Cosmology

[Justatruthseeker]

And yet again you have not read what I wrote and responded to what you wanted to see, not what was actually said. It's almost as if you are trying to make yourself look ridiculous, but I can't begin to fathom why you'd want to do that.

And yet you still haven't found one single post where I have criticized anyone for not being open to correction. I have criticized them for rejecting the science they claim to follow..... And you have also failed to post a single instance where I have been corrected, but just keep making bald faced claims that it is so....... Again, another bald faced claim in this post of yours like all the others....

Your not even entertaining anymore. At least you started out being an entertaining pastime, now your just becoming a bore.....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And yet you still haven't found one single post where I have criticized anyone for not being open to correction.

Goodness, I think that's 4 posts in a row where you have responded to something I haven't said.

Again, another bald faced claim in this post of yours like all the others....

If you actually read my posts you'd understand how you are supporting my claim each and every time.

Your not even entertaining anymore. At least you started out being an entertaining pastime, now your just becoming a bore.....

Do I detect an ad hominem attack? I thought they were beneath you. Last resort of the man who has lost the argument and has nothing left

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Goodness, I think that's 4 posts in a row where you have responded to something I haven't said.

If you actually read my posts you'd understand how you are supporting my claim each and every time.

Do I detect an ad hominem attack? I thought they were beneath you. Last resort of the man who has lost the argument and has nothing left

Even firefighters although they much prefer to use water, sometimes come to the point that fire must be fought with fire.....

I'm just extinguishing the fire with use of the fire.....

Since your post contained none, it worked, didn't it

 

[Halbhh]

Lol, gravity? We have NO quantum theory of gravity to get the neutron to start sticking together in the first place.

They tell us all about how it is impossible, then in one paragraph want to reverse everything they just said by invoking the magic word (gravity) without any evidence at all of a viable theory of quantum gravity to get them to stick together in the first place..........

Hyperbole and speculation to save their epicycles.......

The neutrons would fly apart long before the gravitational force was strong enough to overcome any repulsive force between the neutrons....... It could never even get to be earth sized to begin with. Even in the gravity of earth, they immediately fly apart.

Even with the gravity of our own sun - the solar wind is accelerating at a "continuing" rate out past the orbit of Jupiter, then suddenly comes to an almost complete stop at the heliosphere. These are not gravitational anomalies, but electromagnetic.

And to top it off we are first going to ignore gravity and blow the star up to begin with, then magically what is left is going to scrunch down when it couldn’t even do that before it blew half its mass away........

Neutrons are ejected in atomic decay and reactions, not saved up to become the star itself. It goes against all of actual physics...

And let’s not forget his invocation of another magic word......

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium

A hypothetical substance never observed.... right up there with dark matter and dark energy.....

If you are rejecting that gravity can hold together what would otherwise fly apart....

You'd have a unique set of hypotheses/theories then.

Having a new theory (regardless of how much you like it) ought to be subject to the scientific process of predicting outcomes and/or explaining observations so as to test the theory.

Here are some observations fitted together with existing theory (can start at 1:44 into video):

 

[DogmaHunter]

Goodness, I think that's 4 posts in a row where you have responded to something I haven't said.

If you actually read my posts you'd understand how you are supporting my claim each and every time.

Do I detect an ad hominem attack? I thought they were beneath you. Last resort of the man who has lost the argument and has nothing left

Amazing, isn't it.

 

[Astrophile]

What gravity in the universe?

Every single gravitational model has shown to be 99.8% correct inside the solar system and the second you attempt to apply it to the rest of the universe you suddenly need 95% ad-hoc theory added to what was just shown to be 99.8% correct without it. You actually think that is an accurate model? Seriously??? You actually think having to add 95% ad-hoc theory to a model 99.8% accurate without it in describing planetary systems is actually scientific?????

But maybe some day astronomers will start treating a universe 99.9% plasma like actual plasma.....

Gravitational models apply perfectly well to the orbits of binary stars, to stellar structure and the theory of stellar pulsation, to the formation of stars from the collapse of the cores of interstellar clouds, and to the dynamics of star clusters. It is only on the scale of whole galaxies and clusters of galaxies that dark matter becomes important.

