Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

Doveaman · Feb 4, 2010

Maybe Newton was indeed wrong...it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity. - Source

Cabal said:
this still doesn't mean EU is right.

But it sure does mean Big Bang theologians are all baffled, bewildered, and befuddled yet again.

Cabal · Feb 4, 2010

Doveaman said:
Maybe Newton was indeed wrong...it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity. - SourceBut it sure does mean Big Bang theologians are all baffled, bewildered, and befuddled yet again.

Conceivable =/= sure.

Add a dictionary to that list I suggested also.

Ellinas · Feb 4, 2010

Doveaman said:
Since you guys don't have an explanation for gravity after so many years of trying, any explanation is better than what you have.

Fair enough! I shall use your reasoning and declare that Gravity is the breath of unicorns in combination with fairy dust! I can prove it by showing pictures of rainbows

Really now! Have you any idea of the constants? Have you had even rudimentary training in physics? Anyone who discovers the graviton will definitely win a Nobel prize. Any scientist will die for this recognition. Yet here comes a layman and dismisses gravity out of a whim. What next "Leprechaun universe"?

HOUSE WAS RIGHT!

Doveaman · Feb 4, 2010

Ellinas said:
Anyone who discovers the graviton will definitely win a Nobel prize. Any scientist will die for this recognition. Yet here comes a layman and dismisses gravity out of a whim.

No one is dismissing gravity, just the explanation of it, or lack thereof.

Cabal · Feb 4, 2010

Doveaman said:
No one is dismissing gravity, just the explanation of it, or lack thereof.

And your dismissals were dismissed, with good reason.

Now maybe rebut or retract.

Doveaman · Feb 4, 2010

Cabal said:
And your dismissals were dismissed, with good reason.

Now maybe rebut or retract.

Rebut what?

You don't have an explanation of the physics underlying the force of gravity to rebut. You are still trying to find an explanation that makes sense to you, far less me.

You need to convince yourselves first if you expect to convince anyone else.

Cabal · Feb 4, 2010

Doveaman said:
Rebut what?

You don't have an explanation of the physics underlying the force of gravity to rebut. You are still trying to find an explanation that makes sense to you, far less me.

You need to convince yourselves first if you expect to convince anyone else.

And "electric gravity" is what, exactly?

Did you miss the bit where I pointed out that quote-mining one group's uncertainty doesn't contribute one jot to showing what you just claimed?

Try again.

Knowing you, I'll probably get a lolcat now, from your bibliography of internet memes.

ETA: Also, that article does not state that the Big Bang is wrong outright, only that dark matter aspects might be. Stop conflating all the things you don't like with dark matter.

Nostromo · Feb 4, 2010

Is it permissible to call someone a retard on this forum?

pgp_protector · Feb 4, 2010

Nostromo said:
Is it permissible to call someone a retard on this forum?

Nope, that's be flaming.

BananaSlug · Feb 4, 2010

Doveaman said:
Maybe you need a closer look.
Take a closer look:

Yeah I've seen those before. Totally different from gravitational lensing.

It is not unusual for galaxies to appear distorted, and it has nothing to do with gravitational lensing, as the images above show.

I would think trained astronomers could tell the different between abnormally shaped galaxies vs galaxies distorted from gravitational lensing.

And then you would ask for more references to cross check the references you cross checked with the references.

Any scientific research paper worth anything has references.

It's an excellent example of mathemagic: 1+1=5.

I find it strange that the four outer objects are said to be one object, yet they look so different from each other. But I'm sure you have a explanation for that.

Because of the stars in the foreground galaxy.

Electric gravity.

So how is "electric gravity" affecting atoms when most atoms have a neutral charge? If electromagnetism is so much stronger than gravity, how can we fly in planes?

And that's why Plasma Physicists and Electrical Engineers study its effects right hear on earth in the science labs, while the Consensus ignore it or are blind to it because of their adherence to Big Bang theology.

Would you mind providing some links to those research papers? Thanks!

Nostromo · Feb 4, 2010

I see, maybe I should just think it while I wait for an explanation of electric gravity.

Doveaman · Feb 4, 2010

Cabal said:
Did you miss the bit where I pointed out that quote-mining one group's uncertainty doesn't contribute one jot to showing what you just claimed?

Did you miss the bit where I pointed out that the purpose of the article was to show how baffled, bewildered, and befuddled you guys are regarding the underlying physics of gravity?

ETA: Also, that article does not state that the Big Bang is wrong outright, only that dark matter aspects might be. Stop conflating all the things you don't like with dark matter.

Let me see how well Big Bang hold up without all that dark stuff.

I'm not holding my breath.

Cabal · Feb 4, 2010

Doveaman said:
Did you miss the bit where I pointed out that the purpose of the article was to show how baffled, bewildered, and befuddled you guys are regarding the underlying physics of gravity?

And what, EU is completely wrapped up and all its adherents have complete unanimous agreement on every aspect?

If you're going to use minor levels of disagreement on parts of a theory to rubbish the whole, then this same dismissal can be applied to EU.

This is aside from the fact that it hasn't an observational leg to stand on.

Let me see how well Big Bang hold up without all that dark stuff.

