Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 6:19 AM
20 online now:
Percy (Admin), vimesey (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,631 Year: 3,668/19,786 Month: 663/1,087 Week: 32/221 Day: 3/29 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
17Next
Author Topic:   Size of the universe
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 136 of 248 (624331)
07-17-2011 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-17-2011 10:19 AM


Re: EXPANDING UNIVERSE OR EXPANDING POINT?
It's better admit that the terms the Universe and expansion are not compatible. Your might as well talk about the colour of mass. Ex means out, the universe has no outside so it cannot expand for the same reason that mass cannot have colour.

And just to point out that what Alfred says is contradicted by every professional phsyicist and cosmologist working today, every cosmology textbook, and every cosmology paper being published. But Alfred think's he's right - so we just pat him on the head, nod encouragingly, and then wait for him to nod back to sleep again... shouldn't take long.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 10:19 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 11:38 AM cavediver has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 137 of 248 (624336)
07-17-2011 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by cavediver
07-17-2011 10:43 AM


Re: EXPANDING UNIVERSE OR EXPANDING POINT?
Sorry, Crankdriver, what I say is contradicted only by the majority of experts belonging to the same club you do and the textbooks written by the club members. It's neither contradicted by all like you'd love to make others believe nor is it contradicted by reason.
Those who contradict what I say cannot define the Universe or expansion in any consistent fashion for all the tea in China so their collective authority your appeal to is irrelevant. They are inept at defining their terms and their definitions are contradictory as a result so ultimately it's themselves and not me that they are contradicting.
Those outside the club are having a good laugh at the whole thing together with my cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by cavediver, posted 07-17-2011 10:43 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by AZPaul3, posted 07-17-2011 12:40 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 139 by cavediver, posted 07-17-2011 12:50 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3815
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 138 of 248 (624341)
07-17-2011 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-17-2011 11:38 AM


Re: EXPANDING UNIVERSE OR EXPANDING POINT?
They are inept at defining their terms and their definitions are contradictory as a result so ultimately it's themselves and not me that they are contradicting.
Those outside the club are having a good laugh at the whole thing together with my cat.

So 10's of thousands of the most intelligent people in the world over many generations all arrive at the same contradictory and inept conclusions while you and a handful of intellectually stunted crackpots have the inside scoop on the real truth?

Sounds familiar. You're not the first nutjob with a deep sense of inferiority coupled with delusions of intellectual grandeur to posit the rest of the real intellectual world is in conspiracy against you.

Take solace in the fact that you are not alone in your dementia.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 11:38 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 1:58 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 139 of 248 (624342)
07-17-2011 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-17-2011 11:38 AM


Re: EXPANDING UNIVERSE OR EXPANDING POINT?
Sorry, Crankdriver, what I say is contradicted only by the majority of experts belonging to the same club you do and the textbooks written by the club members.

Yes. This club is usually known as "all the physics and cosmology departments in the world".

Those who contradict what I say cannot define the Universe or expansion in any consistent fashion for all the tea in China

We can. We do. We have done. A billion times since Einstein. It is just you who has not gained the ability to understand.

They are inept at defining their terms and their definitions are contradictory as a result so ultimately it's themselves and not me that they are contradicting.

Yes Alfred, every physicist and mathematician involved in relativity and cosmology is completely inept. All of us. And you are not. Alfred's world sounds like a nice play to be.

Those outside the club are having a good laugh at the whole thing together with my cat.

Your laughing? What, while it us to that takes all the grant money? Us, that get to build and play with the largest machines ever buily by man? Us, that are approached for our scientific and mathematical ability? Us, that after our scientific careers, are employed around the world in some of the highest paying jobs? Keep laughing Alfred... keep laughing


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 11:38 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 2:44 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 140 of 248 (624352)
07-17-2011 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by AZPaul3
07-17-2011 12:40 PM


Re: EXPANDING UNIVERSE OR EXPANDING POINT?
My friend, let's hear some arguments from you. Present your definition of the terms the Universe and expansion so I can examine both of your definitions and see if either is consistent and whether the terms are compatible. Appeals to some superior numbers of allegedly intellectually superior people do nothing but demonstrate the paucity of your own mental capacities, I am sorry to inform you.

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by AZPaul3, posted 07-17-2011 12:40 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by AZPaul3, posted 07-17-2011 2:26 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3815
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 141 of 248 (624353)
07-17-2011 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-17-2011 1:58 PM


Re: EXPANDING UNIVERSE OR EXPANDING POINT?
Present your definition of the terms the Universe and expansion so I can examine both of your definitions and see if either is consistent and whether the terms are compatible.

