Is eeryone happy with the Big Bang? I'm not.

[Pete]

astrocat, I'm still wondering why you insist that stars can't have short lifetimes. You seem to be ignoring any reference that suggests otherwise. Why?

 

[AlexG]

astrocat ignores anything that anybody tells him.

 

[Ophiolite]

My own thought is that Asscat is a high school dropout.

Do you think he made it that far?

 

[astrocat]

This thread is a total waste of bandwidth.

Please don't be a waste of Space.

 

[astrocat]

Will a moderator please lock this thread and ban this ignorant fool?

Please stop being a waste of Space.

 

[astrocat]

Astrocat, you make it very hard not to ridicule you.
Please, click on this link: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tidal+force&l=1

When there are words underlined in my posts, astrocat, that means those words are a link. You can click on those words to go to a web page that supports what I'm saying.

For example, in the post you just quoted:



Here are some links from previous posts you should also read:

Okay, I looked up Centaurus in Wiki and it said nothing about the Constellation was Blue Shifted. There is plenty of talk about Andromeda being blue-shifted, also Barnard's Star, as well as M98. But nowhere did I read that Centaurus was blue shifted. There are several possibilities for this mistake of yours, 1) That you have been misinformed 2) that you are seeing an edge on Galaxy, who's one side is approaching you (blue shifted) and the other side receding (red Shifted). I do admit that we are approaching the Hydra Centauri Super cluster but you must face the fact that it is moving away from us faster than we are approaching it. That's not me, that's just the way it is, Pete. As for tidal forces - I just couldn't believe you actually meant the action of the tides. I wonder what you'd think of me if I said Well, it's Gravity that makes the tide come in, and this new Repulsive Force I've dreamed up that makes it (the tide) go out again. ' That's what I think of making up Repulsive Forces. It's plainly Poor Science. But I guess you think that's okay - it is in Math, so why not in Physics. Please remember that Einstein denounced his Cosmological Constant around 1925, I believe. Einstein lived another 30 years and did nothing but call his CC (Lambda) his Biggest Blunder. That's because he was a Mathematician (are you a mathematician?) and you can do anytrhing in Math - anything at all. That's why Math isn't a Science.

 

[astrocat]

My point was that unlike your "I just made something up off the top of my head" 'model', the big bang is something a great many people have worked on and critiqued and tested, so it has at least some descriptive ability. Your 'model' has none.

No, it doesn't. I said before that I don't understand why you'd come to a physics forum and argue about a topic you know nothing about with people whose job it is to know these things. If you're going to lie about physics don't like to a professional physicist, it just makes you look extremely stupid.

The BB model correctly predicts the power spectrum of the CMB. I commented on this before but you ignored me. If you're having to resort to ignoring things you quote me saying then you're showing you're aware of your dishonesty.

You don't have any 'models', nothing you've said models anything.

I have repeatedly asked you to provide these models, to provide something which can be used to model the phenomena in question, which you claim you can model. You haven't provided it.

How can I discuss your models when you don't provide them? That isn't my fault, I can't read your thoughts (thank god). If you're unwilling to present your work and have it help up to some scientific standard I can't be blamed for that.


A classic example of you using intuition and failing (larger stars live shorter due to greatly increased burn rates) and throwing out classical mechanics concepts (Bernoulli's principle, Boyle's law) which you don't understand. You've also shown that you have done no reading on gravitational work, as you thought spaghetti'fication was something Hawking came up with.

Your 'theory' breaks numerous real world rules, like thinking larger stars live longer. And it doesn't conform to universal gravity as you haven't shown you can model gravity. To show you can conform to the known effects of gravity please derive the precession of Mercury's orbit. To be clear, the answer should culminate in a value in arc-seconds per century. Simply arguing about the existence of precession isn't enough, as Newtonian gravity does that but it predicts the wrong amount. That's an example of why quantitative details are essential.

If you can't provide hard quantitative predictions you're all talk with nothing to say.