Sure hasn't got jack to do with gravitational lensing anyway, so stop throwing in all the things you don't like under "dark stuff".

I'm not holding my breath.

*restrains self from making remark about the current oxygen levels in your cranial cavity*

Cabal · Feb 4, 2010

BananaSlug said:
Yeah I've seen those before. Totally different from gravitational lensing.

I would think trained astronomers could tell the different between abnormally shaped galaxies vs galaxies distorted from gravitational lensing.

Oh come on, you mean you've never seen multiple independent clusters of multiple independent galaxies all separated by dozens of parsecs all just HAPPEN TO BE distorted in the exact same way so as to provide a (purely coincidental, naturally) ring shaped distortion pattern completely consistent with gravitational distortion of spacetime?

You silly mathematheologian!

For have you not read:

Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs said:
Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.

this are clearly a reference to lectriciteh!!!

Doveaman · Feb 4, 2010

Cabal said:
And what, EU is completely wrapped up and all its adherents have complete unanimous agreement on every aspect?
If you're going to use minor levels of disagreement on parts of a theory to rubbish the whole, then this same dismissal can be applied to EU.

I am simply pointing out how often you guys are baffled, bewildered, and befuddled by unexpected observations.

EU don't have that problem.

This is aside from the fact that it hasn't an observational leg to stand on.

You mean like "God did it"?

Just because you can't see God doing it doesn't mean He didn't do it. He did it anyway.

Sure hasn't got jack to do with gravitational lensing anyway, so stop throwing in all the things you don't like under "dark stuff".

You are sure right, because they are both rubbish.

Cabal · Feb 4, 2010

Doveaman said:
I am simply pointing out how often you guys are baffled, bewildered, and befuddled by unexpected observations.

A lack of expected observations, rather.

By contrast, EU has observations that falsify it.

Few observations and unfalsified is a much stronger position to be in than many observations and falsified.

EU don't have that problem.

Rubbish. NO theory has that degree of unanimity.

So by your own logic, we can just dismiss EU. Thanks for that. You might want to reconsider it.

You mean like "God did it"?

Yeah, pretty much like that. Not an observational leg to stand on.

Just because you can't see God doing it doesn't mean He didn't do it. He did it anyway.

I think I need to have a serious chat with whoever taught you logic.

Assuming someone did.

The correct answer is - just because you can't see God doing it doesn't mean He DID do it either. Going then and claiming "He did it anyway" is nothing but assertion and bias.

You are sure right, because they are both rubbish.

See what I put in my reply to Bananaslug. Your "but galaxies sometimes look distorted" line is frankly laughable.

Doveaman · Feb 4, 2010

Cabal said:
Oh come on, you mean you've never seen multiple independent clusters of multiple independent galaxies all separated by dozens of parsecs all just HAPPEN TO BE distorted in the exact same way so as to provide a (purely coincidental, naturally) ring shaped distortion pattern completely consistent with gravitational distortion of spacetime?

You silly mathematheologian!

Are you entering this debate because you are afraid I'm making sense and he isn't?

Cabal · Feb 4, 2010

Doveaman said:
Are you entering this debate because you are afraid I'm making sense and he isn't?

Er, not hardly. Sense isn't something you excel at.

Your response to the lensing pictures was essentially "yeah but galaxies sometimes look distorted."

Care to explain why a whole bunch of different galaxies separated by really quite large gaps all just happen to distort in exactly the same way so as to form not just a distinctive overall ring pattern but also how these ring patterns are explained both qualitatively and quantitatively by GR?

And the fact that this happens in quite a few instances, not just with one group of celestial objects?

"yeah but galaxies sometimes look distorted" doesn't even come close to the kind of explaining power GR has in this matter.

Nostromo · Feb 4, 2010

I don't see the sense in applying 'God did it' to the EU theory and then complaining endlessly that the standard model doesn't have enough evidence to back it up (and ignoring that it does). If you're going to resort to 'God did it', why bother asking for evidence at all?

Doveaman · Feb 4, 2010

Cabal said:
By contrast, EU has observations that falsify it.

You obviously don't understand how the Universe works, do you?

Rubbish. NO theory has that degree of unanimity.
So by your own logic, we can just dismiss EU. Thanks for that. You might want to reconsider it.

Not "reconsider", but "rephrase":

EU predictions are far more consistent with observations than Big Bang. It doesn't have the ongoing problem of always being baffled, bewildered, and befuddled by new observations, or lack thereof, as Big Bang theology does.

Yeah, pretty much like that. Not an observational leg to stand on.

But He still did it anyway. And if He did it, then He is true, even if you can't observe Him doing it. It's not His fault you can't see Him doing it. That's your fault. You need to look around more.

Care to explain why a whole bunch of different galaxies separated by really quite large gaps all just happen to distort in exactly the same way so as to form not just a distinctive overall ring pattern but also how these ring patterns are explained both qualitatively and quantitatively by GR?

Care to demonstrate how space can stretch, or bend, or warp?

Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Well-Known Member

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Well-Known Member

Brian Blessed can take a hike

Noted strange person

Life is an experiment, experience it!

Brian Blessed can take a hike

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Well-Known Member

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Well-Known Member

Brian Blessed can take a hike

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency