Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
 1 online now: PaulK Newest Member: Jorge Parker Post Volume: Total: 918,222 Year: 5,479/9,624 Month: 504/323 Week: 1/143 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Big Bang and Cosmology

# The cosmic conspiracy.

Author Topic:   The cosmic conspiracy.
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 6 of 173 (690156) 02-09-2013 5:01 PM Reply to: Message 1 by divermike197402-09-2013 4:16 AM

My question is this. If the visible universe is in the region of 80 billion light years across how is it possible for it to be only 13.7 billion years old? Wouldn't that mean that the wave like massless photons would have had to of traveled at nearly six times the speed of light for nearly 14 billion years?
It's as AZPaul says. To use a common analogy, imagine an ant crawling over the skin of a balloon which is being inflated. The ant can travel at a top speed of (let us say) 1 cm/sec. But after 5 seconds we will find that its distance from its starting point, measured along the skin of the balloon, is more then 5 cm, because the balloon is inflating, and the distance between any two points on it is getting bigger.
The ant is analogous to light, the speed of the ant to the speed of light, and the balloon to space.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by divermike1974, posted 02-09-2013 4:16 AM divermike1974 has not replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 (3)
 Message 9 of 173 (690172) 02-09-2013 9:31 PM Reply to: Message 7 by divermike197402-09-2013 5:53 PM

If the universe is expanding at the speed of light ...
Well, it doesn't work like that.
I drew this diagram, it may help.
Each row corresponds to a state of the universe at a given point of time. (It's a one-dimensional universe, what do you expect with Microsoft Paint?)
Imagine yourself sitting at the red dot, which from your point of view is sitting still.
You can see that the further away from you something is, the faster it seems to recede from you; the yellow dot is moving from you faster than the green dot, and the blue dot faster than the yellow dot.
A dot sufficiently far away from you would be moving away from you faster than light, and so would be beyond the limits of your visible universe.
Note that there's nothing special about the red dot, it's just the place where you happen to be sitting.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 7 by divermike1974, posted 02-09-2013 5:53 PM divermike1974 has not replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 (1)
 Message 19 of 173 (690231) 02-11-2013 1:15 AM Reply to: Message 18 by SouthDakotaSkeptic02-11-2013 1:00 AM

This difficulty becomes even more profound when we consider models that include a greater number of dimensions, such as M-theory's 11-dimensional universe.
Nah, that's easy. First you consider it in n dimensions, then you let n equal 11.
(Old mathematician joke.)
---
Is the teapot in your avatar an allusion to Russell?

 This message is a reply to: Message 18 by SouthDakotaSkeptic, posted 02-11-2013 1:00 AM SouthDakotaSkeptic has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 20 by SouthDakotaSkeptic, posted 02-11-2013 1:33 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 (1)
 Message 39 of 173 (698622) 05-08-2013 1:37 PM Reply to: Message 35 by justatruthseeker05-08-2013 8:17 AM