OKay, here's a second model of the Cosmos - a swirl of water going down a drain. Please note the outer edge turns only slowly, and there is furious activity at the center. The center, of course, turns fastest, and this can be seen by the drop-off on the surface level , due (whether you like it or not) to Bernoulli''s Theorem. Further to that you can see the surface is 'ridged' or 'corrugated,' and each ridge represents a smaller vortex, that stretches from the outside to the center. These smaller vortices are technically called 'Streamlets,' Speeding Up, Ever Lengthening Streams just like the ones that compose the Observable Universe. These 'Streamlets,' can only be found in a Vortex. I like this model because 1) you can see and hear it, and 2) it's Gravity Operated, just like the Cosmos. At the center, of course, there is most activity, and that greedy, sucking sound you hear - that denotes the low Pressure there. Now, liquids don't expand much, but there is a strong tendency for Expansion, because of the low Pressure at the center. This model clearly demonstrates the Speeding Up Expansion to a terminal velocity that the Oservable Universe is currently engaged in, as well as the Steamlets that compose the Observable Universe . Now please remember, that your models probably demonstrate a Speeding Up ad infinitum but Outward Expansions just don't do that. Mathematically, of course, they do - but not Physically. Not unless you can manufacture another Repulsive Force, fine in Maths, but Poor Science in Physics. And I didn't make this Theory up 'off the top of my head. What happened was I concluded That the Big bang was dreamed up in response to an Expanding Observable Universe (Have you actually seen the whole Universe? And you can tell what's happening to it?) and that Dark Energy, another dreamed up Repulsive Force doesn't exist, but Knowing Gravity was real, I came up with a Gravity Operated Cosmos. Where can I see some Dark Energy? Which Museum,

 

[AlphaNumeric]

OKay, here's a second model of the Cosmos - a swirl of water going down a drain. Please ......[lots of wordy arm waving]

I can see you're still failing to grasp what model means. What can you model with that? Could you program that into a computer and get a simulation of the system in question? No. Does it allow you to make precise predictions? No.

Then its not a model.

Since you've obviously never looked in a textbook and you haven't been prompted to do so by this thread perhaps an example will help.

Newtonian mechanics includes Newton's 'Laws of Motion'. The second law states that the acceleration experienced by an object due to a particular force is proportional to the force's magnitude and its norm inversely proportional to the object's mass. Can I put this into a computer? Can I model anything with just that sentence? No. To do those things it needs to be formalised. Acceleration being proportional to force means $$\ddot{\mathbf{x}} \propto \mathbf{F}$$. Inversely proportional to mass means $$|\ddot{\mathbf{x}} | \propto \frac{1}{m}$$. Put these together and you get $$\mathbf{F} = m\ddot{\mathbf{x}}$$ or its more familiar form $$\mathbf{F} = m\mathbf{a}$$.

Now this is something you can construct predictions from. For instance, suppose the force is gravity on the Earth's surface. Qualitatively gravity accelerates things downwards so the best prediction I can do with the wordy version is "The ball comes down". Let's try the equation, so $$\mathbf{F} = -m\mathbf{g}$$. Working purely in vertical direction we now have $$\ddot{x} = -g$$. If I throw a ball upwards at 20m/s from a shoulder height of 2 metres (imagine I'm quite tall) at time 0 then I have that $$\dot{x}(0) = 20$$ and $$x(0) = 2$$. Integrating the original Newtonian equation gives $$\dot{x}(t) = \dot{x}(0)-gt = 20-gt$$. Integrating again gives $$x(t) = x(0)+20t-\frac{g}{2}t^{2} = 2+20t-\frac{g}{2}t^{2}$$. The ball is at the ground when x(t) = 0, which for t>0 is at about t=4.1 seconds for g=10. In addition its speed is $$\dot{x}(4.1) = -21$$ (about).

