Tangointhenight

Do you have any academic objection to the merits of these, or do they just not appeal to you? Because personal opinion is not a valid counterargument.

 

In other words, the golden rule of the meritocracy applies: put up or shut up.

How can you say a naked singulartie exist with no observational data?

Clearly you don't understand how science works: what happens if your theory is only wrong on *some* things, but right on others?

 

Correct answer: you modify the theory so it accords with experimental results.

 

After all, there's not some sort of rule that you have to get everything right on the first try. Shit, look at genetics - we've come a long way from Mendel, but everything is just additions, modifications, and special cases.

They created a theory looked into space, and saw that there are certian things that go agianst there theory.

"

The Milky Way as a whole rotates about its

axis, with the outlying regions held from

flying off into space by the gravitational tug

of the rest. All would be well, were it not

for the fact that something's missing.

Observations of the motion of stars both

within our own galaxy and further afield

reveal a discrepancy [see figures 1 & 2].

The gravitational pull they feel is calculated

as up to ten times what could possibly be

exerted by observable matter. The galaxy

must therefore be much more massive than

the sum of its visible stars.

It has been proposed that this exposes a flaw

in the theory of gravity - that its effect must

thin more slowly with distance than

predicted. This is not a welcome suggestion,

as it would require a whole new theory of

gravitation to be developed. The popular

alternative is that the matter we can observe

is only the tip of the iceberg. Theorists

propose an invisible halo of ‘dark’ matter

inhabiting the universe all around us....."

But when they added dark matter to there equations, thay found that Dark Matter would slow the expansion of the universe. Now to over come this they introduced dark energy.

If you dont see the flaw in this, then im sorry to have posted this in the first place.

Answers In Genesis is a creationist website. They've put outright false information up there, and basically everything on that site is bullshit.

 

If your ideas agree with anything creationists say, it's time to re-evaluate your ideas.

Thats not the point, the point is that the bridge is there, and the objects have two completly difrent redshifts, this goes agianst hubbles law.

http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/supplemental.html

Your biggest problem is linking to an "Answers In Genesis" article and taking it seriously.

Facts dont lie from what ever source it comes from.

The picture prooves it. how much more facts do you need?

If you look at our model for the atom over the years it has changed/evolved as we have better and better understanding of it. Starting with J.J. Thompson and his 'plumb pudding' Theory of positive specks in a negative sea of particles, through Bohr and the atomic orbital models and on to more modern electron density models etc.. each is an addition/improvement on the last and deals with errors and or gaps in the theory.

 

Does this mean J.J. Thompson was an idiot or a fraudster because he got his model wrong? No - of course not. it best explained the atom according to what we knew at the time and was in fact a brilliant insight into the structure of matter and atoms. It can be argued that he was wrong, but it can also be argued that he was on the right track and his speculations and models lead to the advancement in our understanding of the stucture of the atom which others then continued to improve develop over the next few hundered years.

 

Therefore, to take a scientific theory and say that it is wrong because scientists keep having to update it shows a lack of understanding of how our knowledge base works and how theories are developed and matured over time.

 

Anyway - they are ALL wrong - you are just a figment of MY imagination anyway - so there!.

You probably dont understand the scientific method.

Here read about it,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method if you test your prediction and the test contridics the prediction then you have to abandoned it.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Why isnt anyone stduying this?

Other proof, http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm, more http://www.seyfertgalaxies.com/ and even more, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/500/2/596/37571.text.html

Somethings up.http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i3/quasar.asp

The objects are conected, via gas bridge, but each has diffrent redshifts.http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Arp/Arp23.html I find this very odd.

Here is a evan more better example, wher eyou can see a bridge, http://pagesperso-orange.fr/lempel/les_os_du_redshift_02_uk.htm, http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2002/30/aaea241/aaea241.right.html.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/arp.html

I am curently trying to invent a expriment where i want to mimic redshift and blueshift, anyone know where i can start?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Something is not right, so they add.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Then there is something wrong with dark matter, so they add.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Then with out any observational data they create.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_singularity:doh:

The point of science is to describe reality. And, the reality of the situation is that reality is not always straight forward and intuitive.

Really????? Science is to describe reality, not explain weird that is what my teacher crammed into my brain. Explanation not desribing.

He does not understand the concept of a physical theory and a model. This I believe is why he is so confused.

 

I don't think he knows much about classical general relativity and black holes. His question of what black holes are into suggest this.

 

Please do some real reading into the subjects. It is difficult and will take a long time. All he as done is point to the things he does not understand. That is fine, but what is wrong is to suggest that no-one understands.

 

Questioning science scientifically is good, only by questioning will we advance. Just by trying to take the piss is no good for anyone.

 

It is a fact that modern physics is difficult and relies on mathematics. No short cut I am sorry. Before listening to this rubbish pick up a popular science book or ask on here.

I read a bunch of books on realtivity, and even finished reading a brief history in time. but the point is that science is supposed to be understandble by anyone, einstein said, your theory should be understood by a barmaid. Modern science is so complex that they lost sight of reality.

Could you paraphrase it here?

I don't see anything on the website http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/ that is anything but a rant and much of the claims are not true.

 

Please, just forget it.

read this, all of it then make conclusion.

http://youstupidrelativist.com/03GR/03BlackHole/00SumBH.html

His website seems more like an attach on the personality of mathematical physicists rather than any well put together argument against relativity.

 

Sick, vile and offensive I'd say.

he makes a conviceing argument.

Example, mathimachians cant draw time, they cant explain it.

This is very interesting, someone should watch this guy he is very smart.

So...

 

What we need here is mathematical predictions and evidence... What effect would this have that we could test for?

"PHILOSOPHY AND YOUR RANDOM THOUGHTS ARE NOT SCIENCE DO NOT POST THEM AS SUCH "

Unless its backed by logic :eyebrow::eyebrow:

Merged post follows:

A few years ago I began work on a hypotheses/theory what ever you wanna call it.

I have been a relativist for sometime, but when I began work on trying to explain everything, I saw that by theories did not fit with the standard cosmological models. I had evidence that didn't fit with the standard model. Then I drop my following with the mainstream scientists, and began a independent study of the universe.

The first two months I dedicated in observing the universe, the trying to explain what I saw.

Then I formed by theory around the observations. The theory was simple, in space there is nothing, how can matter exist in this empty vacuum. Of course don't forget I tossed aside the standard thinking. But my theory failed, I saw that it wouldn't work. So I ask my mathematician friend to help me, he did, and the numbers didn't line up with what we where observing. So I abandoned, the ideas I had. Actually I didn't revisit them for about two years.

Then I was browsing through forums and found what PERON was saying, He called it Tender Blue. I contacted him, and asked him to tell me more. He did, he told me I was doing it all wrong that I needed to start from the particle level instead of observing space.

So I did, looking at how atoms and subatomic particle's function. Contacted my mathematical friend again, and asked him to build me a model of how a particle could exist, building the atom, and the rest of matter. We found that the numbers did fit, and that a medium in space could exist.