 

[Colter]

There are things that we do not know which, once discovered, would change everything we assume. That's true of both Atheist and religionists.

"To science God is a possibility, to psychology a desirability, to philosophy a probability, to religion a certainty, an actuality of religious experience. Reason demands that a philosophy which cannot find the God of probability should be very respectful of that religious faith which can and does find the God of certitude. Neither should science discount religious experience on grounds of credulity, not so long as it persists in the assumption that man's intellectual and philosophic endowments emerged from increasingly lesser intelligences the further back they go, finally taking origin in primitive life which was utterly devoid of all thinking and feeling.

The facts of evolution must not be arrayed against the truth of the reality of the certainty of the spiritual experience of the religious living of the God-knowing mortal. Intelligent men should cease to reason like children and should attempt to use the consistent logic of adulthood, logic which tolerates the concept of truth alongside the observation of fact. Scientific materialism has gone bankrupt when it persists, in the face of each recurring universe phenomenon, in refunding its current objections by referring what is admittedly higher back into that which is admittedly lower. Consistency demands the recognition of the activities of a purposive Creator." UB 1955

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you are rejecting that gravity can hold together what would otherwise fly apart....

Not at all, for non-ionized matter.... But 99.9% of the universe is plasma and gravity just isnt all that important in the plasma laboratory. Particle physics and electromagnetic forces are the dominating forces....

You'd have a unique set of hypotheses/theories then.

Having a new theory (regardless of how much you like it) ought to be subject to the scientific process of predicting outcomes and/or explaining observations so as to test the theory.

Here are some observations fitted together with existing theory (can start at 1:44 into video):

Theories that account for what 99.9% of the universe is made up of and don't need ad-hoc dark matter thrown in? Those kind of unique theories???

versus those whose beliefs are based upon what, a .2 second chirp??????

My oh my, they sure can assume a whole lot from a .2 second chirp can't they. Why they should be able to solve everything being they can deduce all this from a .2 second chirp.

What they don't tell you is that the mirrors are not even ground the the accuracy they claim, or even close to the error bar they claim......

Theories that explain what we observe without adding 95% ad-hoc theory????? Nope, looks like they kept the 95% ad-hoc theory because they keep using the wrong physics for the state of matter that makes up 99.9% of the universe.....

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ITPS...14..639P

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ITPS...14..763P

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Neutron stars, lol......

Against their own theory..... Expand your toolbox....

 

[Halbhh]

Not at all, for non-ionized matter.... But 99.9% of the universe is plasma and gravity just isnt all that important in the plasma laboratory. Particle physics and electromagnetic forces are the dominating forces....



Theories that account for what 99.9% of the universe is made up of and don't need ad-hoc dark matter thrown in? Those kind of unique theories???

versus those whose beliefs are based upon what, a .2 second chirp??????

My oh my, they sure can assume a whole lot from a .2 second chirp can't they. Why they should be able to solve everything being they can deduce all this from a .2 second chirp.

What they don't tell you is that the mirrors are not even ground the the accuracy they claim, or even close to the error bar they claim......

Theories that explain what we observe without adding 95% ad-hoc theory????? Nope, looks like they kept the 95% ad-hoc theory because they keep using the wrong physics for the state of matter that makes up 99.9% of the universe.....

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ITPS...14..639P

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ITPS...14..763P

Hey there, Justa. How are you doing today?

Just so you know, I don't have a favorite theory to defend.

When you say "...those whose beliefs are based upon what, a .2 second chirp??????"

The answer is -- NO.

Not a 0.2 second chirp. Additionally, not just 1 signal. That's crucial. Not just one kind of signal, nor one kind of observation, nor just one kind of telescope, nor just one group.

If it was just one idea or just one viewpoint or just one kind of data (or even just 2), I wouldn't think it very reliable yet as a leading set of hypotheses.

It's more solid than that.

Trust me enough to hear more.

Please see post #84, and if you start the video you won't be disappointed at the level of information detail (not too simple, nor too esoteric, but very well done). Advance the video slider to about a minute and 44 seconds -- 1:44 -- and it's a very succinct and efficient explanation of many thing, and I chose it as a good video that won't waste anyone's time.

