Starship Asterisk*

so you support plasma cosmology?

so why waste our time talking about rubbish like autodynamics (a theory that is entirely unrelated)? Instead I'll go away and find numerous reasons why plasma cosmology is wrong

Apologies, I am not trying to play the i've got more degrees than you game and it is good for people to have an interest in astronomy regardless of their level. I think the quote by astro in the first comment of this thread is one mathematical reason not to believe in autodynamics. I can probably co...

I'll have a read

there is no evidence for this and even if you could bend the rules a bit to make the theory fit I'm still unsure as to why you want it to be like this whats the point? The current model is a correct fit to observations (neutrino oscillations before you say anything).

Hello Harry The reason why we scientists dismiss things like autodynamics is not because of a huge conspiracy of closed minds (which I'm sure is what they think), it is because autodynamics is just plain wrong. Get yourself an eductaion in physics and then you can also pick massive holes in other pe...

update: the votes have been cast at the IAU, proposal rejected

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm

Pluto demoted, no others promoted. We've now only got 8 planets

v funny Dr S. An old classic in misdirection

Genius. I love the maths - you can't argue with that kind of logic!! :) The picture of the crank/nutcase in question which suggests that he is the next in line after Einstein, Newton and Galileo. Classic crank behaviour thinking that they are far more important than they really are. "Authored a...

could be a satellite of some sort catching the sun. They can be pretty fast.

Check this out. Direct evidence for Dark Matter which rules out modified gravitation.

http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/ps/astro-ph/0608407

http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/pdf/astro-ph/0608407 is the pdf version

Cosmo

Firstly BMAONE23 I couldn't care less what the accuracy of wikipedia is I was just giving an overview on Zeno's paradox for those who were unfamiliar. Just because something is in wikipedia it does not mean it is incorrect. Like I said before Dr S I am fully aware that there are numerous scientific ...

Hi Dr S I appreciate that space time needs to be quantized for various theories (some apsects of black hole theory and string theory). But your argument is not one that proves space is quantized, that is just an example of tending to a limit. Just like a geometric series. Look up Zeno's paradox http...

I give up Harry:)

Good luck with the research into the new theory of the Universe. I look forward to citing it in future papers.

Cosmo

you're right its been a long while since I've done any quantum although I'm unsure why space itself should be quantised and not just the objects in it (I'm not supporting an infinite universe here its just I have never heard your argument from anyone else)

Put this in your textbooks!

http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.o ... u0601a.jpg

Hello again Harry I'd love to have a discussion with you, but what happens is I present you with scientific proof and then you present me with snippets you have read from papers which you clearly don't understand and links to crank websites "Einstein was wrong" etc links http://en.wikipedi...

Hello again Harry Just to let you know I'm cosmo_uk not astro_uk in case you think we're the same person:) I actually know quite a bit about Halton Arp. Arp was at the forefront of quasar research and made some great contributions to astronomy (Arp cataloge etc). He was also around when BB theory wa...

hello Harry As I've said before theorists such as Turok are highly skilled mathematicians whom I respect. However he is not saying that there was no big bang. In fact his version of the universe would look just the same as the single BB version BUT the theorists (not the observers) have a problem wi...

Well said astro! Finally a post on here I can entirely agree with :) I would recommend everyone to look at NASA's ADS site to find the papers they quote on here to back up their arguments otherwise they will be non peer reviewed and as such open to ridicule. I'm sure this will prompt some people to ...

Hi Harry, Martin and Dr S I wouldn't say Turok was not a credible scientist but he and the other multi bang, M/string theory etc people are generally highly skilled mathematicians (I live with one) who concentrate on the universe as a whole rather than whats in it. As an observational cosmologist I'...

I would ignore the large majority of people on this list as "independent researchers" are notoriously intellectually deficient and there are a number of institutions on there that I've never heard of. However I'll check out the story behind the guys at the recognised institutions and see w...