Now that is a prediction you can go an test, as its an explicit model of the dynamical system of a ball moving under gravity. You can put it into a computer and get an animation of the motion. You can apply it to different heights and different initial speeds. You can apply it to balls thrown sidewards or at an angle. Each time a specific prediction for where and when the ball comes down is made, as well as its velocity throughout the motion. These are all quantitative and testable.

That is why Newtonian mechanics is a viable and useful model for many dynamical systems encountered in everyday life, it models them properly. Unlike your 'models' its more than just arm waving and buzzwords

Oh, and before you whine about the maths being too hard that sort of question is school level. The general formula for constant acceleration dynamics I did in physics class when I was 14 or 15. The calculus derivation (ie integrating) I did when I was 16. You can't even get into a physics degree if you can't do that sort of thing in your sleep.

This model clearly demonstrates the Speeding Up Expansion to a terminal velocity that the Oservable Universe is currently engaged in

Prove a terminal velocity results. Give its value. Provide quantitative predictions for phenomena we can measure which would be a test of your model.

If you wish I can furnish you with the derivation of air resistance terminal velocity. It's basically the same thing I just went through but with the right hand side being $$k\Vert \dot{x}\Vert - g$$ rather than just $$-g$$. That is covered in the high school module after the one I just mentioned.

Mathematically, of course, they do - but not Physically.

You don't seem to understand the relationship between maths and physics. Physicists use mathematics as a formal language to phrase their work in. Results in physics which are written mathematically aren't just dreamt up as abstract equations by a mathematician without a care about the real world, they are a formalisation of relationships between measured and observed phenomena in the universe.

Not unless you can manufacture another Repulsive Force, fine in Maths, but Poor Science in Physics.

I asked you before, how do you know what is or isn't 'poor science'? You obviously aren't a scientist so you have no first hand experience. You have no understanding of the interplay of physics and mathematics. You think pictures from school books are so complex a PhD is needed to understand them. You have so little second hand knowledge about science you regularly get basic high school level physics wrong. For instance, you're whining about a repulsive force being bad science but electromagnetism can be repulsive! I told you this before and you either ignored it (dishonesty) or you didn't understand (ignorance).

So my question is, again, what makes you think you know what is or isn't good science?

And I didn't make this Theory up 'off the top of my head.

So you actually spent time on it?

What happened was I concluded That the Big bang was dreamed up in response to an Expanding Observable Universe

Concluded based on what? You didn't look anything up, you didn't read anything, you did absolutely nothing other than reach a conclusion.

(Have you actually seen the whole Universe? And you can tell what's happening to it?) and that Dark Energy, another dreamed up Repulsive Force doesn't exist, but Knowing Gravity was real, I came up with a Gravity Operated Cosmos.

Other than a few wordy sentences you haven't come up with anything.

Where can I see some Dark Energy? Which Museum,

Strawman. You can't see individual electrons but their effects are measurable. You can't see neutrinos and even with a huge detector weighing millions of tons only a few are detectable in a year.

Where can I see your work model anything? Where can I find a single testable prediction?

 

[Pete]

I apologize for the long post. Please take the time to read it through to the end. I've put a lot of effort into it.

Okay, I looked up Centaurus in Wiki and it said nothing about the Constellation was Blue Shifted. There is plenty of talk about Andromeda being blue-shifted, also Barnard's Star, as well as M98. But nowhere did I read that Centaurus was blue shifted. There are several possibilities for this mistake of yours, ...

What mistake? Where did I say anything about the stars of Centaurus being blueshifted?

As for tidal forces - I just couldn't believe you actually meant the action of the tides. I wonder what you'd think of me if I said Well, it's Gravity that makes the tide come in, and this new Repulsive Force I've dreamed up that makes it (the tide) go out again.'

Astrocat, I'm not sure what you think I'm thinking. We seem to be talking at cross-purposes.

