Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
27 online now:
dwise1, jar, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,697 Year: 16,733/19,786 Month: 858/2,598 Week: 104/251 Day: 57/24 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The cosmic conspiracy.
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 173 (698458)
05-07-2013 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by justatruthseeker
05-06-2013 7:14 PM


First we should clear one thing up. The Big Bang IS creationism, just without mentioning a god. The difference is the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth, science says a singularity did it,

No, the singularity is not some "thing" that can "do". Its an asymptote that represents a possible state of the universe. The universe still exists at all points in time in the Big Bang Theory, so there's no point where it could be created from.

I do believe in science wholeheartedly, just not the silly theories that have never been based upon anything but dreams such as Dark Matter, Black Holes,

They're based on more than just dreams... namely, lots and lots of math. In fact, way more math than dreams. So much so, that you couldn't even dream this shit up.

I also know that 99.99% of the universe is plasma,

What!? Surely that can't be right. Where did you get this?

could it be as simple as a mind of electric currents across the galaxies of the universe, just as your thought is nothing more than an electrical current across the neurons of your brain?????

Could it be? Sure, I suppose it could be almost anything.

You are the image of god, and not because you are flesh, but because you had the breath of life (electricity - god is power - energy) given to you.

How quickly you go from "it could" to "it is"... So where's your data?

You say you don't believe silly theories that have never been based upon anything but dreams, and that experimental data can tell us a lot about the universe, so... let's have it.

Or did you just dream that up?

http://science.nasa.gov/...science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature09928
http://www.nasa.gov/...n_pages/juno/multimedia/pia03155.html

We don't debate by link. Express the points in those links in your own words and provide them for backup.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-06-2013 7:14 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-07-2013 10:34 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2013 11:11 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 31 of 173 (698464)
05-07-2013 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by justatruthseeker
05-07-2013 10:34 AM


Please spare me the rants, don't take me for some scientific illiterate, that's your first mistake. Your second is never reading anything about your own theory, just what you have heard repeated over and over.
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
quote:
According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

That's just an explanation for laypeople. In their efforts to simplify the concept for easier understanding, they end up bringing on some inaccuracies.

As I said, the singularity is not a thing that can do stuff. It a state of the universe. That is, the universe exists at that point in spacetime. The singularity did not "create" the Universe.

I mean, I can find you websites that describe the big bang as a explosion, but the scientific explanation is not really like an explosion. Me dropping a link to that website is not showing you that the big band was an explosion.

So in reality you have NO math to base anything on as relativity completely fails at your imaginary event horizon.

You were talking about Dark Matter and Black Holes... those things do have math to base them on. As does The Singularity.

Since it seems everyones theory is as good as another's at this point I would say the fact that the math breaks down should give you a clue something is not right in wonderland.

Well yeah, its kind of a unique point in the universe. I'd expect things to get a little crazy.

I don't need to express the points in those links, your scientists did it for me quite clearly.
http://www.nasa.gov/...n_pages/juno/multimedia/pia03155.html
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.

I'm not sure what that's referring to or why you even posted it.

99.99% plasma is common knowledge, except to those that deny those electric currents they see in space. Even NASA will tell you that.
http://www.nasa.gov/...es/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html

Oh, I see. It doesn't mean what I thought you were saying it meant.

Can you express what it means in your own words or not? Can you explain it to me without linking to a website? You said that 99.99% of the universe is plasma, what does that mean?

Now this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

has this to say:

quote:
The current consensus is that about 96% of the total energy density in the universe is not plasma or any other form of ordinary matter, but a combination of cold dark matter and dark energy.

Do you think that contradicts your other statements? Why or why not?

So it might be just a tad bit important to learn a little about what plasma is and how it behaves, don't you think?

That's probably better advice for you. What are you, in your early 20's? You've read and understood some layman's explanations of cosmological science, and you've gotten all cocky and think you know something? And now you're gonna come here and learn us all about what you know?

Well you've failed at the first step. Your explanations of things expose some pretty basic ignorance and misunderstandings.

