Starship Asterisk*

As long as it is not pseudo science its ok. Otherwise it become annoying and boring.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz


Hello Doum

The infalling matter may play a part in the jet formation.

The long stability of the jet is driven by the core.

I post links and although I do not agree with them, they are interesting reading.

The so called black holes have many unknowns and it will be years before we get close to understanding.

Dipolar feilds and transients need to be researched a bit more.


I will come back to this later.

Chris Peterson wrote:

harry wrote:Chris your comments on Plasma Cosmology is not founded and I would advice you to read up on Plasma Astrophysics

Plasma cosmology has a very specific meaning, and it is totally unrelated to the meanings of plasma physics and plasma astrophysics. The first is debunked pseudoscience, the others are perfectly respectable and valuable areas of study.

For 3500 years the de bunk said the earth was centre of the universe. Thirty Five Hundred Years. Thirty Five Hundred Years. Thirty Five Hundred Years. That's a lot of bunking. That means a lot of bright people were bunked. 'B' is a bunky letter .. begins the two words "Big" and 'Bang'. How much pseudo science do we have when to support BB someone comes along and says, 'Inflation .. all the gaps are filled by inflation'. And all the bunked brains said "Inflation! Of course!" Shameful that they call it science. Purely shameful.

Chris Peterson wrote:... and there's no such thing as "reverse gravity".

Chris, Do you consider anti-gravity different from reverse gravity? If not, some of the best minds in the world are working with anti-gravity. Mog uses it.

aristarchusinexile wrote:For 3500 years the de bunk said the earth was centre of the universe.

And now we know that it is. Pretty cool.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Chris, Do you consider anti-gravity different from reverse gravity? If not, some of the best minds in the world are working with anti-gravity.

There's not the slightest shred of evidence that there's such a thing as either anti-gravity or reverse gravity.

aristarchusinexile wrote:How much pseudo science do we have when to support BB someone comes along and says, 'Inflation .. all the gaps are filled by inflation'. And all the bunked brains said "Inflation! Of course!" Shameful that they call it science. Purely shameful.

No, it's not, and you should learn what "pseudoscience" means before you start throwing around a word you don't understand. The BBT may be wrong. Inflation may be wrong. But neither remotely falls into the category of pseudoscience. These are solid scientific theories- accepted as such even by the small number of scientists who prefer alternate theories. Inflation, for instance, makes a number of predictions- some of which are supportive of the theory (the structure of the CMB, for instance), and others which could be used to reasonably prove it wrong.

Pseudoscience consists of explanations for natural observations which are cloaked in the style of science (observations, terminology, etc) but which generally fail to use (or which misuse) the scientific method. Good examples are astrology, homeopathy, intelligent design, paranormal research, chiropractic, perpetual motion, and the electric universe.

One of the easiest ways to detect pseudoscience, because it is so often seen, is when the proponent of a "scientific" idea can't provide evidence for that idea, but instead asks for evidence that widely accepted theories are correct, or asks the scientific community to disprove their own ideas (without providing falsifiable claims).

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Chris said

These are solid scientific theories- accepted as such even by the small number of scientists who prefer alternate theories. Inflation, for instance, makes a number of predictions- some of which are supportive of the theory (the structure of the CMB, for instance), and others which could be used to reasonably prove it wrong.

Yes take CMB.

This can be explained by static cosmology and the normal everyday workings of the parts within the universe such as stars.

But! the minute you engage a theory based on ad hoc ideas you move the goal posts and science becomes pseudo.

What I want to see is evidence and not hear say based on a standard theory that is hanging and supported by theories that cannot explain the observation near and far.

If you think this is wrong than provide scientific evidence.

=====================================moving right along


http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609271
Joining the Hubble Flow: Implications for Expanding Space

Authors: Luke A. Barnes, Matthew J. Francis, J. Berian James, Geraint F. Lewis
(Submitted on 11 Sep 2006)

Abstract: The concept of expanding space has come under fire recently as being inadequate and even misleading in describing the motion of test particles in the universe. Previous investigations have suffered from a number of shortcomings, which we seek to correct. We study the motion of test particles in the universe in detail, solving the geodesic equations of General Relativity for a number of cosmological models. In particular, we use analytic methods to examine whether particles removed from the Hubble flow asymptotically rejoin the Hubble flow, a topic that has caused confusion because of differing definitions and invalid reasoning. We conclude that particles in eternally expanding but otherwise arbitrary universes do not in general rejoin the Hubble flow.

and


A stable static universe?
Aug-04
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004JETPL..80..209B
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... db_key=AST

Starting from the assumption that general relativity might be an emergent phenomenon showing up at low-energies from an underlying microscopic structure, we re-analyze the stability of a static closed Universe filled with radiation. In this scenario, it is sensible to consider the effective general-relativistic configuration as in a thermal contact with an "environment" (the role of environment can be played, for example, by the higher-dimensional bulk or by the trans-Planckian degrees of freedom). We calculate the free energy at a fixed temperature of this radiation-filled static configuration. Then, by looking at the free energy we show that the static Einstein configuration is stable under the stated condition.

and

Observations of type 1a supernovae are consistent with a static universe
Jan-09
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0901.4172C
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... db_key=PRE

Analysis of type 1a supernovae observations out to a redshift of $z$=1.6 shows that there is good agreement between the light-curve widths and $(1+z)$ which is usually interpreted as a strong support for time dilation due to an expanding universe. This paper argues that a strong case can be made for a static universe where the supernovae light-curve-width dependence on redshift is due to selection effects. The analysis is based on the principle that it is the total energy (the fluence) and not the peak magnitude that is the best `standard candle' for type 1a supernovae. A simple model using a static cosmology provides an excellent prediction for the dependence of light curve width on redshift and the luminosity-width relationship for nearby supernovae. The width dependence arises from the assumption of constant absolute magnitude resulting in strong selection of lower luminosity supernovae at higher redshifts due to the use of an incorrect distance modulus. Using a static cosmology, curvature-cosmology, and without fitting any parameters the analysis shows that the total energy is independent of redshift and provides a Hubble constant of $63.1\pm2.5$ kms$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. There is no indication of any deviation at large redshifts that has been ascribed to the occurrence of dark energy.

I don't want to be the one in a few years saying why were we pumped with the BBT when it was not correct.

I have read very many papers in support of the BBT and most assume that it is a reality and than proceed to fit the data without respect to science. This is true blue pseudoscience in full bloom.

So! if the BBT is correct than supply the evidence to support it and not hear say based on it being the standard theory.

harry wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:One of the easiest ways to detect pseudoscience, because it is so often seen, is when the proponent of a "scientific" idea can't provide evidence for that idea, but instead asks for evidence that widely accepted theories are correct, or asks the scientific community to disprove their own ideas (without providing falsifiable claims).

So! if the BBT is correct than supply the evidence to support it and not hear say based on it being the standard theory.

Point made.

Chris Peterson wrote:Pseudoscience consists of explanations for natural observations which are cloaked in the style of science (observations, terminology, etc) but which generally fail to use (or which misuse) the scientific method. Good examples are astrology, homeopathy, intelligent design, paranormal research, chiropractic, perpetual motion, and the electric universe.

Putting yourself out there on the line, aren't you? Next, I suppose you'll tell me dianetics and DHMO aren't real science, and that the earth really is the center of the universe (oh, you already said that). 8)

BTW: for those who care, wiki has a great entry on pseudoscience.

I saw a program on TV. In this program it showed a meteorite traveling towards Jupiter.. It did not get all the way round before Jupiter Flung it back out the way it went in at increadable speed.. Could galaxies act like this in the beginning? If there are two types of galaxies which are not the same ( Dark and Light) If a Dark Galaxy is full of dark matter like Jupiter With a big electro magnatizum http://www.jupiterradio.com/jove-emission.php Could this be why elements got seperated? At birth. Dark and Light just pushed each other away? In the video, the CD reprsents a light galaxy and the card with a coin is the Dark Galaxy .. The can, phone, and batteries represent the energy after The Big Bang.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/448034/se ... _homemade/

mark

bystander wrote:Putting yourself out there on the line, aren't you? Next, I suppose you'll tell me dianetics and DHMO aren't real science...