No, I don't argue known facts with nutjobs. I'll leave that to those with more patience than I.

Appeals to some superior numbers of allegedly intellectually superior people do nothing but demonstrate the paucity of your own mental capacities, I am sorry to inform you.

That's alright, Al. You are not informing me of anything I do not already know. I have no problem recognizing the paucity of my own mental capacities in this subject.

When generations of, not just alleged but for real, really smart people say the sun is a star up close and stars are suns far away, the universe is expanding, black holes exist and similar cosmological pronouncements, I have the capability of seeing the logic without the capability of reproducing the decades of study.

On the other side, Sir, you cannot seem to recognize your own glaring paucity in the face of a great body of work and feel some sad necessity to degrade the stellar intellectual work of thousands over generations while holding your own obviously deficient musings as somehow superior. You're a sad little man, Al.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 1:58 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 3:40 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 142 of 248 (624355)
07-17-2011 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by cavediver
07-17-2011 12:50 PM


Re: EXPANDING UNIVERSE OR EXPANDING POINT?
Crankdriver, your description demonstrates that you and your ilk has got none to do with science and everything with the blind collectivist faith and fear of authority. I am from Russia and my conclusion is that he Big Big theory is no more scientific in its premises than historical materialism that equally pretended to the scientific status.
You are nothing but a petty priest and mathemagican worrying about your prebend and grant money your superiors get for building more cathedrals. Like all priests you cannot defend your faith with any arguments so you keep on referring to the esoteric knowledge and language where you allege the absurdities you peddle possess the logical shape beyond reach of a layman.
That is an old and familiar trick employed by all the religious throughout the ages. The grant money are given by the members of the club to other members toeing the peer-reviewing line.

Still, remember, being at the height of power guarantees no priest against being laughed at.

If you don't believe me, visit youstupidrelativist.com. The man who wrote the book and devised the site seems to have an excellent fun at your boring expense.
Also your assumptions are sweeping and not all relativists support the nonsense you peddle. Alexander Franklin Mayer is a strict relativist and his theory is a good attempt to rescue relativity from all the gibberish you teach.
Not all the grant money come from the collectivist club you are a member of either. His research grant is private and came from Jay Pritzker who was a billionaire enamoured of independent research.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by cavediver, posted 07-17-2011 12:50 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 143 of 248 (624368)
07-17-2011 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by AZPaul3
07-17-2011 2:26 PM


Re: EXPANDING UNIVERSE OR EXPANDING POINT?
Well, you have no patience to present any reasonable defence of the ludicrous proposition that the whole of existence may possess attributes of expansion and compression.
Yet you have patience enough to pile on still more and more appeals ad populum and verecundium. And you have a lot of patience to try and humiliate me for having my own opinion on the issues of expansion, black holes and singularities. Not good enough again. If black holes exist indeed and the Big Bang happened as alleged, all the stellar names won't be hurt any with any logical analysis of those propositions.
They won't be hurt anyway, for they are all celebrities and even if what they teach should be found to be utter nonsense, they would have had good innings having fun with the equations, colliders and fooling themselves and gullible admiring folk like you.
Otherwise, yes, I am limited in many respects and on many issues I do not have any opinion of my own leaving the judgement entirely to the experts who I suppose know better than me. The thing is, black holes and the expansion of the Universe is not one of those things. I know precisely why these things are physically impossible and absurd and I can formulate what I know well enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by AZPaul3, posted 07-17-2011 2:26 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by AZPaul3, posted 07-17-2011 4:22 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3815
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 144 of 248 (624377)
07-17-2011 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-17-2011 3:40 PM


Redundant Offense
I know precisely why these things are physically impossible and absurd and I can formulate what I know well enough.

Obviously not since you continue to fail to do so.

