Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Cabal]

I hate to say this to you Cabal but you're obviously a bit behind on the times.

i quoted the lolcat bible, man, what else could i do?!

 

[Doveaman]

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

I would think so too, but obviously they can’t.

Because of the stars in the foreground galaxy.

What stars? Do you see any stars?

All you have is a Consensus interpretation.

So how is "electric gravity" affecting atoms when most atoms have a neutral charge?

Electricity affects everything, including you.

If electromagnetism is so much stronger than gravity, how can we fly in planes?

If planes are so much heavier than air, how can planes fly on air?

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

Are you referring to peer-reviewed papers on cosmology? Because if you are, Consensus Cosmology can take a hike.

So how about explaining the blackbody spectrum observed by the COBE satellite in the cosmic microwave background radiation?

Why do you ask for an explanation when what you have is retrofitted?

How about answering Cabal's question

How about Cabal providing the evidence?

MIT Scientists Find Evidence Of Long-Sought Space Warping - The Tech
Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe

I don't see any demonstration of "space warping" in these articles.

 

[Cabal]

Are you referring to peer-reviewed papers on cosmology? Because if you are, Consensus Cosmology can take a hike.

Your confirmation bias has been duly noted.

Why do you ask for an explanation when what you have is retrofitted?

Lie. The level of CMBR was predicted and then confirmed. No fitting was involved.

How about Cabal providing the evidence?

Not that your opponents should have to back up their claims before you deign to answer a rebuttal, but...

The gravitational lensing pic. You've seen it enough times.

Now, please stop dodging the question. It's painfully obvious you have absolutely nothing to go on here, but at least TRY and put up some resistance.

Now how is it that these clusters of uncorrelated galaxies all distort in a way that looks exactly like that described by a gravitational lensing effect? "Galaxies sometimes distort" is in no way a sufficient explanation for these observations.

 

[Doveaman]

EU barely predicts anything.

EU is based on physics.

Big Bang is based on faith.

A faith based prediction can claim to predict many things, but when it come to science, a physics based prediction is always the most reliable.

You should know that.

Did you miss the gravitational lensing photo? I think it's been posted enough times.

You mean this one?

I don't see anything here distorted in the exact same way. Do I have to use mathemagic to see it?

 

[AV1611VET]

What? That doesn't correspond to anything I wrote. Evolutionary theory certainly says it would be possible to breed a "better" human population. But it says nothing about whether it would be right or wrong to do so. Further research is required only in that it would expand our knowledge even further. But it still wouldn't lend anything to whether we should get gung-ho about eugenics.

What if you set aside 1000 years to work on it?

Could your R&D department make it work?

 

[sandwiches]

What if you set aside 1000 years to work on it?

Could your R&D department make it work?

Are you in a rush for eugenics to work, AV? You seem a little anxious.

 

[BananaSlug]

I would think so too, but obviously they can’t.

What stars? Do you see any stars?

Galaxies tend to contain stars.

All you have is a Consensus interpretation.

Even without the current interpetation, the picture above appears as though someone took it with a "fish eye" lense. "Arcs" do not make sense considering the "circled" affects of the picture.

Electricity affects everything, including you.

Unless the material cannot conduct electricity. Why don't we see non-conductive materials flying off of the planet?

If planes are so much heavier than air, how can planes fly on air?

Gravity is a weak force. The plane is flying against gravity. If the electromagnetic force is 1000 times stronger than gravity then planes would need 1000 times more thrust to lift off.

Are you referring to peer-reviewed papers on cosmology? Because if you are, Consensus Cosmology can take a hike.

I'm sure there are peer reviewed papers on EU cosmology, until the blackbody spectrum was discovered it was quite competitive with the current cosmology. You want us to accept it, show us the research.

Why do you ask for an explanation when what you have is retrofitted?

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.pdf
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/PlanckStory.pdf
http://linas.org/mirrors/cosmology.berkeley.edu/2003.05.31/Classes/F2002/PHYS112/Phys112_05.pdf

How is a phenomena discovered recently "retrofitted" into a formula hypothesized in the early 1900's?

How about Cabal providing the evidence?

Here it is again:

"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?"

I don't see any demonstration of "space warping" in these articles.

MIT Scientists Find Evidence Of Long-Sought Space Warping - The Tech

"Stella and his colleagues calculated that if certain neutron stars were dragging space around them, their fluctuating X-ray signal should contain a second, slower, signal superimposed on the first. He saw such a motion in three of 15 stars he analyzed."

Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe

"GP-B was designed to measure two key predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity by monitoring the orientations of ultra-sensitive gyroscopes relative to a distant guide star."

