Or.....

[dreadmoc]

A large number of students agreeing with (believing) their teacher doesn't make the teacher right, it just makes a lot more graduated students wrong. Wake up.

 

[dreadmoc]

You're obviously a fine gentleman and a person of great intellect. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />But infinity exists. Read my previous responses.<br /><br />Elcobar

 

[dreadmoc]

>I am only going to pick on this one right now <br /><br />(Thank God!!)<br /><br /> />it is precisely on the contrary, sci-fi writers got the idea of a 'wormhole, warped or folded space' from mainstream scientists<br /><br />Well, maybe not mainstream? You're probably right that the idea originated in a scientific mind. But the great sci-fi writer picked up on it, popularized it, and probably generated the most interest in the concept.<br /><br /> /> they would never have enough fantasy to think of it on their own, sci-fi writers always have very poor fantasy IMO <br /><br />You mean like Isaac Asimov?!<br /><br />Elcobar<br />

 

[dreadmoc]

>I am only going to pick on this one right now <br /><br />(Thank God!!)<br /><br /> />it is precisely on the contrary, sci-fi writers got the idea of a 'wormhole, warped or folded space' from mainstream scientists<br /><br />Well, maybe not mainstream? You're probably right that the idea originated in a scientific mind. But the great sci-fi writer picked up on it, popularized it, and probably generated the most interest in the concept.<br /><br /> /> they would never have enough fantasy to think of it on their own, sci-fi writers always have very poor fantasy IMO <br /><br />You mean like Isaac Asimov?!<br /><br />Elcobar<br />

 

[dreadmoc]

This is an excellent response. Thank you.<br /><br /> />I see. So, without any justification or explanation you're going to throw out over one hundred years of scientific theory? <br /><br />Certainly not. Scientific theory is fine. The key word being "THEORY", and I thank you for that clarification. I'm selling truth, not theory.<br /><br /> />So, let's address these four "truths" with some of the observations that run contrary to them, and have caused these same ideas to be discarded decades ago: <br /><br /> /> 1) Olber's paradox. <br /><br />Flawed logic. <br /><br /><br /> />...all distant galaxies are observed to be receeding from us, which contradicts what should be a random velocity dispersion in an infinite and eternal universe. <br /><br />Not necessarily. You're only looking at a small piece of the Universe.<br /><br /><br /> />Time dilation and length contraction crop up everywhere. If they were false, many things we use today wouldn't work very well at all (For instance modern computers and GPS) <br /><br />Sorry. You're wrong.<br /><br /> />3) Okay, this is just plain unsupported claims. There are no "bangs" required to convert matter into energy. <br /><br />Trees convert energy into matter constantly. Human bodies likewise convert matter into energy. Bangs are just the Universes greatest storage batteries releasing their energy, which is converted back to matter (mostly).<br /><br />When matter is shredded in a black hole it is stored as energy that cannot escape the gravity well. When it is eventually released it's similar to a bolt of lightning (somewhat larger in scale). We call it a bang.<br /><br /> />black holes....and their existence are invalidated by many of the claims you made in your post. <br /> <br />I made no such claim - exactly the opposite. Bangs are the disolution of massive blackholes, as I explained in the previous paragraph.<br /><br />Try not to take exception to these truths, basing your protests on theories that cannot be thoroughly sub

 

[dreadmoc]

Opps! I missed this:<br /><br /> />So, let's address these four "truths" with some of the observations that run contrary to them, and have caused these same ideas to be discarded decades ago: <br /> Discarded truths!? Do we call this Saiphs Paradox? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Elcobar<br />

 

[usn_skwerl]

your ego's writing checks your "truths" cant cash. <br /><br />for some odd reason, the name Veruca Salt has embedded itsself in my head...how strange.[/sarcasm] <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Hmmmm, this is sounding more like "He said, She said" than any valid line of inquiry.<br /><br /><font color="orange">Olber's paradox. <br /></font><br />gets this response ...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Flawed logic.</font><br /><br />and <br /><br /><font color="orange">all distant galaxies are observed to be receeding from us, which contradicts what should be a random velocity dispersion in an infinite and eternal universe.<br /></font><br />gets us ....<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Not necessarily. You're only looking at a small piece of the Universe.</font><br /><br />and <br /><br /><font color="orange">Time dilation and length contraction crop up everywhere. If they were false, many things we use today wouldn't work very well at all (For instance modern computers and GPS)<br /></font><br />gets us ....<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Sorry. You're wrong.</font><br /><br />and then we have this ....<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Trees convert energy into matter constantly. Human bodies likewise convert matter into energy. Bangs are just the Universes greatest storage batteries releasing their energy, which is converted back to matter (mostly). </font><br /><br />So let me respond by saying that if you want anyone to "buy" the "truth" <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> you're selling you're going to have to have a better sales pitch. What's flawed with the logic and what's wrong with the observations of time dilation ? Hopefully you've got some rationale for your beliefs and can support them in some better fashion than mere assertion.<br /><br />Regarding looking at only a small part of the universe ... I'd say we're looking at all the parts we can see. Again if you <b>know</b> that the universe beyond what we can see acts differently then let us know how it is that you come to <b>know</b> this.<br /><br />Lastly about trees converting energy into matter ... Aaaw, I hope you're just kidding here. Yo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