 

[tas8831]

Evolution is a phenomenon that generates increasingly complex information information, so it is a creative phenomenon. But if everything comes from the creation of new information, it means that the creation exists and therefore God has indeed created the world.

Wow.

I took a class titled "Argumentation" when I was an undergrad. We learned about logical fallacies, burden of proof, all that sort of thing.

And if I had turned in an assignment that was such a blatant non sequitur, built on totally unsupported premises, I would almost certainly have been given no credit.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey there, Justa. How are you doing today?

Just so you know, I don't have a favorite theory to defend.

When you say "...those whose beliefs are based upon what, a .2 second chirp??????"

The answer is -- NO.

Not a 0.2 second chirp. Additionally, not just 1 signal. That's crucial. Not just one kind of signal, nor one kind of observation, nor just one kind of telescope, nor just one group.

If it was just one idea or just one viewpoint or just one kind of data (or even just 2), I wouldn't think it very reliable yet as a leading set of hypotheses.

It's more solid than that.

Trust me enough to hear more.

Please see post #84, and if you start the video you won't be disappointed at the level of information detail (not too simple, nor too esoteric, but very well done). Advance the video slider to about a minute and 44 seconds -- 1:44 -- and it's a very succinct and efficient explanation of many thing, and I chose it as a good video that won't waste anyone's time.

Hey, how's it going?

It's not solid at all. It's all fantasy from ignoring how plasma behaves and using the wrong physics for 99.9% of the universe....

No, the entirety is a .2 second chirp..... and then a electromagnetic radiation event that has been produced in every plasma laboratory for close to 200+ years..

Oh I don't doubt at all they detected an electromagnetic event in a plasma pinch......

That you think a plasma event is a black hole...... see 2:20 in the video.

So I ask again, why should I ignore plasma behavior in a universe 99.9% plasma just because mainstream astronomers do so and then have to add 95% ad-hoc theory? They just wouldn't recognize a plasma event even when they got actuall laboratory experiments in space with plasma......

You just don't understand how galaxies actually form, from twin birkeland current filaments and plasmoids.... You know, the substance that makes up 99.9% of the universe......

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

https://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf

https://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

They can't even get supernove to work in their models and you want a killanova?

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/15jun_nustar

"In the Milky Way, a massive old star is about to die a spectacular death. As its nuclear fuel runs out, the star begins to collapse under its own tremendous weight. Crushing pressure triggers new nuclear reactions, setting the stage for a terrifying blast. And then... nothing happens."

So I'll give you killanothings......

Unlike mainstream theories, plasma theories actually work when modeled in a computer.....

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

Wow.

I took a class titled "Argumentation" when I was an undergrad. We learned about logical fallacies, burden of proof, all that sort of thing.

And if I had turned in an assignment that was such a blatant non sequitur, built on totally unsupported premises, I would almost certainly have been given no credit.

What is wrong with you?

It is only a cosmological model that I have constructed and not an argumentation.
You should also take philosophy classes, you will learn that everything is not necessarily an affirmation.

 

[Halbhh]

Hey, how's it going?

It's not solid at all. It's all fantasy from ignoring how plasma behaves and using the wrong physics for 99.9% of the universe....

No, the entirety is a .2 second chirp..... and then a electromagnetic radiation event that has been produced in every plasma laboratory for close to 200+ years..

Oh I don't doubt at all they detected an electromagnetic event in a plasma pinch......

That you think a plasma event is a black hole...... see 2:20 in the video.

So I ask again, why should I ignore plasma behavior in a universe 99.9% plasma just because mainstream astronomers do so and then have to add 95% ad-hoc theory? They just wouldn't recognize a plasma event even when they got actuall laboratory experiments in space with plasma......

You just don't understand how galaxies actually form, from twin birkeland current filaments and plasmoids.... You know, the substance that makes up 99.9% of the universe......

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

https://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf

https://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

They can't even get supernove to work in their models and you want a killanova?

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/15jun_nustar

"In the Milky Way, a massive old star is about to die a spectacular death. As its nuclear fuel runs out, the star begins to collapse under its own tremendous weight. Crushing pressure triggers new nuclear reactions, setting the stage for a terrifying blast. And then... nothing happens."

So I'll give you killanothings......

Unlike mainstream theories, plasma theories actually work when modeled in a computer.....

If you're this interested in astrophysics, why why not get a degree?

 

[Halbhh]

Hey, how's it going?

It's not solid at all. It's all fantasy from ignoring how plasma behaves and using the wrong physics for 99.9% of the universe....

No, the entirety is a .2 second chirp..... and then a electromagnetic radiation event that has been produced in every plasma laboratory for close to 200+ years..

Oh I don't doubt at all they detected an electromagnetic event in a plasma pinch......

That you think a plasma event is a black hole...... see 2:20 in the video.

So I ask again, why should I ignore plasma behavior in a universe 99.9% plasma just because mainstream astronomers do so and then have to add 95% ad-hoc theory? They just wouldn't recognize a plasma event even when they got actuall laboratory experiments in space with plasma......

You just don't understand how galaxies actually form, from twin birkeland current filaments and plasmoids.... You know, the substance that makes up 99.9% of the universe......

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

https://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf

https://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

They can't even get supernove to work in their models and you want a killanova?

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/15jun_nustar

"In the Milky Way, a massive old star is about to die a spectacular death. As its nuclear fuel runs out, the star begins to collapse under its own tremendous weight. Crushing pressure triggers new nuclear reactions, setting the stage for a terrifying blast. And then... nothing happens."

So I'll give you killanothings......

Unlike mainstream theories, plasma theories actually work when modeled in a computer.....

Plasma physics applies to plasmas, everywhere a plasma is happening, which is most places. Not inside a neutron star though. Outside of it, in the accretion disk, the plasma is indeed of great interest. If you're this interested in astrophysics, why why not get a degree?

 

[tas8831]

What is wrong with you?

It is only a cosmological model that I have constructed and not an argumentation.
You should also take philosophy classes, you will learn that everything is not necessarily an affirmation.

In these philosophy classes you've taken - did you learn about what a non sequitur is?

Never mind - you clearly did not.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Plasma physics applies to plasmas, everywhere a plasma is happening, which is most places. Not inside a neutron star though. Outside of it, in the accretion disk, the plasma is indeed of great interest. If you're this interested in astrophysics, why why not get a degree?

What neutron star??????

They need a neutron star because even though they recognize that plasma is just about everywhere, 99.9% of the universe to be exact, they keep using the wrong physics as the dominating force.... So why are they not applying it to 99.9% of the universe??????

Expand your tool box and stop trying to sledgehammer everything in the universe with a sledgehammer....

Degrees only go to those that care to repeat the mantra, not those who question it....

 

[ianw16]

What neutron star??????

They need a neutron star because even though they recognize that plasma is just about everywhere, 99.9% of the universe to be exact, they keep using the wrong physics as the dominating force.... So why are they not applying it to 99.9% of the universe??????

Expand your tool box and stop trying to sledgehammer everything in the universe with a sledgehammer....

Degrees only go to those that care to repeat the mantra, not those who question it....

What a complete load of piffle. You don't even have a viable model, and you have zero evidence for any of this nonsense. You are just repeating the idiotic dogma of loons like Thornhill. And Peratt's model simply fails. It was junk. Please show how this plasma woo can explain the orbits of stars at the galactic centre. Please tell us how it is holding the galaxy together, given the trifling magnetic fields we measure in galaxies.
Please tell us how this plasma woo is causing + ions, - electrons, neutrals, and dirty big stars at the same distance from the galactic centre to orbit at the same velocity.
Show us how a pinch creates a gravitational wave. Show us how it creates r-process nucleosynthesis. Show us how it mimics perfectly what real scientists predicted for a neutron star merger. Show us where this junk is written up in relevant, peer reviewed journals.
You can't. You'll just keep repeating the idiotic ideas of EU/PC. It's junk.