I don't need to express the points in those links, your scientists did it for me quite clearly.
NASA - Satellite Footprints Seen in Jupiter's Aurora
quote:
These emissions, produced by electric currents generated by the satellites, flow along Jupiter's magnetic field, bouncing in and out of the upper atmosphere. They are unlike anything seen on Earth.
99.99% plasma is common knowledge, except to those that deny those electric currents they see in space. Even NASA will tell you that.
NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target
Plasma - Wikipedia(physics)
Don't take my word for the 99% figure, but I hope you will give some consideration to NASA.
NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target
But I am sure NASA just must be wrong too.
Why explain the sun to someone that will ignore all the evidence anyways? Your very own books say the universe is 99% plasma and theyve ignored it for over 100 years. if you were actually curious I'd show you were to find the answers you seek, but you seek no answers, and this I know because you argue against 99% plasma when your own books proclaim it.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_cr.html#plasma
Ok, granted, that ignores that 96% of an invisible fairy dust exists called dark matter, but then you would not need that fairy dust if you just considered plasma.
Introduction to Plasma Physics: With Space and Laboratory Applications - D. A. Gurnett, A. Bhattacharjee - Google Books
French Silk - Sandra Brown - Google Books
Analytical and Numerical Methods for Wave Propagation in Fluid Media - K. Murawski - Google Books
Plasma Physics: Third Edition - K. Nishikawa, M. Wakatani, M Wakatani - Google Books
It's been known to be 99% plasma for over 100 years. Can give you a few hundred more links to mainstream books if you need them, by the very same people that then try to hide that fact. After all, they hid it from you. The've lied to you and told you it isn't, so ask yourself, what else are they lying about if they won't accept the very facts they say exist?
So, to summarize:
* All scientists everywhere believe the same things as you do, and in fact you're merely repeating what they say.
* All scientists everywhere reject your beliefs because they're too bigoted and/or brainwashed to accept them.
* You can prove that all scientists agree with you because of the stuff they all put on their websites and publish in their books for everyone to read.
* They are all engaged in a vast conspiracy to lie, to conceal the truth, and to hide the fact that you're right.
This is why you can prove the correctness of your opinions with reference to: "a few hundred more links to mainstream books [...] by the very same people that then try to hide that fact".
They're not very good at hiding facts, aren't they? Now if I wanted to hide a fact, I wouldn't publish a few hundred mainstream books asserting that it was true. Apparently the filthy deceitful liars whose word you take as gospel and rely on as the basis for your views are not merely mendacious but also deeply stupid, which is why we should accept their word that you're right.
---
We're used to crazy people on these forums, but usually their delusions, no matter how far removed from reality, display some measure of internal consistency. You're not even trying. You're being mad in a lazy half-assed sort of way, and have served us up with half-baked paranoid lunacy. You've got a Vast Conspiracy To Conceal The Truth, well done. And you've got your Heroic Legions Of Truthiness, that's good. But it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that in a proper paranoid conspiracy theory, they're not meant to be the same people.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 35 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 8:17 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 44 by Panda, posted 05-08-2013 2:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 41 of 173 (698630) 05-08-2013 2:00 PM Reply to: Message 40 by justatruthseeker05-08-2013 1:52 PM

What it means that the universe is 99% plasma is that the universe operates mostly by the laws of electrodynamics, hence the title of Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". That you ignore this law upon which all of relativity rests is why you have no valid explanation for galactic rotation curves, except to hypothesise the existence of imaginary matter never observed or detected. If you included this force that binds the very atom you would realize no fairy dust was required. The electrical force is 10^36 powers stronger than gravity, which is why in the vast open stretches of the universe and galaxies the electrical force dominates. Only in isolated pockets where enough matter has condensed in one spot (such as our solar system), does the force of gravity become stronger.
Although since no one knows what gravity is, or what causes it, it may indeed be electrical in nature.
Why don't you look up a gravitational map of the moon and a magnetic map of the moon (since we have mapped both extensively) and see if any corrolation between the two exists????? let me know the results of your study, even though I already know the answer, you might find it interesting.
Some people find scientific illiteracy tragic, I find it amusing. Sometimes I wonder if this makes me a bad person or merely a lucky one.

 This message is a reply to: Message 40 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 1:52 PM justatruthseeker has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 42 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 2:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 43 of 173 (698638) 05-08-2013 2:22 PM Reply to: Message 42 by justatruthseeker05-08-2013 2:11 PM

Thats the typical response of those studying pseudoscience, to attempt to attack the character of a person because one has no other reponse to give. So I forgive you!
I did not attack your character in that post, and am at a loss to know why you pretended that I did so.

 This message is a reply to: Message 42 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 2:11 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 74 of 173 (699875) 05-27-2013 11:33 AM Reply to: Message 72 by justatruthseeker05-27-2013 1:36 AM

Re: Pearls in the sty again?
Once again I am in awe of the sheer breadth and scope of the things you don't know about. It must have taken a lot of not-studying to become ignorant of so many subjects.

 This message is a reply to: Message 72 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-27-2013 1:36 AM justatruthseeker has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 75 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-27-2013 3:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 76 of 173 (699885) 05-27-2013 9:04 PM Reply to: Message 75 by justatruthseeker05-27-2013 3:27 PM

Re: Pearls in the sty again?
Yet you say nothing to show where I am wrong except a blanket denial. Why is this?
Because you would obviously be incapable of understanding it. Mit der Dummheit kmpfen Gtter selbst vergebens. However, it may be possible to communicate to you the simple fact that you are incompetent, even if it is not possible to correct this deficit; at which point you could abandon your hobby of looking like an idiot in public.

