dorlomin Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 2 minutes ago, Cream Cheese said: Black holes are the opposite. According to our perfect theory, they can't possibly exist. I have already explained you are wrong. They were predicted by theory long long before being observed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#General_relativity -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted August 4, 2016 Author Share Posted August 4, 2016 1 minute ago, dorlomin said: Which other method is as successful as the scientific method? How do you measure the success of science, when it merely accepts theory as fact? 3 minutes ago, dorlomin said: Citation please. For what? Do you want me to point out a theory that is accepted as fact, although never proven? in that case, I give you the big bang. 3 minutes ago, dorlomin said: We were talking about the conservation of energy. A law that has had 200 years of phenomenal success in explaining the observable universe and critical to our engineering. Please cite a repeatable experiment that contradicts this law. I shall be curt here. You are an uneducated buffoon and will produce zero evidence to back up your incoherent rambling. It's not an issue of experimentation. it's how we choose to interpret what we witness. Countless experiments showed that the universe should be slowing down in it's expansion. But for reasons that science can't explain, it is expanding at an increasingly faster rate. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted August 4, 2016 Author Share Posted August 4, 2016 6 minutes ago, dorlomin said: I have already explained you are wrong. They were predicted by theory long long before being observed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#General_relativity It still doesn't address the fact that black holes completely defy our understanding of physics and the existence that surrounds us. Unless we somehow figure out exactly what happens within a black hole and how it is possible for it to do how it does. Then our understanding of our very physical existence will continue to be poorly understood. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Just now, Cream Cheese said: How do you measure the success of science, when it merely accepts theory as fact? For what? Do you want me to point out a theory that is accepted as fact, although never proven? in that case, I give you the big bang. Firstly I have already stated, Quote In science nothing is ever proven, but there are very clear differing levels of evidence and acceptance. While multitudes of wild possibilities are "possible" you have to have a clear hypothesis that provides a mathematical description of an observable phenomena that is open to reproducible falsification tests that has better predictive power than competing hypothesis and meets the test of Occam's Razor before its considered in the running to be an accepted part of science. And the success of germ theory in eradicating disease. The success of Newtonian mechanics in predicting everything from the motion of the planets to snooker balls moving. The success of the theory of plate tectonics in explaining the movement of the continents. The theories of quantum mechanics in predicting the usability of nuclear fission The success of the theory of quantum mechanics in explaining Pauli's exclusion principle that makes the lasers work that sends you bullshyte down broadband. The success of quantum mechanics in predicting the existance of semi conductors that make the processor on your PC, Mac or phone work. The success of Maxwell equations. The successes of the Laws of Thermodynamics and on and on and on and fucking on. Nothing in history compares to this long list of successes. Quote It's not an issue of experimentation. it's how we choose to interpret what we witness No its not. You are simply too stupid to understand what I have been saying. Name a single repeatable experiment that contradicts the laws of conservation of energy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 12 minutes ago, Cream Cheese said: Black holes are the opposite. According to our perfect theory, they can't possibly exist. 7 minutes ago, Cream Cheese said: It still doesn't address the fact that black holes completely defy our understanding of physics and the existence that surrounds us. You seem to be babbling different things between posts. And you have zero citations. Almost as if you were talking out your arse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Just now, dorlomin said: "None of anything " did they teach you that when you were doing your PhD at MIT? For a start we can see the light from the "surface of last* scattering". (*I erroneously called this first earlier, my bad folks) Thats it, the moment when the universe cooled enough to allow light to move. We can see the lithium\hydrogen ratio in the universe and that fits very closely with other theoretical calculations of nucleogenesis in the early universe. The visible universe we currently see was the size of a proton There is perhaps an infinity large universe beyond that we cannot see and when you condense that down it would also still be infinite. So why do we have a picture of the surface of last scattering? Newtonian motion was created by applied mathematics. It is good enough to put a man on the Moon and keep aircraft in the sky. Do you suggest we use astrology or ouja boards? Oh dear God? theoretical?, that's the key phrase Dorlomin. As for your scattering pic?, it's just like looking at a picture of the Earth's light pollution from space. It means nothing to me other than the boffins managed to put together some equipment that picked up a tiny tiny fraction of visible space by it's limitations. It neither tells us anything about the origins of the universe other than it fits the boffins mathematical equations on how they perceive how everything came into being. We don't know how the universe and everything it came into being, although some mathematical boffins managed to fit into their equations how they think it all happened and then passed it onto the public at large as fact because some other boffins agreed with the math. Most likely down the line in the future some other smarter boffin will completely unravel everything that the previous boffins said was fact. I will add that things act differently under particular conditions that you would not even think at all possible at the time because there wasn't the mathematical know how to predict it could ever happen. PS I'm not a PHD or other, it is a pet subject at times that gets my attention and I do not take everything as gospel until I have actually seen the proof of and not that the theory fits so therefore it exists. I had a great physicist at my college who explained how things that you are told are real weren't or aren't really true because it hasn't been found. created or otherwise. Personally I'm not convinced by the boffins on some fronts where the only evidence they have is a set of equations that theorises it can exist so therefore only look in that tiny tiny tiny point until they calibrate their equipment to support their findings. There will and could be more energies we do not even know about at this point in time and go well beyond current mathematical parameters because we as a species could not comprehend how infinite the possibilities are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, hellbhoy said: It means nothing to me "I am too thick to understand this so it must be wrong" Quote PS I'm not a PHD or other, it is a pet subject at times that gets my attention Really you are not a Ph.D in Cosmology. You had me fooled. And such a pet subject you have never heard of the Cosmic Background Radiation. Almost as if you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. What kind of idiot would claim something they are clueless about was a "pet subject"? Quote I had a great physicist at my college who explained how things that you are told are real weren't or aren't really true because it hasn't been found. Was that the famed Professor Rab C Nesbitt? Edited August 4, 2016 by dorlomin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 It was generally accepted that the earth was flat at some point. I'm not going to accept something as absolute fact, just because it's written in text books. I leave all possibilities open to debate. Everything is impossible, until it happens. Absolutely. And that's why text books are regularly revised. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Have the "free energy' generators popped up yet or even one example , found on planet earth, that contradicts the first law of thermodynamics ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Oh dear God? theoretical?, that's the key phrase Dorlomin. As for your scattering pic?, it's just like looking at a picture of the Earth's light pollution from space. It means nothing to me other than the boffins managed to put together some equipment that picked up a tiny tiny fraction of visible space by it's limitations. You clearly don't understand what that image represents if you think it is a "tiny fraction of space". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Have the "free energy' generators popped up yet or even one example , found on planet earth, that contradicts the first law of thermodynamics ? No and they never will. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 2 minutes ago, Todders said: You clearly don't understand what that image represents if you think it is a "tiny fraction of space". I find it all rather strange, especially the fact that it is attributed to the universe when it was only 380,000 years old. Not 380,011 or 379,877 but precisely 380,000. Now that is rather convenient. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 I don't think anybody ever claimed it was "exactly" 380,000 years old. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 37 minutes ago, dorlomin said: "I am too thick to understand this so it must be wrong" Really you are not a Ph.D in Cosmology. You had me fooled. And such a pet subject you have never heard of the Cosmic Background Radiation. Almost as if you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. What kind of idiot would claim something they are clueless about was a "pet subject"? Was that the famed Professor Rab C Nesbitt? Nice one Dor Simply put, you are passing of theory as fact quite a lot on the thread. I have put forward another way of thinking that everything isn't quite what it appears to be at times because many variables are omitted in the quest to achieve quantified answers. If you had just added "current theory suggests" & "calculations point to", in particular topics I won't have a problem. What I do have a problem with is being given probability as fact. You completely missed the light pollution bit didn't you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 25 minutes ago, AUFC90 said: Have the "free energy' generators popped up yet or even one example , found on planet earth, that contradicts the first law of thermodynamics ? OK, very funny and no surprise you don't know in which context it is meant. It's free energy in a financial sense, if you do not have to pay in money for the source then it is then considered free energy. That any better and what is meant by free energy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 23 minutes ago, Todders said: You clearly don't understand what that image represents if you think it is a "tiny fraction of space". That's the problem ffs, no one knows how vast the universe is. Secondly, how the fcuk do they know that their findings/readings are accurate? Next decade we might and probably will get a different picture because some other smart arse came up with new theories based on newer mathematical solutions that do not follow current conventional theories because the accepted way of thinking was too narrow because they didn't or wouldn't accept that anything else was possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 3 minutes ago, hellbhoy said: Simply put, you are passing of theory as fact Quote In science nothing is ever proven, but there are very clear differing levels of evidence and acceptance. While multitudes of wild possibilities are "possible" you have to have a clear hypothesis that provides a mathematical description of an observable phenomena that is open to reproducible falsification tests that has better predictive power than competing hypothesis and meets the test of Occam's Razor before its considered in the running to be an accepted part of science. Quote I have put forward another way of thinking that everything isn't quite what it appears to be at times because many variables are omitted No you have boasted your ignorance as an argument. Quote As for your scattering pic?, it's just like looking at a picture of the Earth's light pollution from space. Quote What I do have a problem with is being given probability as fact No citation offered, claim dismissed. Quote . You completely missed the light pollution bit didn't you? I am sure you think that way. That is the prerogative of someone who is clearly ignorant of science and too stupid to admit they are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 (edited) For anyone interested you can do the calculations to determine the point when the universe ceased to be dense enough that any light was constantly absorbed by matter, you can also do the measurements to examine the distribution of the Cosmic Background Radiation. You could do all this and explain the flaws or your could just sit around hurling abuse at what you do not understand, each reader will have to make guesses at who is doing that. Edited August 4, 2016 by dorlomin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 17 minutes ago, dorlomin said: No you have boasted your ignorance as an argument. No citation offered, claim dismissed. I am sure you think that way. That is the prerogative of someone who is clearly ignorant of science and too stupid to admit they are. Seriously? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 40 minutes ago, hellbhoy said: That's the problem ffs, no one knows how vast the universe is. Secondly, how the fcuk do they know that their findings/readings are accurate? Next decade we might and probably will get a different picture because some other smart arse came up with new theories based on newer mathematical solutions that do not follow current conventional theories because the accepted way of thinking was too narrow because they didn't or wouldn't accept that anything else was possible. That image is not defined by mathematical theories or equations. It is an image of the actual cosmic microwave background radiation across the entire sky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.