This is my understanding of your idea as it relates to the accelerating expansion of the Universe. Please correct me if it is wrong:

• Your idea is that the apparent expansion of the Universe is because things closer to this huge black hole are falling faster than things further away.
• You suggest that what appears to be a stretching force driving the accellerating expansion is actually the result of a differential in the larger attractive force of the huge black hole's gravity.

You know, I actually think that this is a pretty bright idea that shows you do have a native innovative intelligence.*

In fact, that idea is the same idea behind Tidal Forces being what drives the tides. What appears to be a stretching force raising the tides is really the residual effect of gravity's attractive force.

Do you see that your idea of Universal Expansion being due to MABLE is actually the same idea as Tidal Forces? This is a good thing, right? It validates that yes, a repulsive force can be a residual of an attractive force.

----
*But! Be careful of being too attached to bright ideas. Sometimes (often!) bright, intelligent ideas turn out to be wrong on closer investigation. Great thinkers have many bright, innovative, intelligent ideas, and ruthlessly throw away the ones that don't stand up to further investigation. Good scientists will filter out the many ideas that don't stand up from the few that do, and make a modest contribution to total human knowledge.
The filtering process means expecting that an idea will turn out to be wrong, and deliberately constructing tests to show that it is wrong.

I remember discussing this filtering process in [post=2177899]an old thread[/post] (click the link!):

Here's [post=1434670]something I wrote a while ago[/post], talking about the coffee table/bar round stage of scientific development:All new ideas are thoroughly hammered at this stage, and most are subsequently discarded. That's the only way to filter out the crap and find the quality gems.
Good scientists are smart enough to brush away the rubbish, alert enough to spot the promising rocks, patient enough to polish them up and search for flaws, pragmatic enough to throw away the fractured stones and fools gold, smart enough to enlist and accept critical assistance, hardworking enough to collect a reasonable cache of small jewels over their career, hopeful enough to think that maybe one day they'll be at the coffee table when a flawless diamond shows up, and realistic enough to know that it's probably never going to happen to them.

So, my advice is this:

• Be humble. Accept that the chance of any given crazy idea (including your own) being worth publishing is low, even for the professionals.
• Expect your idea to be hammered during discussion. Accept this as a mark of respect, not as an attack on your intelligence.
• Don't ever stop thinking up crazy ideas. Just be sure to examine them carefully and critically, and discard the flawed ones without mercy.

 

[astrocat]

Yes, it certainly is a problem. Drawing conclusions from that graph is a bad idea.

I'm no expert, but the concept of different models doesn't strike me as difficult.
As for specific examples, all I can do is point you to other sources.
Try this page: Physical cosmology
It mentions the Einstein Universe, the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker universe, Fred Hoyle's steady state model, and the Lambda-CDM.
You should also take note, as Alpha said, that models often have adjustable parameters, which means that they predict a range of possibilities. You have to do experiments do figure out what those parameters should be. That's what that graph is trying to illustrate.

I claim no such thing.
You, however, seem to claim that a huge cloud of hydrogen arrived *poof* from nowhere. Hmm.



I'm glad you found the page. That's something, at least.

So, you hadn't heard of tidal forces before... but you see nothing new when you read an encyclopedia page about them? Odd.

Anyway, the crux of tidal forces is this:

Expansion toward the direction of fall, contraction at right angles.

Pete, there are no models currently that are not based on the Big Bang. The Big Bang, your instant universe, is all there is. If you can tell me of another, beside this, model of the Universe, please let me know. I went to your link - just ,more Big Bang stuff. And Oh, your Universe didn't arrive, 'Poof', just like that? Are you telling me your Universe evolved, like mine? Yes, mine evolved only slowly, Pete. From a small cloud of Hydrogen to a big one. I think it took trillions of years, at least that's what I'm saying. Gravity did it all. I don't need your Big Bang, or Dark Energy, or Einstein's Lambda. You also have Gravity. You have altogether too many entities to get your Universe going. About the tidal forces - sorry, I just couldn't believe you were talking about the tides. In Space, everything is going around something else - except things like your 'Horse Head' Nebula, but I bet that's going around something too - we just don't know what. Now, if we're going around something that is going around something else, and that something else is going around something else, and so on and so on, your tidal forces - due to Gravity alone, become somewhat confused, and it becomes difficult to know exactly where the 'side' is. But your claim that the Universe didn't arrive 'Poof,' just like that - ooh ghasp! intrigues me immensly. Where do you think the Universe came from, not that the origin is important, compared to the ending. (Past versus Future).

 

[AlexG]

This ignorant nonsense is still going on, is it.

This thread should have been locked a long time ago. It's 19 pages of the same stuff, endlessly repeated.

 

[astrocat]

I can see you're still failing to grasp what model means. What can you model with that? Could you program that into a computer and get a simulation of the system in question? No. Does it allow you to make precise predictions? No.

Then its not a model.

Since you've obviously never looked in a textbook and you haven't been prompted to do so by this thread perhaps an example will help.

Newtonian mechanics includes Newton's 'Laws of Motion'. The second law states that the acceleration experienced by an object due to a particular force is proportional to the force's magnitude and its norm inversely proportional to the object's mass. Can I put this into a computer? Can I model anything with just that sentence? No. To do those things it needs to be formalised. Acceleration being proportional to force means $$\ddot{\mathbf{x}} \propto \mathbf{F}$$. Inversely proportional to mass means $$|\ddot{\mathbf{x}} | \propto \frac{1}{m}$$. Put these together and you get $$\mathbf{F} = m\ddot{\mathbf{x}}$$ or its more familiar form $$\mathbf{F} = m\mathbf{a}$$.

Now this is something you can construct predictions from. For instance, suppose the force is gravity on the Earth's surface. Qualitatively gravity accelerates things downwards so the best prediction I can do with the wordy version is "The ball comes down". Let's try the equation, so $$\mathbf{F} = -m\mathbf{g}$$. Working purely in vertical direction we now have $$\ddot{x} = -g$$. If I throw a ball upwards at 20m/s from a shoulder height of 2 metres (imagine I'm quite tall) at time 0 then I have that $$\dot{x}(0) = 20$$ and $$x(0) = 2$$. Integrating the original Newtonian equation gives $$\dot{x}(t) = \dot{x}(0)-gt = 20-gt$$. Integrating again gives $$x(t) = x(0)+20t-\frac{g}{2}t^{2} = 2+20t-\frac{g}{2}t^{2}$$. The ball is at the ground when x(t) = 0, which for t>0 is at about t=4.1 seconds for g=10. In addition its speed is $$\dot{x}(4.1) = -21$$ (about).

Now that is a prediction you can go an test, as its an explicit model of the dynamical system of a ball moving under gravity. You can put it into a computer and get an animation of the motion. You can apply it to different heights and different initial speeds. You can apply it to balls thrown sidewards or at an angle. Each time a specific prediction for where and when the ball comes down is made, as well as its velocity throughout the motion. These are all quantitative and testable.

That is why Newtonian mechanics is a viable and useful model for many dynamical systems encountered in everyday life, it models them properly. Unlike your 'models' its more than just arm waving and buzzwords

Oh, and before you whine about the maths being too hard that sort of question is school level. The general formula for constant acceleration dynamics I did in physics class when I was 14 or 15. The calculus derivation (ie integrating) I did when I was 16. You can't even get into a physics degree if you can't do that sort of thing in your sleep.

Prove a terminal velocity results. Give its value. Provide quantitative predictions for phenomena we can measure which would be a test of your model.

If you wish I can furnish you with the derivation of air resistance terminal velocity. It's basically the same thing I just went through but with the right hand side being $$k\Vert \dot{x}\Vert - g$$ rather than just $$-g$$. That is covered in the high school module after the one I just mentioned.