 This message is a reply to: Message 75 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-27-2013 3:27 PM justatruthseeker has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 77 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-27-2013 10:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 78 of 173 (699888) 05-27-2013 11:04 PM Reply to: Message 77 by justatruthseeker05-27-2013 10:36 PM

Re: Pearls in the sty again?
You really can't be helped until you admit that you have a problem.

 This message is a reply to: Message 77 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-27-2013 10:36 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 80 of 173 (699897) 05-28-2013 2:38 AM Reply to: Message 79 by justatruthseeker05-28-2013 1:37 AM

You do realize, don't you, that this stupid shit isn't an answer to the OP, right? So why are you addressing it to the person who made the OP?

 This message is a reply to: Message 79 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-28-2013 1:37 AM justatruthseeker has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 81 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-28-2013 10:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 84 of 173 (699926) 05-28-2013 11:56 AM Reply to: Message 81 by justatruthseeker05-28-2013 10:52 AM

Modern cosmology: "and man said let there be light."
What a peculiar lie.
So the simple answer is you nor I, nor anyone has a valid answer to the OP.
Speak for yourself.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 81 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-28-2013 10:52 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 86 of 173 (699972) 05-29-2013 1:30 AM Reply to: Message 85 by justatruthseeker05-28-2013 8:26 PM

The galaxy is acting as a homopolar generator which causes it to rotate as if it was a rigid body. This is exactly why the outer stars rotate at the same speed as all but the very innermost stars, seemingly in direct opposition to both Newtonian gravity and Relativity.
Just to check, does your nonsense about plasma actually predict that galaxies should rotate as though they were rigid bodies, or is it just something you think you can explain post facto by waving your hands and shouting "plasmadunnit"?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 85 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-28-2013 8:26 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 90 of 173 (700021) 05-29-2013 2:17 PM

Predictive Power
Curiously, when I merely call justatruthseeker an idiot, he's quick to respond to me, complaining that "you called me bad names". When I ask him serious questions about his hypothesis and its predictive power, he says nothing.
Maybe this is because his gibberish has no predictive power, and so he has nothing to say, whereas I really did call him "bad names".
C'mon, justatruthseeker, you have finally piqued my interest. Amongst all the rest of your rubbish, you have suggested that this plasma universe thingy implies that galaxies should rotate as though they were rigid bodies. Now, finally, I am interested. Does your plasma thingy really predict that galaxies will rotate as though they are rigid bodies? Finally we are getting on to the predictive power of your thesis, rather than your halfwitted lies about the history of science. Does your hypothesis about cosmology actually predict that galaxies should rotate as though they were rigid bodies? Yes or no?

 Replies to this message: Message 91 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-29-2013 6:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 (2) (1)
 Message 92 of 173 (700067) 05-29-2013 8:26 PM Reply to: Message 91 by justatruthseeker05-29-2013 6:43 PM

Re: Predictive Power
C'mon, justatruthseeker, you have finally piqued my interest. Amongst all the rest of your rubbish, you have suggested that this plasma universe thingy implies that galaxies should rotate as though they were rigid bodies. Now, finally, I am interested. Does your plasma thingy really predict that galaxies will rotate as though they are rigid bodies? Finally we are getting on to the predictive power of your thesis, rather than your halfwitted lies about the history of science. Does your hypothesis about cosmology actually predict that galaxies should rotate as though they were rigid bodies? Yes or no?
It's a yes or no question. I appreciate that you prefer to spew out vast tracts of vacuous irrelevant garbage, but could you take some time out from your busy schedule to post a monosyllable?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 91 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-29-2013 6:43 PM justatruthseeker has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 93 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-29-2013 9:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 94 of 173 (700084) 05-30-2013 5:19 AM Reply to: Message 93 by justatruthseeker05-29-2013 9:57 PM

Re: Predictive Power
I will post them again for you, as like I said, you didn't read them the first time. And the answer is a DEFINITE YES!!!! That is the rotation speed will be the same for the outer stars as for all but except the very inner stars as the density increases.
That would actually be a no.

 This message is a reply to: Message 93 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-29-2013 9:57 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)