|
Post by speakertoanimals on Apr 1, 2011 14:24:44 GMT 1
O dear, why am I not surprised that M seeks to support carnyx in this? Because both is them NEED to believe and argue that conventional science is too narrow in terms of alternative hypotheses considered. Just like creationists!
Why? Because they can't argue for their hypotheses based on actual science (so, creationsts had a go by inventing 'intelligent design', carnyx had a go with his magic pixie dust fog, and the ludicrous link he posted, and M had a go with that link to the post that tries to claim that a body can REMAIN at the same temp whilst absorbing more radiation, just because some of it is its own thermal radiation reflected back!). The supposed 'science' in all these examples is totally ludicrous -- THAT'S the reason I'm so keen to have a go at them, NOT because they are alternatives to conventional thinking, but just because they're ludicrous alternatives, only promoted to try and con the credulous into thinking that these are valid SCIENTIFIC reasons for not supporting the consensus.
I'm NOT saying there aren't valid scientific alternatives to AGW, or the big bang, just that none of what has been presented on here counts as such.
Hence we have resort to the usual tried and tested -- academics and their dogma, too closed minded, vested-interests blah blah..........................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Apr 1, 2011 15:42:49 GMT 1
AT LAST!
An open mind ......
It has taken four pages on this thread alone to get you to this point of admission!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Apr 1, 2011 16:51:49 GMT 1
That was NEVER the point. The point was:
1) YOUR suggested alternatives were daft 2) You didn't understand enough of the data to understand why the conventional Big Bang explanation is the mainstream explanation. Because until you understand that, you can't start to understand what the various SCIENTIFIC alternatives are (as opposed to the many-times dismissed and disproved alternatives, and the frankly illogical and unable to explain the data alternatives that seem to be the ones you prefer to link to!). In short, you need to get your head round 'beginners guide to standard cosmology', the Preface to Chapter One, before you can start worrying about the Appendix on some alternatives theories to the standard cosmology.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Apr 2, 2011 9:14:29 GMT 1
Here we have the heart of STA's motivation in joining in any discussion on this board ;
So, we see that STA proceeds by watching and waiting until something strikes her emotionally as 'DAFT'.
So her essentially passive habit of social intercourse is based on the prior premise that the other party or parties are stupid, mad, or silly.. Plainly this is a serious handicap, as with such an opening attitude ALL social intercourse ends up in conflict.
However, STA (is this Gerda with a 2.2 by chance?) I suggest you try a new social tactic ...a new 'dance' step as it were;
Open a thread, about, the possible alternative explanations of say CBT, or 'Inflation/Expansion', or Red Shift that are being discussed and debated in the world of Physics today.
I know this may be asking you to change the habits of a lifetime, which may even be congenital, but the alternative is to be stuck in your repetitive loop of trying to prove that the rest of the world is just DAFT .. for impenetrably woolly and desparate personal reasons of your own.
But, there is Hope! Now, finally, you admit of alternatives! ....So let's hear some orthodox, permitted, qualified alternatives to the Official Cosmology Script ... from the Malvolio of the Board, shall we?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Apr 4, 2011 16:47:54 GMT 1
Nope, just generally true for many on these boards.Thankfully, the real world has people about that aren't all as daft as you carnyx.................................
|
|
|
Post by skeptic on Jan 11, 2012 17:01:23 GMT 1
In 1896, Charles Edouard Guillaume predicted a temperature of 5.6K from heating by starlight. Arthur Eddington refined the calculations in 1926 and predicted a temperature of 3K. Regener predicted 2.8 in 1933. George Gamow, credited with the prediction from Big Bang assumptions, estimated 5K in 1948. In the 1950s he raised that estimate to 10K, and by 1961 he was predicting 50K, The discovery of the excess temperature of 3.5 +/- 1K by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 can be claimed as proof of the Big Bang only by applying a cognitive spot that obliterates over half a century of history. thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050215spacetemp.htmIt took the big bangers 40 years of increases in technology to get where Eddington had been 40 years earlier. The temperature of space away from any form of heating, outside of our solar system or over 13 billion light years away is the same. How can this be in an ever expanding universe?
|
|
|
Post by skeptic on Jan 11, 2012 17:26:02 GMT 1
2) You didn't understand enough of the data to understand why the conventional Big Bang explanation is the mainstream explanation. I don't understand either since it is made of unproven ideas, impossibilities and twaddle with a mere few facts twisted to suit it. I've read through some of your posts on this thread and there are so many misconceptions and blunders I don't know where to start.
