 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / June 2007Podcast Interview with Halton Arp
Dr. Arp talks with Electric Politics about his observations of red- shift and his thoughts regarding what that means for cosmology and science generally. http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2007/06/a_stellar_heresy.html On Jun 3, 8:45 am, georgeken...@gmail.com wrote: > Dr. Arp talks with Electric Politics about his observations of red- > shift and his thoughts regarding what that means for cosmology and > science generally. > > http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2007/06/a_stellar_heresy.html "Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps. He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherentiredshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of a quasar's total redshift." http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm Double-A > http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm > > Double-A Yep we know and its not accepted for a variety of reasons. One being that SNR's show time dilation consistent with z.  SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). > "Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made > up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity > component....." 1) Spectra of high-z galaxies, when shifted back into their rest frame, match the spectra for local galaxies 2) HST observations of these objects confirms high-z counterparts to low-z galaxies 3) More modern observations of QSO's using better quality equipment shows no problem with QSO redshifts and supposed "connections" and bridges such as in Stephens Quintet are easily explained 4) No redshift quantisation (bear a trace due to clustering) has been found (Tang, Su Min; Zhang, Shuang Nan, "Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data", in The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 633, Issue 1, pp. 41-51 (2005)) and most importantly 5) Blows a huge hole in your claim the "physics cabal" surpress heretic ideas. Arp works for the Max Planck Institute. SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). > and most importantly Why are you working so hard to protect that which is wrong puddleduck? Does it pay you better than the truth? > > and most importantly > > Why are you working so hard to protect that which is wrong puddleduck? Why is it wrong, oh loony rainbow bright? > Does it pay you better than the truth? BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). >>and most importantly > > Why are you working so hard to protect that which is wrong puddleduck? > > Does it pay you better than the truth? More to the point, once the wrong ideas are demonstrated to be such, such as those of Dr. Arp, why do you continue to take his side. Is modern physics too far above your head to understand? > More to the point, once the wrong ideas are demonstrated to be such, > such as those of Dr. Arp, why do you continue to take his side. Is > modern physics too far above your head to understand? I guess that's a rhetorical question to Zanthius ;-) SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). > More to the point, once the wrong ideas are demonstrated to be such, > such as those of Dr. Arp, why do you continue to take his side. Is > modern physics too far above your head to understand? I didnt exactly say that I was protecting Dr. Arp. But I am definately not protecting logical inconsistencies. To do that would be far below my head. > > More to the point, once the wrong ideas are demonstrated to be such, > > such as those of Dr. Arp, why do you continue to take his side. Is > > modern physics too far above your head to understand? > > I didnt exactly say that I was protecting Dr. Arp. You implied it loon. > But I am definately not protecting logical inconsistencies. To do that > would be far below my head. Well that agrees with where you appear to be speaking from. SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). The big bang theory is not a logical coherent system. There is logical inconsistencies between curved spacetime and a definite lightspeed. There is logical inconsistencies with a definite date for the big bang, if there was no spacetime before the big bang. And most importantly, the big bang theory is not a system in complete equilibrium, which implies that it lacks logical harmony and elegance. > The big bang theory is not a logical coherent system. nonsense > There is logical inconsistencies between curved spacetime and a > definite lightspeed. nonsense > There is logical inconsistencies with a definite date for the big > bang, if there was no spacetime before the big bang. nonsense > And most importantly, the big bang theory is not a system in complete > equilibrium, which implies that it lacks logical harmony and elegance. nonsense SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). > nonsense So logical coherency is about belief? You cannot make the big bang theory into a logical coherent system just by believing so. > > nonsense > > So logical coherency is about belief? > > You cannot make the big bang theory into a logical coherent system > just by believing so. You don't understand it. SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). > You don't understand it. That is right. I only understand logical coherency, complete equilibrium, harmony, elegance, and such things. > > You don't understand it. > > That is right. I only understand logical coherency, complete > equilibrium, harmony, elegance, and such things. You forgot "and talking new age bollocks" SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). > You forgot "and talking new age bollocks" Except for the fact that I am not living under the delusion, that there is such a thing as different ages, on a universal scale. Only at the level of a star, or below, is time divided into different ages. > > You forgot "and talking new age bollocks" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Only at the level of a star, or below, is time divided into different > ages. MORE new age bollocks! SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). > MORE new age bollocks! Well, why not accept the name given to my system by mortals, as their way of understanding it. I guess that my system indeed must symbolize something new, to mere mortals. > > MORE new age bollocks! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I guess that my system indeed must symbolize something new, to mere > mortals. No, its just old bollocks. SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). > No, its just old bollocks. So now it is old age bollocks? Why not call it any age bollocks instead? > > No, its just old bollocks. > > So now it is old age bollocks? > > Why not call it any age bollocks instead? Or .. even simpler.... "bollocks" SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). > Or .. even simpler.... "bollocks" Or just call it what it really is. You can do it! Read it loud: "L-O-G-I-C-A-L C-O-H-E-R-E-N-C-Y" > > Or .. even simpler.... "bollocks" > > Or just call it what it really is. > > You can do it! Read it loud: "L-O-G-I-C-A-L C-O-H-E-R-E-N-C-Y" You misspelled "B-O-L-L-O-C-K-S" SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). > You misspelled "B-O-L-L-O-C-K-S" You cannot make logical coherency into bollocks, just by belief. Logical coherency has nothing to do with belief. > > You misspelled "B-O-L-L-O-C-K-S" > > You cannot make logical coherency into bollocks, just by belief. > > Logical coherency has nothing to do with belief. Yet you believe it is.... You believe I should consider something just because you do. SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). > Yet you believe it is.... You believe I should consider something just because > you do. I am not believing anything. Logical coherency has nothing to do with belief. > > Yet you believe it is.... You believe I should consider something just > > because [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Logical coherency has nothing to do with belief. Round and round the garden............ SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). >>nonsense > > So logical coherency is about belief? > > You cannot make the big bang theory into a logical coherent system > just by believing so. But it is a logical coherent system based on current physics and based on current observation - there are no reported observations inconsistent with its basic premise. > But it is a logical coherent system based on current physics and based > on current observation - there are no reported observations inconsistent > with its basic premise. You know, you can make any system look coherent to the current scientifical observations, just by filling in large amounts of "dark matter" and "dark energy", to explain the gaps. >>But it is a logical coherent system based on current physics and based >>on current observation - there are no reported observations inconsistent [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > scientifical observations, just by filling in large amounts of "dark > matter" and "dark energy", to explain the gaps. Nice try, but the consistency comes from making predictions with the theory and then making observations that are consistent with those predictions. Dark matter has some testable possibilities, as does dark energy. Likely those will be discovered as well. > Nice try, but the consistency comes from making predictions with the > theory and then making observations that are consistent with those > predictions. Dark matter has some testable possibilities, as does dark > energy. Likely those will be discovered as well. Yes, and the sun is orbiting the earth, and you are soon going to find evidence for the "missing planet", to prove that theory as well. >> Nice try, but the consistency comes from making predictions with the >> theory and then making observations that are consistent with those [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yes, and the sun is orbiting the earth, and you are soon going to find >evidence for the "missing planet", to prove that theory as well. Ah, so you are also a Planet X kook, not at all a surprise. [++alt.fan.art-bell] SignatureSupreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco "Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum." -- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief "Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and ice cold beer." -- Brad Guth, bigoted racist "You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco." --Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something" >>Nice try, but the consistency comes from making predictions with the >>theory and then making observations that are consistent with those [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, and the sun is orbiting the earth, and you are soon going to find > evidence for the "missing planet", to prove that theory as well. And you have offered nothing to demonstrate current theories incorrect. Simply stating it does not prove it. So, the handwaving seems to come from your direction. > The big bang theory is not a logical coherent system. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And most importantly, the big bang theory is not a system in complete > equilibrium, which implies that it lacks logical harmony and elegance. You make claims but you cannot provide direct proof. Is it possible the inconsistencies you perceive comefrom your lack of understanding of the physics behind these? Or is it that you don't understand the observational evidence supporting modern contentions? > You make claims but you cannot provide direct proof. Is it possible the > inconsistencies you perceive comefrom your lack of understanding of the > physics behind these? Or is it that you don't understand the > observational evidence supporting modern contentions? How do you know that I cannot provide direct proof? Even Einstein said that the constant lightspeed was invalid in regard to the effects of gravity. You see, if the spacetime continuum is curved itself, it will also affect the light. And as for the second argument. In order for the big bang to be released at at a certain moment in time, it must be released from some kind of spacetime, or it would never be triggered. How is an event supposed to be triggered in time, if there is no time? The third argument should be quite obvious, even to you. You do know that according to the big bang theory the universe is expanding, and evolving entropically? This is not a system in complete equilibrium. >> You make claims but you cannot provide direct proof. Is it possible the >> inconsistencies you perceive comefrom your lack of understanding of the >> physics behind these? Or is it that you don't understand the >> observational evidence supporting modern contentions? > >How do you know that I cannot provide direct proof? To date all you've supplied are swirly rainbow gifs and goofy java music with frothy declarations that you are superior to everyone else. SignatureSupreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco "Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum." -- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief "Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and ice cold beer." -- Brad Guth, bigoted racist "You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco." --Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something" > To date all you've supplied are swirly rainbow gifs and goofy java > music with frothy declarations that you are superior to everyone else. There is no declaration of being superior to you, if you are able to discern the logical inconsistencies. How are you supposed to understand any logical proof at all, if you are incapable of comprehending logical coherency? On Jun 4, 1:03 pm, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote: > > To date all you've supplied are swirly rainbow gifs and goofy java > > music with frothy declarations that you are superior to everyone else. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How are you supposed to understand any logical proof at all, if you > are incapable of comprehending logical coherency? Accepting the mysterious doctrines of modern physics takes great faith, Zanthias. Yet such men of faith abound. Double-A >On Jun 4, 1:03 pm, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote: >> > To date all you've supplied are swirly rainbow gifs and goofy java [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Double-A Bullshit. It takes a lot of study, which you saucerheads are too lazy to do. You'd rather wallow in goofy word salads that have zero basis in fact rather than educate yourselves and learn some truth. And whining about idiotic "physics cabals" while positing your Flowing Space Theology. One again, the irony of you accusing modern physics of being a "faith" is overwhelming. SignatureSupreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco "Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum." -- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief "Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and ice cold beer." -- Brad Guth, bigoted racist "You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco." --Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something" >>On Jun 4, 1:03 pm, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote: >>> > To date all you've supplied are swirly rainbow gifs and goofy java [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Space Theology. One again, the irony of you accusing modern physics of > being a "faith" is overwhelming. God does not play dice with pickles. > >>On Jun 4, 1:03 pm, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> > To date all you've supplied are swirly rainbow gifs and goofy java [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > God does not play dice with pickles. Was this a revelation? Double-A > On Jun 4, 1:03 pm, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Double-A They only seem mysterious to those that lack the background to understand the physics. Unfortunately, they are the ones that abound. >>You make claims but you cannot provide direct proof. Is it possible the >>inconsistencies you perceive comefrom your lack of understanding of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > kind of spacetime, or it would never be triggered. How is an event > supposed to be triggered in time, if there is no time? And your testable solution to this question would be.... ? Modern physics can go back to about 10^-43 seconds after the initial expansion. But as an expansion of space and time, a zero for either or both, that is not addressed yet. So, again, the ball is now in your court. Can you demonstrate the answer in a testable, verifiable way? > The third argument should be quite obvious, even to you. You do know > that according to the big bang theory the universe is expanding, and > evolving entropically? This is not a system in complete equilibrium. Oh but it is perfectly fine from an entropy standpoint. You not seeing it comes from your lack of understanding of entropy (or your attempt to use a simplistic explanation of it). > Oh but it is perfectly fine from an entropy standpoint. You not seeing > it comes from your lack of understanding of entropy (or your attempt to > use a simplistic explanation of it). Entropic evolution for a complete system, like the universe, does not indicate a system in complete equilibrium. You need a reversed entropic evolution to keep the entire system in complete equilibrium. How is hydrogen being generated in the universe, according to your theory? >From the big bang, but what gave energy to the big bang? > So, again, the ball is now in your court. Can you demonstrate the > answer in a testable, verifiable way? There is only 2 possibilites for what could have generated your delusional big bang. Possibility one, is that everything in the universe was unified into a spatial singularity. Possibility two, is that your little big bang bubble was created by an external force, but then your big bang theory, is just a little bubble inside of the real universe, which goes beyond your little big bang bubble. There is going to be no revelation on the complete equilibrium of the universe, until you get eaten by a supermassive black hole. Even the strongest drugs, can only change your perception a portion of what a supermassive black hole will do. >>So, again, the ball is now in your court. Can you demonstrate the >>answer in a testable, verifiable way? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > inside of the real universe, which goes beyond your little big bang > bubble. There are ideas that posit multiverses. The problem is that such multiverses would be causally disconnected from each other. If so, that would move them beyond the knowable. But those are just ideas and are untestable. But, you have failed to disprove anything - simple handwaving is all you possess. > But, you have failed to disprove anything - simple handwaving is all you > possess. There is a fundamental law, saying that a complete system, like the entire universe, must be in complete equilibrium. If you follow the energy that originated from your delusional big bang backwards, it must lead to somewhere. Energy dont just pop-up from nowhere. It is either from a spatial singularity or an external source. > Energy dont just pop-up from nowhere. It is either from a spatial > singularity or an external source. \delta E \delta t \approx \frac{\hbar}{2} SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). > Energy dont just pop-up from nowhere. It is either from a spatial > singularity or an external source. actually it can pop up from nowhere the greater the energy the less probable its appearance but given enough time arf meow arf - nsa fodder al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him > actually it can pop up from nowhere > > the greater the energy the less probable its appearance > but given enough time Incorrect answer. An external source is not from "nowhere". You morons perceive the universe to be without any order and structure. If there is no order and structure, than all of your sciences are completely worthless. I am not taking this stupid discussion again. Empirically untraceable ! = Absolutely random. Also, taking into consideration that you believe that there was no time before your delusional big bang. If the entire universe was unified in a spatial singularity, how quickly would time flow there? How is then time supposed to build up the probability for such an delusional event? When there is no flow of time, before your delusional big bang. > You morons perceive the universe to be without any order and > structure. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I am not taking this stupid discussion again. Empirically untraceable ! > = Absolutely random. BWAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA SignatureCOOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only). > > actually it can pop up from nowhere > > > > the greater the energy the less probable its appearance > > but given enough time > > Incorrect answer. An external source is not from "nowhere". if your external source is not visible nor in anyway detectable then positing it is a matter of religion arf meow arf - nsa fodder al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him > if your external source is not visible nor in anyway detectable > then positing it is a matter of religion Religion? No. Logic? Yes. It is possible to trace events logically, not only empirically. Of course, this logical faculty seems to be very poorly developed in human beings like you. > > if your external source is not visible nor in anyway detectable > > then positing it is a matter of religion [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Of course, this logical faculty seems to be very poorly developed in > human beings like you. so are we talking classical logic here? i kind of like constructivist without the excluded middle but theyre much harder to work with arf meow arf - nsa fodder al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him > so are we talking classical logic here? If the probability for one of your delusional big bangs to occur, increases with the amount of time. Then, allthough supposedly there was no flow of time before your delusional big bang. You might conclude that energy must be building up, somewhere beyond your knowledge, while you are waiting for your delusional big bang. > > so are we talking classical logic here? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > up, somewhere beyond your knowledge, while you are waiting for your > delusional big bang. youre claiming that the set of uncaused events must be empty because --- well youre not actually explain why it must be empty quantum mechanics has shown a counterexample so we know the set of uncaused events is nonempty whether the universe is one of those and different from a vacuum fluctuation is not the point merely your claim that events must have cause is false now explain logic to me i have other beliefs but i also know we dont need some first cause it is possible nothing is caused all is coincidence arf meow arf - nsa fodder al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him > quantum mechanics has shown a counterexample > so we know the set of uncaused events is nonempty The only thing you know, is that you dont know the cause of the event. Predicted verification, shows me that the universe is ordered and structuralized. I move my arm upwards, and it moves upwards. A verification of how the universe is non random. > > quantum mechanics has shown a counterexample > > so we know the set of uncaused events is nonempty [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I move my arm upwards, and it moves upwards. A verification of how the > universe is non random. gosh youre so logical arf meow arf - nsa fodder al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him > youre so logical More so to the point. Your belief that certain events are non causual, is a matter of religion, not science. > Your belief that certain events are non causual, is a matter of > religion, not science. And it is a very bad type of religion too. It is the type of religion where you just "accept the delusion that events are random", instead of investigating and trying to find the causes. > > Your belief that certain events are non causual, is a matter of > > religion, not science. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > events are random", instead of investigating and trying to find the > causes. it keeps going and going and going and going arf meow arf - nsa fodder al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> pinched out a steaming pile of<mair_fheal- 5B5E17.07034208062007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>: >> > Your belief that certain events are non causual, is a matter of >> > religion, not science. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >it keeps going and going and going and going Maybe hes trying to suggest that everything is the result of quantum entanglement? > merely your claim that events must have cause is false Yes, and as the entire universe is without any structure and logic according to your belief that effects are non causual. All of your sciences are completely worthless, as there are no laws governing the universe. Infact, the universe is completely random, and events occur without a cause. Therefore, the study of science is nothing but a waste of time. > now explain logic to me When you say that events are non causual. We can deduce with logic, that all of your sciences are completely worthless. zanthius.dxun@gmail.com pinched out a steaming pile of<1181307991.763119.122340@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>: >> merely your claim that events must have cause is false > >Yes, and as the entire universe is without any structure and logic >according to your belief that effects are non causual. Humans impose structure and logic upon events which are sufficeintly complex enough to appear random. >All of your sciences are completely worthless, as there are no laws >governing the universe. "Laws"? How about well researched and defined reliable phenomena which occur when the necessary states exist for such occurance? >Infact, the universe is completely random, and events occur without a >cause. I agree that there is no Prime Mover but all events have some explainable causality. >Therefore, the study of science is nothing but a waste of time. If you're too stupid to understand the complex explanations, sure. I'm pretty retarded but I can still see how basic things like inertia and velocity can produce stunning results :) >> now explain logic to me > >When you say that events are non causual. You just did so your self :) >We can deduce with logic, that all of your sciences are completely >worthless. Now thats just silly... >>merely your claim that events must have cause is false > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Therefore, the study of science is nothing but a waste of time. To the contrary - we know much more about the universe than we did when logicians attempted to explain it - some of their conclusions lead to the religious delusions we are awash with today. One of the findings is that chaos is not excluded from this universe. And, we continue to push the edge beyond which we can apply our current physics back closer to the beginning. The breakthrough may come with the theory of everything that current physicists are attempting to put together. That remains to be seen. But, the point still remains that you have not demonstrated anything testable to write off the big bang. You simply are butting your head against the same barrier we now face in physics and wave your hands in concession. The difference between you and intelligent beings is that we will not see this barrier as such, simply a set-back like others overcome in the past by not giving up when others said we should. > But, the point still remains that you have not demonstrated anything > testable to write off the big bang. That the big bang is a delusion is obvious to everyone that are intelligent enough to understand it. Just like there are a lot of things that are obvious to people with a higher IQ, that seems to be difficult to understand for people with a lower IQ. >>But, the point still remains that you have not demonstrated anything >>testable to write off the big bang. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > higher IQ, that seems to be difficult to understand for people with a > lower IQ. Then apparently you are in the lower catagory. And the real delusion is that you don't think you are. > One of the findings is that chaos is not excluded from this universe. Definitely not beyond your perception. The more stupid you are, the more chaotic the universe seems to be. > > One of the findings is that chaos is not excluded from this universe. > > Definitely not beyond your perception. The more stupid you are, the > more chaotic the universe seems to be. chaos is inherent the more order you impose the greater chaos you get when you know the goddess then you know this is true at any rate its as true as any other lie dont be gray be gay arf meow arf - nsa fodder al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him > the more order you impose > the greater chaos you get The more order you impose upon a piece of iron, the more magnetic it gets. Crystalline diamonds looks prettier than amorphous coal, because they are ordered in a crystalline structure. If there was such a thing as a goddess, allthough there is only one God, she definitely would have had symmetry in her face. http://www.dxun.org/members/electricity.php > > the more order you impose > > the greater chaos you get > > The more order you impose upon a piece of iron, the more magnetic it > gets. you get a magnet from cooling chaotic fluid in a strong fluid > Crystalline diamonds looks prettier than amorphous coal, because they > are ordered in a crystalline structure. you get diamonds by applying heat and pressure in a chaotic environment from chaotic carbon > If there was such a thing as a goddess, allthough there is only one > God, she definitely would have had symmetry in her face. only a fool denies eris and her power arf meow arf - nsa fodder al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him > only a fool denies eris and her power One man can impregnate a thousand females in one year, but a female can only be impregnated by one man. Why would a man care about just one woman, when he can impregnate as many as he wants? Praying to discordia, is like praying to win in lotto. Only a fool gives his life away to chance. It is not even morally correct to get something unless you deserve it. > > only a fool denies eris and her power > > One man can impregnate a thousand females in one year, but a female > can only be impregnated by one man. one face can launch a thousand ship one apple can launch a war kallisti arf meow arf - nsa fodder al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him > one face can launch a thousand ship > one apple can launch a war Is'nt it a bit egoistical, to just give the best sperm to one woman, instead of sharing it with all of them? > > one face can launch a thousand ship > > one apple can launch a war > > Is'nt it a bit egoistical, to just give the best sperm to one woman, > instead of sharing it with all of them? and then theres you and your stack of hustlers arf meow arf - nsa fodder al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him Zan A magnet is a metal surrounded by a field of virtual photons. This field aliens the electrons in a north south direction (all magnets have two poles. We see the fields lines of force using iron fillings Electric current flowing through a wire can produce an an electric field around it. To take away this field hit the magnet with a hammer,or get it red hot. Some metals have electrons that will not produce a magnetic field (stainless steel) Liquids having magnetic properties are useful. You can make magnetic Jello Magnetisim and electricity are two sides to the same coin. bert >>the more order you impose >>the greater chaos you get [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If there was such a thing as a goddess, allthough there is only one > God, she definitely would have had symmetry in her face. Yet, like there is neither, so imposing some sort of symmetry on that which does not exist is blowing smoke. Entropy in the universe forces the universe to become increasing disordered over time, and not always in a predictable manner. Local structure is fine and good, but it does not extend to the whole. > Yet, like there is neither, so imposing some sort of symmetry on that > which does not exist is blowing smoke. Tell that to the little cells inside of your body too. If you are lucky, they might start to believe that you don't exist, and turn into cancer cells. Zan I like your idea creating more order can make a stronger magnetic field. Lots of disorder in a live frog,or mice,but they do have some magnetisin in them,for they can be levitated by a magnetic field. Electrons in parrel unison can be made to do work. Electrons moving in one direction I can relate to soldiers marching in one direction. If they are moving in every direction at once its complete chaos,and all work(energy) gets cancelled out. Chaos could be used by nature as part of her balancing act. bert >>Yet, like there is neither, so imposing some sort of symmetry on that >>which does not exist is blowing smoke. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you are lucky, they might start to believe that you don't exist, > and turn into cancer cells. As I said, order locally is not the same as order universally. We perceive the order because we want to impose control over what we perceive. But that is us imposing the order, not the preexistence of it. >>>the more order you impose >>>the greater chaos you get >> >> The more order you impose upon a piece of iron, the more magnetic it >> gets. Does increasing the mass of the magnet Fe automatically increase the strength of the magnet in a direct proportion to the mass? >> Crystalline diamonds looks prettier than amorphous coal, because they >> are ordered in a crystalline structure. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >disordered over time, and not always in a predictable manner. Local >structure is fine and good, but it does not extend to the whole. However when entropy is reach all that matters is the universe open or closed. SignatureBob Officer COOSN-266-06-01986 Hammer of Thor, Sept 2005 >>One of the findings is that chaos is not excluded from this universe. > > Definitely not beyond your perception. The more stupid you are, the > more chaotic the universe seems to be. Thanks for demonstrating you haven't a clue about that of which you speak. Chaos is inherent in the universe. It is humans that attempt to put some sort of order on it. We think so highly of ourselves that we think we can understand everything if we just compartmentalize it. We can at best approach an understanding in that way, but then find what we thought we knew is not really valid. So, at best, the big bang models of the universe approach a level of understanding the universe not realized since we first started crawling out of caves and evoked supernatural beings for the things observed. They are by no means complete, and may be demonstrated to be so through further observation. But, as I point out time and time again, your meager attempts are just that - meager. They demonstrate more your lack of understanding of science/physics/astronomy than any real insight into the reality of the universe. > Thanks for demonstrating you haven't a clue about that of which you > speak. Chaos is inherent in the universe. It is definitely inherent in your perception of the universe. The larger your perception grows, the less chaotic the universe seems to be. A chaotic perception is the merely being unaware about where things are located, where they are coming from, and where they are going. The larger your perception grows, the more aware you become, about where things are located, where they are coming from, and where they are going. >>Thanks for demonstrating you haven't a clue about that of which you >>speak. Chaos is inherent in the universe. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > where things are located, where they are coming from, and where they > are going. Baloney - it is humans that attempt to put order on the universe. The universe is not beholden to us. At the large scale, one need only look at stars and their makeup to see the chaotic motion of the gasses that make them up. And, as one attempts to know more about the subatomic world, one finds one knows less about specifics such as location or velocity or time or energy. Our laws of physics attempt to make it all make sense to us, but at best they are approximations. > Baloney - it is humans that attempt to put order on the universe. The > universe is not beholden to us. At the large scale, one need only look > at stars and their makeup to see the chaotic motion of the gasses that > make them up. And, as one attempts to know more about the subatomic > world, one finds one knows less about specifics such as location or > velocity or time or energy. When you look more upon the subatomic world, your are only seening your own inability to compute the predictions. Why do you attempt to put randomness upon the universe, instead of upon your own perception? Because you attemt to explain the delusion of humans having free will? >> Baloney - it is humans that attempt to put order on the universe. The >> universe is not beholden to us. At the large scale, one need only look [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Because you attemt to explain the delusion of humans having free will? Do you ever make any sense? SignatureSupreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco Darth Deco, Sith Lord of alt.astronomy Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads for alt.astronomy Official alt.astronomy FAQ: <http://www.screedbomb.info/alt.astronomy/> "You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco." --Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something" > Do you ever make any sense? Not to you, and your useless and noxious kook awards. >> Do you ever make any sense? > >Not to you, and your useless and noxious kook awards. Who told you they are my awards? SignatureSupreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco Darth Deco, Sith Lord of alt.astronomy Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads for alt.astronomy Official alt.astronomy FAQ: <http://www.screedbomb.info/alt.astronomy/> "You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco." --Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something" In the Bible, the rainbow is a symbol of the covenant between God and man. In Greek mythology, the rainbow was considered to be a path made by a messenger (Iris) between Earth and Heaven. In Norse Mythology, a rainbow called the Bifr?st Bridge connects the realms of ?sgard and Midgard, homes of the gods and humans, respectively. Someday I'm finally gonna let go 'Cause I know there's a better way And I wonder what's over that rainbow I'm gonna get out of here someday In the Bible, the rainbow is a symbol of the covenant between God and man. In Greek mythology, the rainbow was considered to be a path made by a messenger (Iris) between Earth and Heaven. In Norse Mythology, a rainbow called the Bifröst Bridge connects the realms of Ásgard and Midgard, homes of the gods and humans, respectively. Someday I'm finally gonna let go 'Cause I know there's a better way And I wonder what's over that rainbow I'm gonna get out of here someday Deco will be going "Down"! HJ John \"C\ <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote: >In the Bible, the rainbow is a symbol of the covenant between God and >man. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Deco will be going "Down"! What are you obsessing about now, Clockbrain? SignatureSupreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco Darth Deco, Sith Lord of alt.astronomy Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads for alt.astronomy Official alt.astronomy FAQ: <http://www.screedbomb.info/alt.astronomy/> "You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco." --Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something" >In the Bible, the rainbow is a symbol of the covenant between God and >man. is a book of fictional fairy tales. >In Greek mythology, the rainbow was considered to be a path made by a >messenger (Iris) between Earth and Heaven. Still a mythology. a tale. fiction >In Norse Mythology, a rainbow called the Bifröst Bridge connects the >realms of Ásgard and Midgard, homes of the gods and humans, >respectively. Still fiction. SignatureBob Officer COOSN-266-06-01986 Hammer of Thor, Sept 2005 >>> Baloney - it is humans that attempt to put order on the universe. The >>> universe is not beholden to us. At the large scale, one need only look [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Do you ever make any sense? It doesn't seem so to me... It seems he uses big words for the same reason Edmond does. to appear smart or intelligent. Humans do not have "free will" nor do we have a "imposed fate". What we end up with is a web of events and series of choices and options. Those options and choices are the results of choices made by other people. We are all constrained by the actions of everyone before us and those around us. Those which follow us will only have choices and various options which we leave them or are created we those around them. It works to appear as a three dimensional web. All the people plucking and pulling on strings and everyone around them reacting to their motions. The strings behind you, are all the yester-minutes, the strings before your are the next instances. The more distance the future the more interactions can take place and less certain the future events will be. Simple isn't it... SignatureBob Officer COOSN-266-06-01986 Hammer of Thor, Sept 2005 > What we end up with is a web of events and series of choices and options. And where do you get the delusion of choice from? Has it ever occured to you that there is no such thing as a choice. Everybody always picks the choice that has generated most dominance inside of them, and this generation of dominance inside of people, is a completely deterministic process. > When you look more upon the subatomic world, your are only seening > your own inability to compute the predictions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Because you attemt to explain the delusion of humans having free will? I don't put anything upon the universe. The universe simply is. Attempts on our part to understand it require us to put order on it at some level in order that we might try to understand it. We in astronomy, for example, continue to try to find processes that we can explain based on previous observations. We can on one scale lump some of those observations together and draw conclusions. But on closer inspection, there are differences even within similar sets of observations. Similar, then, is not the same as "the same" - and that is the disorder within the universe. > I don't put anything upon the universe. The universe simply is. How do you claim to know that the universe is random, and not only seems random from your perception? If you get different outcomes from the same set of premisses, how do you know that you have included all the premisses? >>I don't put anything upon the universe. The universe simply is. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you get different outcomes from the same set of premisses, how do > you know that you have included all the premisses? Observation leads to that conclusion. > Observation leads to that conclusion. How can it lead to that conclusion? Don't you see that it is equally much leading to the conclusion that it only seems random from your perception, that you have unnoticed marginal differences in your premisses, or that not all of the premisses has been included? Observation leads you to see that it leads equally much to that conclusion, therefore you know nothing about if it is random in itself, or just seems random from your perception. >>Observation leads to that conclusion. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > conclusion, therefore you know nothing about if it is random in > itself, or just seems random from your perception. Unless you can provide proof that all premisses are not included, you are blowing smoke. If the solar system began again from first impact of shockwave (or waves) to final form, it is quite likely to be unlike the present one. That is randomness, pure and simple. No preordained conclusion. > Unless you can provide proof that all premisses are not included, you > are blowing smoke. You cannot provide any proof that all the premisses are included.. Or that there are no unnoticed marginal differences in your premisses. >>Unless you can provide proof that all premisses are not included, you >>are blowing smoke. > > You cannot provide any proof that all the premisses are included.. > > Or that there are no unnoticed marginal differences in your premisses. But you cannot provide any additional premises not included that would indicate that the Big Bang model is incorrect. Thus, claiming it is incorrect based on premises that are not accounted for is neither scientifically or philosophically correct. > But you cannot provide any additional premises not included that would > indicate that the Big Bang model is incorrect. Thus, claiming it is > incorrect based on premises that are not accounted for is neither > scientifically or philosophically correct. You cannot think in fully circulating structures, therefore you can only see the sector from your delusional big bang until now. What lies beyond that sector, is explained by computational unpredictability disguised as randomness. As if your little sector of the spacetime contiuum, is the entire universe. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message