Closing in on Einstein: Frame-Dragging Clearly Visible

"The accuracy of the GP-B experimental results has improved seventeen-fold since our preliminary results announcement at the American Physical Society annual meeting in April 2007. At that time, only the larger, geodetic effect was clearly visible in the data. Over the past two and one half years, we have made extraordinary progress in understanding, modeling and removing three Newtonian sources of error—all due to patch potentials on the gyroscope rotor and housing surfaces. The latest results, based upon treatment of 1) damped polhode motion, 2) misalignment torques and 3) roll-polhode resonance torques, now clearly show both frame-dragging and geodetic precession in all four gyroscopes."


Gravity Probe B Scientific Papers <This provides all of their scientific findings.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you in a rush for eugenics to work, AV? You seem a little anxious.

You have no clue what point I'm making, do you?

Let me give you a piece of good advice, my friend.

When I ask a good question like I did, and the old-timers here don't answer me --- take my word for it --- it's because they know [me] better.

That 'eugenics, research, R&D, and 1000 years' should have tipped you off as to what I'm getting at.

 

[BananaSlug]

You have no clue what point I'm making, do you?

Let me give you a piece of good advice, my friend.

When I ask a good question like I did, and the old-timers here don't answer me --- take my word for it --- it's because they know [me] better.

That 'eugenics, research, R&D, and 1000 years' should have tipped you off as to what I'm getting at.

The #1 problem with eugenics- how do we decide what traits are "good" and what traits are "bad". Different cultures value traits differently. Samoans tend to value "big-boned" individuals, some people value athleticism while others value intellect.While eugenics may work in principle, it is actually a bad idea.

Human "selective breeding" has gone on for thousands of years. Obviously I am attracted to my wife and she is attracted to me. We are all attracted to certain characteristics and look for mates that have those characteristics. Most likely our children will be attracted to those traits as well. Attractiveness is partially dictated by biology and partially dictated by culture (which is probably biologically derived as well).

 

[sandwiches]

You have no clue what point I'm making, do you?

Let me give you a piece of good advice, my friend.

When I ask a good question like I did, and the old-timers here don't answer me --- take my word for it --- it's because they know [me] better.

That 'eugenics, research, R&D, and 1000 years' should have tipped you off as to what I'm getting at.

Oh I know what point you're trying to make. I simply wanted to harass an answer out of you before anyone took the bait for what you think is a very devious trap.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh I know what point you're trying to make. I simply wanted to harass an answer out of you before anyone took the bait for what you think is a very devious trap.

Never mind, though --- forget my last post.

--- Banana Slug proved me wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

The #1 problem with eugenics- how do we decide what traits are "good" and what traits are "bad".

Ahem ... um ... through research?

 

[BananaSlug]

Ahem ... um ... through research?

Ah, but what traits may be "good" now may become "bad" in the future.

In regards to your last post, I thought I was one of the ones you were talking about.

 

[sandwiches]

Ahem ... um ... through research?

I prefer brunettes with big brown eyes. How about you?

Edit:
I should stop replying on these forums when I've had a couple (literally 2) Shiners.

 

[Ellinas]

STEAM POWERED UNIVERSE WINS !

Electric Universe proponents may send their papers to the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY for peer review!

Now for the big question. Since the Universe is run by steam (confirmed here at CF) is it possible to find a planet wholly made up of Cappuccino coffee?

I CAN DO SCIENCE ME!


HOUSE WAS RIGHT

 

[Cabal]

You have no clue what point I'm making, do you?

Let me give you a piece of good advice, my friend.

When I ask a good question like I did, and the old-timers here don't answer me --- take my word for it --- it's because they know [me] better.

That 'eugenics, research, R&D, and 1000 years' should have tipped you off as to what I'm getting at.

*thrusts hand up into the air eagerly*

Ooh, me, me! I know, I know!

It's trolling, isn't it?

 

[Nostromo]

It's trolling, isn't it?

While we're on the subject I think we should stop feeding Doveaman until he starts making sense.

 

[Nostromo]

Now for the big question. Since the Universe is run by steam (confirmed here at CF) is it possible to find a planet wholly made up of Cappuccino coffee?

Starbucks' top espressomologists are way ahead of you.

Coffee Planet - Homepage

Note the photograph of the coffee planet in the top right. While it may superficially appear similar to our own planet, its crust is made entirely of arabica coffee beans, and it has oceans of milky froth quite unsuitable for human life, unless you happen to be a programmer or insurance salesman.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Cos maybe AV missed it?

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

No, I sure don't.

Are they victims of God's will, too?

I'll be more than happy to include them in my science-can-take-a-hike motto, or filter them out via my boolean standards, or just automatically assume they're wrong vis-a-vis my Prime Directive, if you want.

