Cosmos - Neil deGrasse Tyson

[dcarrera]

Only someone that believes the universe is expanding like a balloon could ever conceive of that being flat without curvature.

Who in his right mind would think of a layman's analogy as a full description of the theory that can be used to refute it? If you want a flat space analogy, think of going to a photocopier and enlarging an image. All the points in the new image are farther from all the other points than before, and there is no centre of expansion. Happy now?

 

[Michael]

"If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero,

Constantly repeating your E=0 cult mantra isn't real impressive to me until you or Hawking can explain the use of energy over time and how that part gets addressed in your 'net zero' energy universe. Until you do, your Pope and Bishop figure don't seem to be capable of producing any work that is worthy of a Nobel, and you won't be bothered to even read Alfven's work for yourself yet, so why should I even care what they think or you think?

Because an analogy fueled by nothing but ignorance is superior to knowledge of Riemann geometry.

Such big talk for a guy that can't even explain why his 'space expansion' claim is necessary in the first place:

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

 

[lesliedellow]

so why should I even care what they think or you think? Such big talk for a guy that can't even explain why his 'space expansion' claim is necessary in the first place:

The same reason a creationist should care what evolutionary biologists think, but they won't, because their heads are too firmly buried in the sand, and they are absolutely determined not to pull them out, come what may.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The same reason a creationist should care what evolutionary biologists think, but they won't, because their heads are too firmly buried in the sand, and they are absolutely determined not to pull them out, come what may.

You mean like when you tell me mutation is the main cause of evolution, even when 50+ years of actual evolutionary experimentation has shown it can explain nothing but the opposite of theory? I'd recheck to see who's heads are buried in the sand, you might find your own neck a little sandy.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

 

[mzungu]

Constantly repeating your E=0 cult mantra isn't real impressive to me until you or Hawking can explain the use of energy over time and how that part gets addressed in your 'net zero' energy universe. Until you do, your Pope and Bishop figure don't seem to be capable of producing any work that is worthy of a Nobel, and you won't be bothered to even read Alfven's work for yourself yet, so why should I even care what they think or you think? Such big talk for a guy that can't even explain why his 'space expansion' claim is necessary in the first place:

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

Oh such arrogance! Coming from one who is so immersed in pseudo-science! Dear me

 

[dcarrera]

Until you do, your Pope and Bishop figure don't seem to be capable of producing any work that is worthy of a Nobel,

The 2011 Nobel Prize is for the discovery of Dark Energy and the acceleration of the universe.

 

[mzungu]

The 2011 Nobel Prize is for the discovery of Dark Energy and the acceleration of the universe.

You are telling this to someone who does not even accept the institution of the Nobel Prize because he believes that the mainstream have a conspiracy agenda against EU and the Nobel is not to be trusted?

By the way; do you have an answer to my Titan question?

 

[lesliedellow]

You are telling this to someone who does not even accept the institution of the Nobel Prize because he believes that the mainstream have a conspiracy agenda against EU and the Nobel is not to be trusted?

Except when they hand one to St Alfven, of course. We never stop being reminded of that.

By the way; do you have an answer to my Titan question?

I have seen the answer in the "Ask an astrophysicist thread".

 

[dcarrera]

You are telling this to someone who does not even accept the institution of the Nobel Prize because he believes that the mainstream have a conspiracy agenda against EU and the Nobel is not to be trusted?

By the way; do you have an answer to my Titan question?

You didn't see my answer? It's right here.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are telling this to someone who does not even accept the institution of the Nobel Prize because he believes that the mainstream have a conspiracy agenda against EU and the Nobel is not to be trusted?

The difference is Hannes Alfven was awarded a Nobel prize for working out the mathematics of laboratory proven observations. As Einstein was awarded a Nobel for working out the photoelectric effect based upon the laboratory data. The difference is neither one was awarded a Nobel based upon theory that has no backing whatsoever in any laboratory experiments to date.

Edit: As a matter of fact, it was made clear to E that no matter how good his theory of Relativity sounded, he was being awarded the Nobel based upon his photoelectric effect, and not Relativity theory, because as of then no laboratory evidence backed it.

Nobel prizes today seem to be given out regardless if one has any laboratory evidence or not.

 

[mzungu]

The difference is Hannes Alfven was awarded a Nobel prize for working out the mathematics of laboratory proven observations. As Einstein was awarded a Nobel for working out the photoelectric effect based upon the laboratory data. The difference is neither one was awarded a Nobel based upon theory that has no backing whatsoever in any laboratory experiments to date.

Edit: As a matter of fact, it was made clear to E that no matter how good his theory of Relativity sounded, he was being awarded the Nobel based upon his photoelectric effect, and not Relativity theory, because as of then no laboratory evidence backed it.

Nobel prizes today seem to be given out regardless if one has any laboratory evidence or not.

I see; so you have built a galaxy in the laboratory eh?

 

[Michael]

The same reason a creationist should care what evolutionary biologists think, but they won't, because their heads are too firmly buried in the sand, and they are absolutely determined not to pull them out, come what may.

The key reason why I listen to evolutionary biologists is because they are able to produce tangible results in the lab based on tangible changes to specific genes. If you could even name so much as a source of dark energy, that might get my attention. As it stands, it looks like nothing more than 'gap filler' to save you otherwise falsified interpretation of photon redshift from empirical falsification.

 

[lesliedellow]

The key reason why I listen to evolutionary biologists is because they are able to produce tangible results in the lab based on tangible changes to specific genes. If you could even name so much as a source of dark energy, that might get my attention. As it stands, it looks like nothing more than 'gap filler' to save you otherwise falsified interpretation of photon redshift from empirical falsification.

Oh sure, somebody has rerun 4 billion years worth of evolution "in the lab".

 

[Michael]

The 2011 Nobel Prize is for the discovery of Dark Energy and the acceleration of the universe.

I was talking specifically about Pope Guth, and Bishop Hawking my dear Deacon Daniel.

While you're on the topic of dark energy, where does it come from and how do you know it's not just an artifact related to ordinary signal broadening and scattering that's ultimately related to your underestimation of scattering in plasma?

2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews

 

[Michael]

Oh sure, somebody has rerun 4 billion years worth of evolution "in the lab".

Not at all. Hox gene experiments create macroscopic changes in a single generation. Micro-evolutionary changes have been demonstrated more times than I can count. It's therefore not much of a leap of imagination to let you scale that process over billions of years.

On the other hand, you can't get 'space expansion' to have any effect on any photon on any wavelength, and you can't 'scale' something that never happens.

I'm happy to let you scale anything you can find here on Earth to whatever size you'd like. I won't let you start scaling invisible gnomes and exotic forms of matter to size however unless you've got an invisible gnome in your pocket and you can physically demonstrate it in some way.

 

[Michael]

I see; so you have built a galaxy in the laboratory eh?

No, but Peratt built a working MHD based mathematical model that didn't need a bunch of supernatural nonsense. Did you personally even bother to read it?

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm happy to let you scale anything you can find here on Earth to whatever size you'd like.

Oh, that's awfully nice of you, I must say. I am sure the scientific establishment will be eternally grateful to you as well.

 

[mzungu]

No, but Peratt built a working MHD based mathematical model that didn't need a bunch of supernatural nonsense. Did you personally even bother to read it?

It seems that you have a problem understanding what is meant by supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about the universe and its composition. A working mathematical model???? Are you implying that Lambda CDM has no mathematical models? Really now!
Internal velocity and mass distributions in simulated clusters of galaxies for a

 

[lesliedellow]

No, but Peratt built a working MHD based mathematical model that didn't need a bunch of supernatural nonsense. Did you personally even bother to read it?

Tut, tut, tut. Accepting something which hasn't been tested "in the lab"? Whatever can you be thinking of?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, but Peratt built a working MHD based mathematical model that didn't need a bunch of supernatural nonsense. Did you personally even bother to read it?

Of course not, it's much easier to dismiss what you never read in the first place. I can pretty much guarantee not one of them has read anything about plasma physics (beyond what their astronomers tell them), even when 99% of the universe is composed of it. And their astronomers sure don't understand it because plasma physics is not a required course in a branch of so-called science dedicated to studying a universe composed of 99% plasma. Hey, go figure.

Might as well become an evolutionary biologist without studying mutations, thinking you can explain how it works. Oh, my bad, they already do that since they ignore their own mutational experiments since they didn't get the results they wanted or expected.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

But hey, what's a lab result matter when it comes to theory being correct?