Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 372 of 404 (698943)
05-10-2013 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by justatruthseeker
05-10-2013 7:05 PM


Your astrophysicists are saying all matter was confined in a 0 point volume singularity.
I don't have any astrophysicists, they're too expensive. The bills for astrophysicist kibble alone would be more than I could afford.
However, if I did have some astrophysicists, I can guarantee you that they would not be saying that "all matter was confined in a 0 point volume singularity", because the gibberish phrase "0 point volume singularity" was invented by you and has never been used by anyone else; especially not by astrophysicists, who tend to be sane.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-10-2013 7:05 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 374 of 404 (698945)
05-11-2013 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by justatruthseeker
05-10-2013 11:56 PM


I don't mind you talking, this is a forum isn't it, a place to debate theories? Just don't say the data says what it doesn't say. If you want to say we think it is this way, that's fine, but when data contradicts that theory it is then twisted so it can explain any situation.
Can't explain galaxy rotation? Add a pinch of Dark Matter, a dollop of Dark Energy and wham, there you go. And you are forbidden to think something we actually can measure can't be the cause. Only within the last few decades have we even had the technology to measure electric and magnetic fields in space, yet we know everything about it from theories that once said Kristen Birkeland was wrong. And know they are right back where they started. Measuring the electric fields and then ignoring them. Wondering why the data doesn't fit. They have a couple theories though, don't you worry - just keep the pocketbooks open, just not any that include electrical activity in plasma, the very thing they measure.
Newsroom | UCLA
But, since they ignore the very electrical currents they measure as having any effect, how can you trust them to tell you the sum of all the energy in the universe when they have never taken a course in plasma physics? If as those very same astrophysicists say 99.86% of the universe is plasma?
quote:
Apparently being speechless is something else you don't know how to do.
and then why are we here at all, if no one is going to say anything? Might as well sum it up now. I'll tell you my summation right now.
E=mc^2
Some important part of your brain appears to have broken. It's the part that would have stopped you from writing that.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-10-2013 11:56 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 396 of 404 (699277)
05-16-2013 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by justatruthseeker
05-16-2013 1:52 PM


I could care less how well I am doing ...
That much is evident.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-16-2013 1:52 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 399 of 404 (699294)
05-17-2013 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by justatruthseeker
05-16-2013 1:52 PM


justatruthseeker, post #364 writes:
Your astrophysicists are saying all matter was confined in a 0 point volume singularity.
justatruthseeker, post #393 writes:
I notice that none of you ever include references when you say this is what they say, why is that?
You're priceless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-16-2013 1:52 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 403 of 404 (699400)
05-18-2013 5:12 PM


Summary And Prizegiving
Both designtheorist and justatruthseeker have shown a remarkable talent for incomprehension and falsehood; it is though they were competing to see who could be the biggest loon.
And to whom shall we award this coveted palm? On the one hand, designtheorist did seem to be making his own mistakes. Should he score marks for originality? Perhaps, but arguably not: is it not more the mark of the crank to do as justatruthseeker does, and parrot nonsense about subjects he doesn't understand?
Designtheorist must surely lose marks for staying more or less on topic, but then he has the disadvantage that as it was his own choice of topic he could hardly help doing so. Even so, one has to admire justatruthseeker for resolutely posting without the least reference to the subject of the thread.
Then there is the question of quantity. Now, designtheorist made twice as many posts; however, justatruthseeker was wrong about a much wider variety of things. When one looks at his posts, one is overcome by the same emotions that Heracles must have felt on first gazing at the stables of Augeus.
It is the distinctive mark of the crank that he should combine his ignorance with arrogance. Now, designtheorist occasionally lapsed into humility, as though realizing that people with Nobel Prizes in physics might conceivably know quite a bit about physics. By contrast, it seems no tremor of self-doubt has ever rippled the tranquil, dark, and stagnant surface of justatruthseeker's stupidity.
In the matter of presentation, both candidates disappointed, neither of them producing the gaudy typographic mess which is the mark of the true crank. And designtheorist, it grieves me to say, even wrote good English. This latter charge could not be laid at the feet of justatruthseeker, whose invention of phrases such as "0 point volume singularity" gave such a delightful air of stupidity to everything he wrote.
Finally, we come to the matter of paranoia. Now, designtheorist, to be sure, imputed ulterior motives (atheism, naturally) to all the physicists who disagree with him; but for true screaming twitching paranoia, we must turn to justatruthseeker. Not only was he quick to adduce a vast conspiracy as an explanation of why physicists disagree with him about physics, and astronomers about astronomy; but also his conspiracy theory is perhaps the most profoundly stupid I have ever seen, though I have walked among creationists, spoken with 9/11 Truthers, and met people who vote Republican.
We must therefore award the prize to justatruthseeker as being in almost every category the greater fool; the actual formal presentation will be postponed until the judges have ascertained whether he was using drugs to assist his performance.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024