairly non-technical way. I have found the problem with science books written by experts is that they can't seem to free themselves of jargon, which just confuses the readers. Your role here is to try to inform ordinary people like us, with ordinary brains, about the central ideas within scientific theories but not in a way that involves too much fine detail. If one hasn't a basic grasp of an idea how can they then go on to a more detailed understanding? Try to drop the jargon STA and just think of us as children at a primary school, that should help a lot.
Either that or I am simply so unintelligent that I should forget about studying science and take up knitting.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 8, 2011 14:50:30 GMT 1
New concepts need new WORDS, you just have to LEARN them.
And odd you should be so critical of pop sci, when on other boards you seem to extol the virtues of anyone who does that (as opposed to me).
Bollocks! My role here, as it relates to YOU, is to stop you spreading your ignorance.................Because you have shown ZERO willingness to learn, or make ANY effort whatsoever. If someone tells you you have got something WRONG, you just argue, claim it isn't my fault etc etc. Or say it is insulting for me to keep saying that.
Plus I dispute vigorously the idea that YOU have a normal brain...........................
Except knitting requires a high-degree of numeracy and ability to decode written patterns. I'd suggest a less intellectual pursuit.......................
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 8, 2011 15:51:27 GMT 1
New concepts need new WORDS, you just have to LEARN them. Agreed, but what is the point of using new words before you have made them fully understandable to your audience? This is not true because when I watch someone like Brian Cox on TV, I have little trouble in understanding most of the ideas he is attempting to impart to his viewers. This is not a good attitude to take towards someone you want to teach new concepts to, is it? It's hardly confidence building! You should be more nurturing and patient and be prepared to change your approach, at least within reason, but you never do so I ask myself why you bother to post here at all since very few people can understand what you are trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 8, 2011 18:18:46 GMT 1
Who said I wanted to teach you -- I gave up on that long ago because you showed quite clearly you weren't prepared to listen, let alone learn.
And should try to stop being such an arse, because that is the only skill you have displayed on these boards.
And you then try and fuck it up for everybody body else who is trying to ask a question, and who are trying to listen to my answers. But rather than actually get a discussion going about nuclear decay (there was a germ of one there), instead we just have yourself and NM pissing all over the place..................................
Yeah, very bloody clever!
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 8, 2011 18:22:41 GMT 1
Who said I wanted to teach you -- I gave up on that long ago because you showed quite clearly you weren't prepared to listen, let alone learn. And should try to stop being such an arse, because that is the only skill you have displayed on these boards. And you then try and fuck it up for everybody body else who is trying to ask a question, and who are trying to listen to my answers. But rather than actually get a discussion going about nuclear decay (there was a germ of one there), instead we just have yourself and NM pissing all over the place.................................. Yeah, very bloody clever! ;D
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 8, 2011 20:01:40 GMT 1
We are here to help you STA, but you won't heed our advice.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 8, 2011 20:10:07 GMT 1
We are here to help you STA, but you won't heed our advice. Count me out! She is a half-mad half-wit and this board would be better without her insane raving ;D
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 8, 2011 20:41:43 GMT 1
We are here to help you STA, but you won't heed our advice. Count me out! She is a half-mad half-wit and this board would be better without her insane raving ;D But she's so much fun.
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on Mar 9, 2011 1:54:19 GMT 1
There seems to be some inconsistency with this and what Brian Cox was proposing with his glaciers reforming.It might well be that there is nothing wrong with saying that the ice can jump out of the water and stick itself back but gravity is allways attractive. If the big crunch happened then there would have to be some kind of reversall of events. So planets would no longer orbit around stars in effect stars would be unable to form as gravity now being repulsive would prevent these events.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 9, 2011 3:15:19 GMT 1
But wouldn't necessarily mean gravity was reversed if the universe contracted after expanding -- and cosmological models with a positive curvature do just that -- expand, then contract.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 9, 2011 8:13:09 GMT 1
[ There seems to be some inconsistency with this and what Brian Cox was proposing with his glaciers reforming.It might well be that there is nothing wrong with saying that the ice can jump out of the water and stick itself back but gravity is allways attractive. If the big crunch happened then there would have to be some kind of reversall of events. So planets would no longer orbit around stars in effect stars would be unable to form as gravity now being repulsive would prevent these events. Ah, but some cosmologists maintain that gravity has not always been attractive - that in the inflationary peroid gravity reversed and became repulsive (and that was the driving force of the inflationary period) Similarly some cosmologists (ALL cosmologoists?) maintain that the expansion of the universe (since the inflationary period)has not been constant. That probably means one of two things 1. The gravitational forces of matter vary with time OR 2. Another , unknown force was acting to accelerate/decelerate the expansion of the universe However, contraction of the universe does not imply a reversal of gravitational forces - quite the contrary, it implies an asssertion of gravitational attraction - indeed an increase in gravitaional attraction in comparison to the 'forces' that are driving the universe apart And indeed, if the contraction of the universe occurred, then that would confute (I think) the 2nd law of thermodynamics ( IF the 2nd law is currently happening and the universe is moving toward disorgansation - if the 2nd law is NOT affecting the organisation of the universe then Brian Cox was wrong, wasn't he?)
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 9, 2011 8:19:48 GMT 1
But wouldn't necessarily mean gravity was reversed if the universe contracted after expanding -- and cosmological models with a positive curvature do just that -- expand, then contract. Another one for the idiot science section!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 9, 2011 20:38:12 GMT 1
Wrong all over. The standard general relativistic cosmological models are of 3 basic types, positive curvature, negative curvature, and flat. If positive curvature and finite, then the universe expands for a while, then collapses again.
Hence second law not necessarily violated either!
And usual mistake of assuming that an expanding universe according to Einstein means gravity isn't acting in the right direction, which is utter bollocks!
I say again, ordinary GR and a universe filled with matter quite happily gives expanding solutions, solutions that expand and then later contract, solutions for finite universes, solutions for infinite universes, and so on. This is without getting into the cosmological constant, or dark matter, or dark energy, or inflation, or any other of that slightly exotic stuff.
And an ordinary ole FRW solution can give a universe that expands, slows, then re-collapses, without any weird gravity changing direction, or an violation of the second law.......................
Just yet another post showing what an utter idiot you both are over science, you have no idea at all, and aren't ashamed to show it...............
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 9, 2011 21:11:34 GMT 1
In other words you haven't got a bloody clue, have you?
|
|