"A large number of students agreeing with (believing) their teacher doesn't make the teacher right, it just makes a lot more graduated students wrong. Wake up."<br /><br />Wake up to what precisely? I'm an amateur, posting on the internets, who happens to be interested in physics. I'm also quite the iconoclast if I put my mind to it. All I can say is, I've been interested in and informally studying relativity since the first book I got on the subject when I was hmm 14- many years ago now- and like all amateur relativists I've been eager to question the apparent paradoxes. What I've found though is that it's a subtle theory and when one finds an apparent "error" in it, invariably it resolves to a lack of understanding.<br /><br />Simply- if you accept that c is the same for all observers, you're hard pressed to construct a theory that <i>isn't</i> Special Relativity.<br /><br />Anyway, I wasn't addressing the correctness of the theory; I was simply demonstrating that your assertion that "nobody agrees on that crap" is flat wrong. As an example; Creationism is flat wrong, but one certainly couldn't assert that nobody agrees with it, since millions of misguided people clearly do.

 

[Kalstang]

<font color="yellow">Your contention that I prove infinity is ridiculous.</font><br /><br />Alright then i'll simplify it for you. Prove this one little item from your op. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">3. That event which is commonly referred to as the Big Bang was only a regular bang, and was one of the most common events in the Universe. There has probably never been a big bang, but there have been countless regular bangs since you began reading this sentence. Bangs may vary in size, intensity, type, and trigger, but they are all part of the method whereby the Universe converts matter into energy and vise-versa.</font><br /><br />After all it says nothing about infinity. So should be proveable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>

 

[Kalstang]

<font color="yellow">Certainly not. Scientific theory is fine. The key word being "THEORY", and I thank you for that clarification. I'm selling truth, not theory. </font><br /><br />Unless you can prove beyond any resonable doubt that what you state as "truth" is in fact truth then it is and always will be considered theory. This is how the scientific community works.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> basing your protests on theories that cannot be thoroughly substantiated</font><br /><br />Talk about calling the kettle black.....<br /><br /><font color="yellow">You're not a mathematician, you're just a poster. If you want to argue with me, do your own work. I'll show it more respect.</font><br /><br />How do you know weather or not he is a mathematician? Do you know him personally? How do you know that anyone here that has refuted your "truths" is not a mathematician? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>

 

[usn_skwerl]

Trees convert energy into matter constantly. Human bodies likewise convert matter into energy. Bangs are just the Universes greatest storage batteries releasing their energy, which is converted back to matter (mostly). <br /><br />So let me respond by saying that if you want anyone to "buy" the "truth" you're selling you're going to have to have a better sales pitch. What's flawed with the logic and what's wrong with the observations of time dilation ? Hopefully you've got some rationale for your beliefs and can support them in some better fashion than mere assertion. <p><hr /><br /><br />mee_n_mac, he's referring to trees absorbing light (and CO2) and converting it into O2.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

Trees don't convert sunlight into O2. They use the energy derived from sunlight to power a cascade of chemical reactions that ultimately release oxygen from water, and combine carbon, hydrogen and other elements into useful (to the tree) chemicals. Some of the solar energy will be bound into the chemical compounds as binding energy, so their mass is slightly increased (indeed, any endothermic reaction does the same) but that's hardly creating matter, although it does create a very small amount of mass.<br /><br />But anyway, the oxygen emitted comes from the water, not the carbon dioxide.<br /><br />6H2O + 6CO2 - /> C6H12O6+ 6O2

 

[ew1962]

Something must be there?

 

[h2ouniverse]

In reply to: "I chose none of the above. None of them are particularly annoying, it's just that none of them make any sense. Sorry. Your just trying to sound more profound than you could ever be. (Poser). "<br /><br />What I may sound or not, or understand or not is not relevant. You have not answered my (yet) simple question.<br />I have referenced the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox (well known for decades, apparently not by you) and multiple experiments. You are not proposing any arguments that would explain how Aspect's, Zeilinger's, Soares' experiments are flawed (quoting only the most famous among tens of them)... <br />You pretend to understand space and time notions. While no serious scientist claims to understand them.<br />So unless you have a physics lab and come with evidence of your claims, I will stick with the EXPERIMENTAL results. Even if they bother me.<br /><br />If you want to pose as scientist, then act as a scientist: do not assume truths and look at reality. With open mindedness. If you want to speculate OK, we do that all the time. But then do not pose as a truth-beholder, or be prepared to adequate reponse.<br /><br />If you are not familiar with EPR paradox, please use internet to know it (it's really related to your concerns)and do not assume others know less than you.<br />

 

[Kalstang]

<font color="yellow">If you know so much, write the truth, as I did, and prove it with your own irrefutable work.</font><br /><br />You've yet to even begin to prove anything here. All you've done is state a few things. But you've yet to show proof with any of those statements. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">mee_n_mac, he's referring to trees absorbing light (and CO2) and converting it into O2.</font><br /><br />I'd say pretty much what jaxtraw said ... 'cept he said it better. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> My point is that no new <b>matter</b> is being created, the pre-existing stuff is merely be chemically rearranged. If the OP's point is truely that matter is being created then he's flat out wrong, and provably so.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

Hmmm, I'm glad you appreciate my post, however your reply doesn't really change anything.<br /><br />You've made declarations, called them truths, failed to provide any support for them, and expect us to believe them.<br /><br />Until you at least <i>try</i> to justify your ideas, there can be no further conversation.<br /><br />When you do provide such support, I'll respond. Until then I'm gonna leave this thread alone, and I suggest others do as well. It's a waste of time otherwise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>