You don't seem to understand the relationship between maths and physics. Physicists use mathematics as a formal language to phrase their work in. Results in physics which are written mathematically aren't just dreamt up as abstract equations by a mathematician without a care about the real world, they are a formalisation of relationships between measured and observed phenomena in the universe.

I asked you before, how do you know what is or isn't 'poor science'? You obviously aren't a scientist so you have no first hand experience. You have no understanding of the interplay of physics and mathematics. You think pictures from school books are so complex a PhD is needed to understand them. You have so little second hand knowledge about science you regularly get basic high school level physics wrong. For instance, you're whining about a repulsive force being bad science but electromagnetism can be repulsive! I told you this before and you either ignored it (dishonesty) or you didn't understand (ignorance).

So my question is, again, what makes you think you know what is or isn't good science?

So you actually spent time on it?

Concluded based on what? You didn't look anything up, you didn't read anything, you did absolutely nothing other than reach a conclusion.

Other than a few wordy sentences you haven't come up with anything.

Strawman. You can't see individual electrons but their effects are measurable. You can't see neutrinos and even with a huge detector weighing millions of tons only a few are detectable in a year.

Where can I see your work model anything? Where can I find a single testable prediction?

Are you going to tell me your raisin cake is not a mdel of the Universe? It is, in Wiki. And I ask you again, is your raisin cake warming or Cooling Down as it expands? Why won't you answer this? Are you afraid to? My whole theory is a prediction. Testable? Of course - it just may take some time until observational equipment improves. Of course, you have me there - I can't point at this Black Hole at the center of the Universe, I can only tell you, from measurements others have taken, that it lies in the direction of the Hydra-Centauri Supercluster. On the subject of Observational Equipment being improved constantly, I never actually expected the detection of this exponentially Speeding Up Expansion tro be found within my lifetime? Maybe you won't see the exposition of the Bklack Hole art the center of the Universe in your lifetime - but the way things are going - you might. How are you going to feel then. Lookit, Alpha Numeric, Alexander Friedmann (Friedy) did the math for a collapsing Universe, so why should I try to copy him? His collapsing Universe worked okay - why not mine? But thanks for the explanation of Newton's work. I'm already familiar with his first and second laws of Universal Gravity, but I'm always ready to learn.

 

[astrocat]

My own thought is that Asscat is a high school dropout.

You remind me of a broken record. And get the name right, or don't use it.

 

[AlexG]

Are you going to tell me your raisin cake is not a mdel of the Universe?

It's not a model, it's an analogy. I realize that you don't have any idea what the difference is.

 

[AlexG]

You remind me of a broken record. And get the name right, or don't use it.

:roflmao:

 

[astrocat]

astrocat, I'm still wondering why you insist that stars can't have short lifetimes. You seem to be ignoring any reference that suggests otherwise. Why?

Stars have much longer lives than Planets, I'm surprised you don't know this. Stars start off 'accreting' Planets, then billions of years later as the star expands, it might well consume these Planets. I don't have any problem with this. It's just that according to the Big Bang, if Stars can evolve and die and explode within 8 billion years - I simply can't believe it. I'm just not that gullible. I don't ignore your references, Pete. You just think that. I replied to an earlier post of yours, about the matter closest to the Black Hole falling fastest, and there is a lot of truth in that. In a Universe evolving from a Hydrogen cloud that started out small, but which grew, due to Gravity, of course, great pressures and temperatures would have occurred in the center, and that's where the first star would have been born. I don't doubt for an instant that this was a 'wobbly' cloud, and that different parts of the center underwent these pressures and temperatures at different times, but yes, that's what I think happened. But my theory, unlike the Big Bang, isn't about what happened, but what's gonna happen in the future. The Big Bang looks backwards. Mine looks forward. It's up to you to figure out which one is more important.

 

[astrocat]

I apologize for the long post. Please take the time to read it through to the end. I've put a lot of effort into it.

What mistake? Where did I say anything about the stars of Centaurus being blueshifted?