Your call.

I warn you though --- don't bother giving me a screen and a half of science, then expect me to kowtow to it, or you'll be disappointed when I handwave it away because it can't get past any of my three checkpoints listed above.​

AV... here's the thing that confuses me about what you are doing here...

If you want to believe stuff that is contradicted by science, really, that is your prerogative. So if you want to handwave away anything, even the most well supported science on the basis of conflict with the Bible, well, really thats your call.

I can respect that, really I can... but what I DON'T get, is why you keep coming in telling people you don't believe this science stuff... we get it, you don't buy what rigorous scientific investigation says. OK. Fine.

But given that you implicitly accept that your position is unscientific, that your beliefs are directly contradictory to what the scientific method of investigation reveals... what do you expect those of us who practice the scientific method to do? Suddenly give it up and buy into your POV because... well, because you say we should? Or what? I mean, what do you hope to achieve here? I mean, I'm sure you understand that most people in this forum will only accept revised scientific understanding when NEW scientific evidence comes to light, so, since you're not actually trying to refute scientific information with BETTER scientific information... what do you expect to happen?

 

[Doveaman]

Galaxies tend to contain stars.

But since we can&#8217;t see stars in this image, any conclusion that they are affecting the background light is just a boldfaced assumption, and makes the interpreter seem desperate for an answer.

And, is the light being bent &#8220;around&#8221; the galaxy, or &#8220;through&#8221; the galaxy?

If the light is being bent &#8220;around&#8221; the galaxy, then why would the stars &#8220;within&#8221; the galaxy affect it?

Even without the current interpetation, the picture above appears as though someone took it with a "fish eye" lense. "Arcs" do not make sense considering the "circled" affects of the picture.

They are plenty of plasma arcs in the universe. They are all over the place. The simpler explanation of the universe ought to be based on what we already know, not fictitious lenses &#8211; Occam&#8217;s Razor.

Maybe it is the &#8220;fish eye&#8221; lensing that you are mistaking for gravitational lensing. Fail.

Unless the material cannot conduct electricity. Why don't we see non-conductive materials flying off of the planet?
Gravity is a weak force. The plane is flying against gravity. If the electromagnetic force is 1000 times stronger than gravity then planes would need 1000 times more thrust to lift off.

Irrelevant.

I never said gravity is electricity.

I said the underlying physic is electrical, or likely to be electrical, since it is only a theory.

Gravity will still act as gravity does even though the underlying physics is likely to be electrical.

I'm sure there are peer reviewed papers on EU cosmology, until the blackbody spectrum was discovered it was quite competitive with the current cosmology.

There is no competition between Big Bang metaphysics and EU physics. The two don&#8217;t compare. One is faith based. The other is physics based. If you want to compare Big Bang theology with something, try religion.

You want us to accept it, show us the research.

I&#8217;ve learnt way back not to &#8220;want&#8221; anyone to accept anything in this forum. Not my intent. We either accept or we don&#8217;t. That&#8217;s our prerogative.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.pdf
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/PlanckStory.pdf
http://linas.org/mirrors/cosmology.berkeley.edu/2003.05.31/Classes/F2002/PHYS112/Phys112_05.pdf
How is a phenomena discovered recently "retrofitted" into a formula hypothesized in the early 1900's?

You don&#8217;t get it, do you?

Big Bang theology is based on a flawed interpretation of red-shift, which effectively kills the Big Bang hypothesis.

The &#8220;life blood&#8221; of Big Bang theology today is non-existent dark matter, dark energy, and all the other dark invisible unverified stuff you guys like to manufacture and sprinkle with mathemagic dust, which effective makes Big Bang a walking zombie.

Zombies don&#8217;t have an explanation for anything, even if you believe they do, because they are all DEAD.

You need to come up with a new scientific theory if you expect to explain reality, a scientific theory that relies on the Scientific Method.

You do remember what the Scientific Method is, right?

Here it is again:

"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?"

I am not seeing what you are seeing. But that&#8217;s not surprising because where you see two I see five, as shown below:

Only in Big Bang theology with all of its mathemagics and mathematricks does one plus one equal five (1+1=5).

Maybe you need a new pair of lenses of your own.

MIT Scientists Find Evidence Of Long-Sought Space Warping - The Tech
Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe
Gravity Probe B Scientific Papers

I asked for an empirical demonstration of your interpretation of &#8220;space warping&#8221;, and all you do is offer more interpretation?

I am forced to ask why you guys ask Creationists for empirical evidence of their biblical interpretations when you guys do the exact opposite to what you ask them for in order to verify your &#8220;scientific&#8221; interpretations.

I think I see a double standard here. Fail.

Disqualified for cheating. Fail.