Show me your proof on the impossibility of black holes. I can handle the math, I assure you. List your equations and where you differ from Hawking. Then publish your work and buy a ticket to Stockholm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 3:40 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 5:04 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 145 of 248 (624389)
07-17-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by AZPaul3
07-17-2011 4:22 PM


Re: Redundant Offense
Do you see any green in my eye? Are you suggesting that providing good maths demonstrating the alleged entities are physically impossible may purchase any one a ticket to Stockholm? Do you expect me to take your suggestion at face value?
It would be redundant of me, anyway, as that has been done a few times already without those who did it going to Stockholm. Not to my knowledge.
Try Stephen J. Crothers, Bert Schreiber or Angelo Loinger if you are eager to read the maths.
Also there is no need for any maths to begin with because the impossibility of black holes is not any question of maths- it is a conceptual issue just like the impossibility of pink unicorns eating yellow dragons in my garden right now. You either believe they are being consumed or you don't. The level of interest in calculating the rate of such consumption may depend on the faith it is taking place.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by AZPaul3, posted 07-17-2011 4:22 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by frako, posted 07-17-2011 5:52 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 147 by AZPaul3, posted 07-17-2011 7:09 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 151 by Larni, posted 07-18-2011 3:55 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 146 of 248 (624400)
07-17-2011 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-17-2011 5:04 PM


Re: Redundant Offense
because the impossibility of black holes is not any question of maths

So if Black holes are impossible then what the hell is in the center of the M87 Galaxy? It has the mass of 3 billion of our suns and it inhabits a space smaller then our solar system.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 5:04 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3815
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 147 of 248 (624418)
07-17-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-17-2011 5:04 PM


Re: Redundant Offense
Also there is no need for any maths to begin with because the impossibility of black holes is not any question of maths- it is a conceptual issue

So you have nothing but your incredulity and a few fellow, and well known, crackpots.

Typical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 5:04 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 8:27 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 148 of 248 (624430)
07-17-2011 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by AZPaul3
07-17-2011 7:09 PM


Re: Redundant Offense
Not exactly as my scepticism is based on strict reasoning. First, infinities may not exist in any concrete, countable physical shape for the science to deal with. They are either nothing or pure potentialities. That is elementary maths, in spite of whatever some mathemagicians starting from Cantor might have said to the contrary and that puts firmly paid to the idea of singularities in any way, shape or form.
Zero radius or anything zero for that matter is not a scientific idea. It describes something with the rest of its parameters equalling zero just as well, ie., nothing.
Next I doubt very much that the relationship between density, mass and gravity and light is of the kind postulated by the black holes hypothesis. There could be an increase of density only up to a certain limit.
Nothing indicates that matter is infinitely compressible. All indicates that such a compression may require an application of an enormous force. Other than happening by pure magic.
Gravity, being not a static phenomenon but a result of the intrinsic momentum of matter, given an exponential increase of that matter's density, even if that was physically possible - which is extremely doubtful in its own right,- would be rendered nil instead of increasing exponentially in its turn as proposed by the proponents of the black monsters superstition. To squeeze all matter into a point may practically imply to nip in the bud all the motion on the quantum level thus eliminating the very cause of what is supposed to be increasing exponentially.
Nobody knows precisely how degenerate matter behaves practically so all those ideas strongly seem to be a pure speculation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by AZPaul3, posted 07-17-2011 7:09 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by AZPaul3, posted 07-17-2011 9:12 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 150 by cavediver, posted 07-18-2011 2:40 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3815
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 149 of 248 (624432)
07-17-2011 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-17-2011 8:27 PM


Re: Redundant Offense
First, infinities may not exist in any concrete, countable physical shape for the science to deal with. They are either nothing or pure potentialities. That is elementary maths, in spite of whatever some mathemagicians starting from Cantor might have said to the contrary and that puts firmly paid to the idea of singularities in any way, shape or form.

Infinities? Who said anything about infinities? No one who knows what they are talking about postulates any infinities about a black hole?

If you are trying to refer to a popular misconception of a signularity then you are far into left field, just where a crackpot would stand. See my Message 182.

Next I doubt very much that the relationship between density, mass and gravity and light is of the kind postulated by the black holes hypothesis. There could be an increase of density only up to a certain limit.

So you doubt that a greater mass equates to a greater gravity?

Your crackpot is showing.

Anyway, I have caught myself here. As I said prior I will not argue known facts of science with a crackpot.

I am done here.

Edited by AZPaul3, : spelin thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 8:27 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 150 of 248 (624452)
07-18-2011 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-17-2011 8:27 PM


Re: Redundant Offense
First, infinities may not exist in any concrete, countable physical shape for the science to deal with.

Not required for a black hole.

Zero radius or anything zero for that matter is not a scientific idea.

Not required for a black hole

Nothing indicates that matter is infinitely compressible.

Not required for a black hole

To squeeze all matter into a point...

Not required for a black hole

Once again, Alfred, you wear your ignorance like a badge of honour.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-17-2011 8:27 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-18-2011 3:12 PM cavediver has responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
17Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019