I'd never say anything like that publicly. I don't need the Scientology equivalent of a fatwa against me; maybe Cruise and Travolta crawling through my window in the middle of the night to chuck me into some volcano?

BTW: for those who care, wiki has a great entry on pseudoscience.

That is a good article. Thanks.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:How much pseudo science do we have when to support BB someone comes along and says, 'Inflation .. all the gaps are filled by inflation'. And all the bunked brains said "Inflation! Of course!" Shameful that they call it science. Purely shameful.

No, it's not, and you should learn what "pseudoscience" means before you start throwing around a word you don't understand. The BBT may be wrong. Inflation may be wrong. But neither remotely falls into the category of pseudoscience. These are solid scientific theories- accepted as such even by the small number of scientists who prefer alternate theories. Inflation, for instance, makes a number of predictions- some of which are supportive of the theory (the structure of the CMB, for instance), and others which could be used to reasonably prove it wrong.

Pseudoscience consists of explanations for natural observations which are cloaked in the style of science (observations, terminology, etc) but which generally fail to use (or which misuse) the scientific method. Good examples are astrology, homeopathy, intelligent design, paranormal research, chiropractic, perpetual motion, and the electric universe.

One of the easiest ways to detect pseudoscience, because it is so often seen, is when the proponent of a "scientific" idea can't provide evidence for that idea, but instead asks for evidence that widely accepted theories are correct, or asks the scientific community to disprove their own ideas (without providing falsifiable claims).

And your idea of real science is to forumulate a theory on observation, then when contrary evidence comes in, to create fudge factors (inflation, Dark Matter) to fill in the holes created by the new evidence. Nice form of science you have there, Chris.

Chris Peterson wrote:

bystander wrote:Putting yourself out there on the line, aren't you? Next, I suppose you'll tell me dianetics and DHMO aren't real science...

I'd never say anything like that publicly. I don't need the Scientology equivalent of a fatwa against me; maybe Cruise and Travolta crawling through my window in the middle of the night to chuck me into some volcano?

BTW: for those who care, wiki has a great entry on pseudoscience.

That is a good article. Thanks.

By your definition, Chris, atomic theory is pseudo-science (from your own referal to Wiki:"The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.[1] A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses." MOG certainly isn't pseudo-science, yet you fail to discuss it. Oh well .. we are all human and prone to failure.

aristarchusinexile wrote:And your idea of real science is to forumulate a theory on observation, then when contrary evidence comes in, to create fudge factors (inflation, Dark Matter) to fill in the holes created by the new evidence. Nice form of science you have there, Chris.

No, science formulates theory based on observation, and when contrary evidence comes in, either replaces or modifies the theory, to better fit with actual observation. That's why we have both inflation and dark matter; they help to explain our observations better than earlier theories.

Indeed, the form of science is very nice.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:And your idea of real science is to forumulate a theory on observation, then when contrary evidence comes in, to create fudge factors (inflation, Dark Matter) to fill in the holes created by the new evidence. Nice form of science you have there, Chris.

No, science formulates theory based on observation, and when contrary evidence comes in, either replaces or modifies the theory, to better fit with actual observation. That's why we have both inflation and dark matter; they help to explain our observations better than earlier theories.

Indeed, the form of science is very nice.

No. The observations inflation and dark matter attempt to explain were not the observations the Bang was founded on. Inflation and DM attempt to explain later observations. A new theory would have been difficult to formulate, and fuge is nice and sweet, goes down easy if you take it in small bites.

aristarchusinexile wrote:By your definition, Chris, atomic theory is pseudo-science (from your own referal to Wiki:"The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.[1] A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses."

Sorry, I can't follow your logic here.

MOG certainly isn't pseudo-science, yet you fail to discuss it.

I didn't call MOG pseudoscience. Certainly, there are forms of MOG that are, but not all. The more reputable work with MOG theories I'd describe as weak science: the theories don't do a better job than existing theory in explaining observations, and have a harder time explaining much of what we do observe. So I don't find them compelling or necessary, and have little interest in discussing them. Weak science is totally different from pseudoscience, however.