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Jan 11, 2012 17:46:02 GMT 1
2) You didn't understand enough of the data to understand why the conventional Big Bang explanation is the mainstream explanation. I don't understand either since it is made of unproven ideas, impossibilities and twaddle with a mere few facts twisted to suit it. I've read through some of your posts on this thread and there are so many misconceptions and blunders I don't know where to start. It has to be said that currently, the BB is the most plausible theory about how the universe began based on the evidence so far. However, it may still turn out to be incorrect or, at least, have to be revised depending on what further observational evidence emerges.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jan 11, 2012 19:21:02 GMT 1
Skeptic
STA is/was-so she told us- a lecturer in physics at Oxford. We've not heard from her since the end of the last academic year. I have to say that I enjoyed her combative style, but I don't know enough to say whether she was peddling twaddle or telling the truth! Keep posting! P
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 14, 2012 13:25:37 GMT 1
Skeptic,
Homosexual solidarity is apparently more important to STA than continued participation on a science board where her lesbian pal, jean, is not welcome.
Whether jean's participation here helped the understanding of science on this board, is, of course, moot. This board tries to keep on topic, unlike some. Jean's style of "argumentation by digression" was not appropriate for the matters we tend to discuss here and since some of us know her habits to be incorrigible it was appropriate to show her the door. IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by skeptic on Jan 14, 2012 15:27:49 GMT 1
I don't understand either since it is made of unproven ideas, impossibilities and twaddle with a mere few facts twisted to suit it. I've read through some of your posts on this thread and there are so many misconceptions and blunders I don't know where to start. It has to be said that currently, the BB is the most plausible theory about how the universe began based on the evidence so far. However, it may still turn out to be incorrect or, at least, have to be revised depending on what further observational evidence emerges. The BB starts off with an impossible singularity from who knows where. It inflates which is just an idea and nothing more used because the observations and the maths showed the BB wrong. Gravity comes about so the singularity formed without it how? Matter comes about but with densities of trillions of times that needed to form a black hole, it doesn't and continues to inflate and then suddenly changes to expansion as a hypersphere (3D expansion means there would be a centre.) DE is added as another idea because again the observations and the maths don't work. The evidence? The CMB nonsense where the temperature is the same as anywhere else? Time dilation in quasars as in it doesn't work past six billion light years? Failing the Afterglow test? The Dark Flow showing contraction instead of expansion? Even expansion is unproven since there is no explanation of what space is and how it can infinitely expand without changing in any way and take whole galaxies along with it. It is said that inflation stopped when the universe was the size of a cricket ball. If you say expansion is 15 miles/sec/million light years, after 13.7 billion years, that cricket ball sized universe would still fit into a normal living room now. What evidence? The BB is just one step above god did it.
|
|
|
Post by skeptic on Jan 14, 2012 15:32:49 GMT 1
Skeptic STA is/was-so she told us- a lecturer in physics at Oxford. We've not heard from her since the end of the last academic year. I have to say that I enjoyed her combative style, but I don't know enough to say whether she was peddling twaddle or telling the truth! Keep posting! P I'm not saying she isn't what she claims but all our posts are judged by their accuracy. No one can say they have degrees and doctorates so they must be right in any argument. Even Hawking has admitted to errors like singularities which he no longer believes in and the idea of loss of information in a black hole which he says may have been one of his greatest errors.
|
|
|
Post by skeptic on Jan 14, 2012 15:38:34 GMT 1
Skeptic, Homosexual solidarity is apparently more important to STA than continued participation on a science board where her lesbian pal, jean, is not welcome. I have no interest in anyone's sexual habits here. This is not some porno board. If someone is gay or lesbian, so what? Too many people try to blame their inadequacies on some kind of prejudice, when no one really cares. If STA does not want to post here any more, I'm sure we can get someone else to tell us what a bunch of idiots we all are.
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Jan 15, 2012 13:16:48 GMT 1
What evidence? The BB is just one step above god did it. Observations confirm that the universe is expanding, which is evidence of an initial 'big bang' which must have originated from something which was much smaller than now, around 13.7 billion years ago. Also, the cosmic microwave background is evidence of the 'after-glow' of such an initial expansion. Whether the universe originated from an acausal quantum fluctuation or was the result of something that existed before is currently hotly debated and we await further evidence. Note that it is wrong to assert that the universe had or has a 'centre', since all parts of the embryonic universe expanded simultaneously so that each part of it moved away from every other part, which is still happening today. A 'centre' implies a static point that does not move. A simple analogy would be points marked on a balloon. As the balloon is inflated, the marks also move, with no one mark remaining in the same place. The surface of the balloon would be analogous to space expanding, carrying stars, planets etc. with it.
|
|
|
Post by skeptic on Jan 15, 2012 13:42:44 GMT 1
Striker16. Observations show redshifts but no actual movement. There are alternative explanations other than recession. You need to define exactly what space is and prove that photons can be "stretched" by it expanding. It is a rather ridiculous idea. The BB relies on impossibilities and absurdities (as I have pointed out elsewhere) so cannot be considered remotely possibly as it presently is. The after glow as in: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htmWe have only vague ideas as to possible origins of the universe. If all parts move away from all other parts, it is relatively simple to trace the lot back to one point. The balloon analogy as in our universe is the 3D skin on a 4D hypersphere?
|
|