 

[sjastro]

What a complete load of piffle. You don't even have a viable model, and you have zero evidence for any of this nonsense. You are just repeating the idiotic dogma of loons like Thornhill. And Peratt's model simply fails. It was junk. Please show how this plasma woo can explain the orbits of stars at the galactic centre. Please tell us how it is holding the galaxy together, given the trifling magnetic fields we measure in galaxies.
Please tell us how this plasma woo is causing + ions, - electrons, neutrals, and dirty big stars at the same distance from the galactic centre to orbit at the same velocity.
Show us how a pinch creates a gravitational wave. Show us how it creates r-process nucleosynthesis. Show us how it mimics perfectly what real scientists predicted for a neutron star merger. Show us where this junk is written up in relevant, peer reviewed journals.
You can't. You'll just keep repeating the idiotic ideas of EU/PC. It's junk.

If you think our resident self professed polymath is going to answer your questions forget it; similar questions have been posed elsewhere only to be greeted with the deafening sound of crickets.
I'm still waiting on his explanation for the magical properties of plasma; how by his own admission it plays no role in the celestial mechanics of the solar system yet at intergalactic and cosmological scales where the plasma density is up to a million times less becomes the dominating factor that explains everything from galaxy rotation curves to dark matter.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What a complete load of piffle. You don't even have a viable model, and you have zero evidence for any of this nonsense. You are just repeating the idiotic dogma of loons like Thornhill. And Peratt's model simply fails. It was junk. Please show how this plasma woo can explain the orbits of stars at the galactic centre. Please tell us how it is holding the galaxy together, given the trifling magnetic fields we measure in galaxies.
Please tell us how this plasma woo is causing + ions, - electrons, neutrals, and dirty big stars at the same distance from the galactic centre to orbit at the same velocity.
Show us how a pinch creates a gravitational wave. Show us how it creates r-process nucleosynthesis. Show us how it mimics perfectly what real scientists predicted for a neutron star merger. Show us where this junk is written up in relevant, peer reviewed journals.
You can't. You'll just keep repeating the idiotic ideas of EU/PC. It's junk.

A model that works better than the one you have does and doesn't require 95% ad-hoc theory....

https://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf

https://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

Trifling, see, you don't even know what they have discovered. Let's all understand they "know" even if they rarely talk about it.

https://phys.org/news/2008-10-magnetic-field-distant-galaxy.html

"Astronomers believe the magnetic fields within our own Milky Way and other nearby galaxies—which control the rate of star formation and the dynamics of interstellar gas--arose from a slow "dynamo effect." In this process, slowly rotating galaxies are thought to have generated magnetic fields that grew very gradually as they evolved over 5 billion to 10 billion years to their current levels..."

"...But in the October 2 issue of Nature, the astronomers report that the magnetic field they measured in this distant "protogalaxy" is at least 10 times greater than the average value in the Milky Way.

"This was a complete surprise,"

Everything is a complete surprise to them because their failed models have no predictive power....

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1537911?journalCode=pto

"Unlike electromagnetic radiation from astrophysical sources, distant magnetic fields are inherently difficult to detect. Nonetheless, recent measurements have begun to reveal that such fields exist at significant strengths, and on surprisingly large scales, in the extragalactic universe. These discoveries present us with an important, previously unrecognized component of energy and force in the cosmos.

There's that surprise AGAIN.... One day they'll actually recognize it, and who knows, maybe one day you will too....

But until then we have to put up with epicycles while they use the wrong physics as the dominating force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)

"Pinches may become unstable. They radiate energy as light across the whole electromagnetic spectrum including radio waves, x-rays, gamma rays, synchrotron radiation, and visible light. They also produce neutrons, as a product of fusion."

So every single thing you detect in the universe is easily reproducible in plasma pinches in the laboratory. So no, I don't need their ad-hoc theory propping up their epicycles which surprises them every time they look because they ignore what 99.9% of the universe is made of....

Do you mean the magic black hole that stars orbit that don't have their light eclipsed by the black hole or participate in time dilation at all???? Those stars orbiting the imaginary non-existent black hole???? Now a common center of electromagnetic origin does fit the facts, since Lorentz transformations are of electromagnetic phenomenon anyways.....