Astrocat, I'm not sure what you think I'm thinking. We seem to be talking at cross-purposes.

This is my understanding of your idea as it relates to the accelerating expansion of the Universe. Please correct me if it is wrong:

• Your idea is that the apparent expansion of the Universe is because things closer to this huge black hole are falling faster than things further away.
• You suggest that what appears to be a stretching force driving the accellerating expansion is actually the result of a differential in the larger attractive force of the huge black hole's gravity.

You know, I actually think that this is a pretty bright idea that shows you do have a native innovative intelligence.*

In fact, that idea is the same idea behind Tidal Forces being what drives the tides. What appears to be a stretching force raising the tides is really the residual effect of gravity's attractive force.

Do you see that your idea of Universal Expansion being due to MABLE is actually the same idea as Tidal Forces? This is a good thing, right? It validates that yes, a repulsive force can be a residual of an attractive force.

----
*But! Be careful of being too attached to bright ideas. Sometimes (often!) bright, intelligent ideas turn out to be wrong on closer investigation. Great thinkers have many bright, innovative, intelligent ideas, and ruthlessly throw away the ones that don't stand up to further investigation. Good scientists will filter out the many ideas that don't stand up from the few that do, and make a modest contribution to total human knowledge.
The filtering process means expecting that an idea will turn out to be wrong, and deliberately constructing tests to show that it is wrong.

I remember discussing this filtering process in [post=2177899]an old thread[/post] (click the link!):

Here's [post=1434670]something I wrote a while ago[/post], talking about the coffee table/bar round stage of scientific development:All new ideas are thoroughly hammered at this stage, and most are subsequently discarded. That's the only way to filter out the crap and find the quality gems.
Good scientists are smart enough to brush away the rubbish, alert enough to spot the promising rocks, patient enough to polish them up and search for flaws, pragmatic enough to throw away the fractured stones and fools gold, smart enough to enlist and accept critical assistance, hardworking enough to collect a reasonable cache of small jewels over their career, hopeful enough to think that maybe one day they'll be at the coffee table when a flawless diamond shows up, and realistic enough to know that it's probably never going to happen to them.

So, my advice is this:

• Be humble. Accept that the chance of any given crazy idea (including your own) being worth publishing is low, even for the professionals.
• Expect your idea to be hammered during discussion. Accept this as a mark of respect, not as an attack on your intelligence.
• Don't ever stop thinking up crazy ideas. Just be sure to examine them carefully and critically, and discard the flawed ones without mercy.

You showed me an infra red photograph of Centaurus with the greater part of the Picture Blue-shifted. What am I supposed to think? And it's the Observable Universe that's expanding exponentially. We can't see the whole Universe. As the Observable Universe falls, it's going to Speed Up, Cool Down, Expand and Lose Pressure. That's just how Nature works. All matter is conserved - that's another law of Science. With your Big Bang, it's all lost, flying off into Space and accelerating ad infinitum. With my theory, it's all accounted for. Matter really doesn't go that far. And good or bad? My theory says Humpty Dumpty will come together again - and that's a good thing - I feel. Your Big Bang is man made. So is Dark Energy, so is lambda so is your weakened form of Universal Gravity. Gravity, on the other hand, is real - I prefer to go with that, especially as it seems to fit so well with what we observe. Don't be misled by the hype. Your 'good' scientists I callk 'True' scientists. You have perfectly described a True Scientist. The opposite of a True Scientist is a Modern Scientist. Modern scientist are perfectly prepared to mislead with manufactured Science, they have (I've noticed) very short tempers ( I blame alcohol) and get mad very quickly when their precious Big Bang is challenged. But I don't believe the Universe arrived 'Poof', just like that. It evolved, just like man evolved. This 'Poof,' just like that stuff has got to be put to bed.

 

[Pete]

In the spirit of True Science, I have apologies to deliver.