To redeem yourself, start with explaining, in your own words without links to other websites, what it means that "the universe is 99.99% plasma".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-07-2013 10:34 AM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 173 (698589)
05-08-2013 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 8:17 AM


So you can't back up your claims and you cannot rebut the refutations of your arguments.

All you can do is post accusations and drop bare links.

Good to know.

Move along folks. Nothing to see here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 8:17 AM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 12:26 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 173 (698612)
05-08-2013 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 12:26 PM


Nobody has joined your side because you haven't even staked one out yet.

All you can do is make accusations and drop bare links. You might as well be arguing for a young Earth.

Now, I'll give you one last chance to redeem yourself:

quote:
To redeem yourself, start with explaining, in your own words without links to other websites, what it means that "the universe is 99.99% plasma".

Can you even do that?

You've inputted a lot of words, but I don't believe that you even know what they mean. If you do know what they mean, then you should have no problem explaining it in your own words without links to websites.

Kinda like I did in Message 268 when I wrote:

quote:
I'll have you know that I knew that plasma was ionized gas without having to look it up. And that's part of the problem of saying that the universe is 99% plasma. If two ions of the same gas are fairly far apart, you could say the entire space between them was plasma, but that doesn't paint the right picture for the rest of space (as apposed to most of it), particularly interstellar and intergalactic regions. If you got a low density spot of ionized gas floating around, that counts as a plasma, but it ain't the sun.

Now's your time to shine. Show us what you know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 12:26 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 1:52 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 173 (698751)
05-09-2013 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 1:52 PM


What it means that the universe is 99% plasma is that the universe operates mostly by the laws of electrodynamics,

No, that's a ramification. What is the statement saying?

Although since no one knows what gravity is,

Its the effect you see from the bending of spacetime by some mass.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-24-2013 6:03 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 173 (699922)
05-28-2013 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by justatruthseeker
05-24-2013 6:03 PM


You still haven't explained to me what it is saying when you write that 99% of the universe is plasma, or that the universe is 99% plasma. Do you even understand the statement, yourself? Why won't you explain it?

Spacetime, composed of nothing, but bent by mass and then nothing tells mass how to move.

No, spacetime is something. The bending of it is what "tells mass how to move".

So, let's test your theory. We imagine a ball placed in the center of a flexible rubber sheet. We place a large ball in the center, it depresses the sheet (which is made of something by-the-way), so far so good. We now set a stationary ball at the top of the indent. What happens?

The ball rolls down towards the one at the center.

In theory where gravity is only a bending of spacetime and not a force, the ball moves nowhere.
Yet we observe in real life an attraction. The ball would never roll down the hill without the preconceived notion of a force beneath the sheet pulling it downwards.

The force that makes the ball move in the analogy is Earth's gravity, but I understand that the analogy is hard to get because it employs the very thing that it is explaining.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-24-2013 6:03 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-28-2013 8:26 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 87 of 173 (699987)
05-29-2013 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by justatruthseeker
05-28-2013 8:26 PM


quote:
You still haven't explained to me what it is saying when you write that 99% of the universe is plasma, or that the universe is 99% plasma. Do you even understand the statement, yourself? Why won't you explain it?

I already have, in almost every post of mine. But since you must not of read any of them I'll repeat. A galaxy is composed primarily of plasma, which obeys predominantly the electromagnetic rules, not gravitational.

How do you know the electromagnetic forces are predominant? How much more of an effect do they have than the gravitational ones? How much of their electromagnetic effects are overruled by gravity?

Are we talking 55% electromagnetic forces and 45% gravity, or are you more along the lines of 99% EM and 1% gravity?

If you were to present your position along the lines of: Cosmologists are under-appreciating the electromagnetic forces that effect the behavior of galaxies, then I think people would be more open to seeing your evidence. But when you present it as "everything you think you know is wrong" then you just come off as a crank.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-28-2013 8:26 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-29-2013 9:30 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 173 (700001)
05-29-2013 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by justatruthseeker
05-29-2013 9:30 AM


You would have been much more concise if you had just wrote: "I don't know".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-29-2013 9:30 AM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019