Chris Peterson wrote:... science formulates theory based on observation, and when contrary evidence comes in, either replaces or modifies the theory, to better fit with actual observation. That's why we have both inflation and dark matter; they help to explain our observations better than earlier theories.

aristarchusinexile wrote:The observations inflation and dark matter attempt to explain were not the observations the Bang was founded on. Inflation and DM attempt to explain later observations.

Exactly what Chris said.

aristarchusinexile wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:No, science formulates theory based on observation, and when contrary evidence comes in, either replaces or modifies the theory, to better fit with actual observation. That's why we have both inflation and dark matter; they help to explain our observations better than earlier theories.

No. The observations inflation and dark matter attempt to explain were not the observations the Bang was founded on. Inflation and DM attempt to explain later observations.

That's exactly what I said. Theories in areas that are still under study are fluid. Science is an iterative process of improving the quality of knowledge. Theories often start out rough (the BBT, for instance, postulated nothing more than expansion from a point of origin- crude by current understanding). Theories suggest observations, those observations are then used to refine the theories- as a rule, to make them more accurate. Occasionally major theories are discarded, but that is very rare. Most often, they are simply revised.

I can't imagine how anybody who understands the methods of science could think this is a bad thing, or some kind of defect in science. For thousands of years people stuck with their original beliefs, refusing to modify them even in the face of contradictory evidence. That is the sorry state of knowledge acquisition that science replaced. Thank goodness for that!

bystander wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:... science formulates theory based on observation, and when contrary evidence comes in, either replaces or modifies the theory, to better fit with actual observation. That's why we have both inflation and dark matter; they help to explain our observations better than earlier theories.

aristarchusinexile wrote:The observations inflation and dark matter attempt to explain were not the observations the Bang was founded on. Inflation and DM attempt to explain later observations.

Exactly what Chris said.

Not exactly. Chris thinks DM, DE and Inflation support the original observations which led to the BB theory, in reality the later observations should have caused the bb theory to have been discarded because the later observations necessitated creative imaginings (inflation, DM and DE). Where is the empirical method in creative imaginings? My theory needs only anti-gravity and Pascual Jordan to explain the processes, and anti-gravity is bound to be as real as anti-matter.

Chris Peterson wrote: That is the sorry state of knowledge acquisition that science replaced. Thank goodness for that!

Spoken like a man who truly believes in his own era, regardless of time and place.

Chris Peterson wrote:Sorry, I can't follow your logic here.

You can't see, hear, smell or taste the smallest particles, you can only imagine their existance and effects, yet you call that area of science "science" .. while saying science must be empirical .. must be seen, heard, smelt, or tasted.

Chris wrote: I don't find them (MOG) compelling or necessary, and have little interest in discussing them. Weak science is totally different from pseudoscience, however.

I find it difficult to accept that you have read much on MOG, especially Moffat's latest. I find it easy to accept that you have found a comfortable place for your own belief system, and you choose to remain in it. This is common to mankind, but not very scientific.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Where is the empirical method in creative imaginings?

You mean like anti-gravity bubbles?

aristarchusinexile wrote:

bystander wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:... science formulates theory based on observation, and when contrary evidence comes in, either replaces or modifies the theory, to better fit with actual observation. That's why we have both inflation and dark matter; they help to explain our observations better than earlier theories.

aristarchusinexile wrote:The observations inflation and dark matter attempt to explain were not the observations the Bang was founded on. Inflation and DM attempt to explain later observations.

Exactly what Chris said.

Not exactly. Chris thinks DM, DE and Inflation support the original observations which led to the BB theory, in reality the later observations should have caused the bb theory to have been discarded because the later observations necessitated creative imaginings (inflation, DM and DE).

I don't know where you're getting this. The "original observations" that led to the BB theory were nothing more than than the observation that there was a relationship between redshift and distance. That led to a simple BB theory. Since then, richer and better observations of many other things have led to a richer and better BB theory. All science requires "creative imaginings", since that is fundamental to the development of theories from observations.

My theory needs only anti-gravity and Pascual Jordan to explain the processes, and anti-gravity is bound to be as real as anti-matter.

That makes as much sense as saying that your theory needs only pigs with wings. Seriously, there is absolutely no difference between the two assertions. In fact, what your "theory" needs is a theory.