Astrocat, I am sorry that I compared you to Ferrous Cranus. Childish insults have no place in discussions of science. In future, when I engage in character examinations I will endeavour to clearly articulate the specific behaviour I find questionable, why it is questionable, and give specific suggestions for improvement. I will also endeavour to consciously seek and acknowledge laudable behaviour to encourage productive discourse.

You have perfectly described a True Scientist. The opposite of a True Scientist is a Modern Scientist. Modern scientist are perfectly prepared to mislead with manufactured Science, they have (I've noticed) very short tempers

While not all scientists meet the lofty ideal of a "True Scientist" (the pressure to publish is high resulting in many dodgy works), I think that most are much more intellectually honest than you could imagine.

Your experiences with scientists has clearly been discouraging. I suggest that this has two reasons:

First, I suspect you may be confusing Science Zealots with actual scientists. A stereotypical Science Zealot:

• has a blind faith in "Science"
• may have science qualifications, but is not a scientist,
• implies that they are well versed in one or more fields of science,
• often engages 'crackpots' in futile pissing contests
• don't try to learn from discourse, they just try to 'win' the verbal battle
• tend to be short tempered
• are quickly reduced to insults and ridicule when their limited scientific arsenal is exhausted.

You've seen some zealous behaviour like that in this thread, including from myself. I apologize without reserve for that behaviour.

Second, some of your behaviour gives impressions that are the antithesis of a True Scientist's values:

• You seem reluctant to acknowledge errors. A trivial example in this thread involved the title of Newton's Principia. Perhaps you could have said "Sorry about that, I really thought it was In Principia," and moved on with no harm done?
• You seem reluctant to critically examine your ideas. For example, you seem satisfied that you "simply can't believe" that stars can have short lifetimes, instead of actually finding out how long stars live. Perhaps you could start with the Wikipedia article on Main Sequence stars and go from there? It would be helpful if you posted a summary of what you find.

Even True Scientists may get short tempered when faced with such behaviour. Those that don't are likely to lose interest and move on to more productive activities, leaving you to duke it out with the Zealots and the angry.

But!
It is good that you have independent ideas, and I encourage you to keep thinking up new things. I'm also glad to have this opportunity to talk with you, because it helps me to critically examine my own behaviour and beliefs.


Note - I am not a scientist, but I like to think that I know my limitations and I try to be upfront about it.
I do know some scientists, including some True Scientists. People who are extremely intelligent, extremely humble, and extremely honest about what they don't know.

 

[Ophiolite]

Pete,
I applaud your honest, thoughtful, positive, well reasoned, informative, focused post. I further applaud your honesty, sincerity and self control. I admire you for it. Unfortunately it does not alter the fact that Astrocat is an arrogant prat whose self indulgent ignorance is ultimately a disgrace to humanity.
Cheers
O.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Are you going to tell me your raisin cake is not a mdel of the Universe? It is, in Wiki. And I ask you again, is your raisin cake warming or Cooling Down as it expands? Why won't you answer this? Are you afraid to?

I told you your paraphrasing and description as 'raison cake' is false. How is replying to you being afraid?

If you're unwilling to find out what the mainstream say and yet still make whiny claims about it why should anyone give you the time of day? Why should other people help you when you don't help yourself?

My whole theory is a prediction.

You quoted me explaining 'prediction' yet you didn't understand it. Did you even read it?

Of course, you have me there - I can't point at this Black Hole at the center of the Universe, I can only tell you, from measurements others have taken, that it lies in the direction of the Hydra-Centauri Supercluster.

What measurements? Please provide the analysis of reputably obtained data you've done.

Lookit, Alpha Numeric, Alexander Friedmann (Friedy) did the math for a collapsing Universe, so why should I try to copy him? His collapsing Universe worked okay - why not mine? But thanks for the explanation of Newton's work. I'm already familiar with his first and second laws of Universal Gravity, but I'm always ready to learn.

Newton's been surpassed for a century. Sticking to falsified models in the face of evidence is not science. It's dogma.