Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
It´s OK by me if you chose to live in a bubble of denial and illogical thinking.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Questions on the big bang expanding universe.
- Thread starter Ben Dhyan
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
That’s really your own reflection you are seeing.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
And BEFORE they became stars they all were at the plasma stages, also called "cosmic clouds" which STILL fills up their good part of the Universe.
Last edited:
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said: ↑
If modern science cannot agree how atomic nucleosynthesis works in the principle all over the places I cant take different models seriously at all.
If modern science cannot agree how atomic nucleosynthesis works in the principle all over the places I cant take different models seriously at all.
You mean supernovas which against all predictions "explodes" several times in a row!?
No they clearly and evidently aren´t as even their "supernova fantasy" is contradicted by several so called "explosions" of the same object. They are not even in agreement with their own theory. So it is you and the assembled science who don´t understand, include or simply ignore such implications.
Last edited:
But not our atmosphere.
Those are high enough energy to obtain nucleosynthesis, yes.
You have one or two unusual stars that we don't understand. We have hundreds of thousands of others that we do. The overall description doesn't change because of a couple examples that we do not understand as yet. Let's see what the data says.
But the examples you gave have NOTHING to do with issues of nucleosynthesis.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said: ↑
And BEFORE they became stars they all were at the plasma stages, also called "cosmic clouds" which STILL fills up their good part of the Universe.
And BEFORE they became stars they all were at the plasma stages, also called "cosmic clouds" which STILL fills up their good part of the Universe.
You need to expand you definition of "plasma". All basic atoms which isn´t connected to other basic atoms are in the principle at the plasma stage until these begins to connect more and more to "solid matter" via the E&M forces.
Last edited:
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
So does the galactic energy from which center strong gamma rays are beaming out as real evidence of just nucleosynthetic formation, even of heavier elements.
Your (re-explosively contradicted) supernovas is not needed in order to explain the full nucleosynthesis at all.
BTW, the repeated "explosions" of "supernovas" are nothing else but electromagnetic discharges just like the similar phenomenon in the Sun.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Sorry but this is nonsense. Plasma is a state of matter in which the atoms have some of their orbital electrons removed.
OK, so we can add the concept of a plasma to the (rather long) list of things you don't understand.
No. Neither the temperatures, the pressures, nor the energies involved are enough for nuclear reactions.
I'm suspecting that the term 'nucleosynthesis' is yet another concept you don't grasp.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Dark side of the Moon fyi means the side that is not facing the Earth. That is the side that receives the full spectrum of radiation.
No, it doesn't. The full spectrum of radiation is experienced on the *sun* facing side. The Earth only rarely blocks any radiation to the Moon: that only happens during lunar eclipses.
gnostic
The Lost One
What really baffled me, is you constantly arguing with everyone while you thinking you are right about the subject...but the fact is, you don’t really even understand the subject you want to debate in.
By doing what you are doing, you are not only showing that you don’t understand the science behind the topic, you are rejecting all help to learn about the subject, you are also refusing to learn from your mistakes.
We really not only getting anywhere with you, because it is one thing after another...because of your gigantic ego won’t allow you to admit you have made many errors, let alone from them.
I am seriously no expert in physics, especially the more advanced maths involved in physics, but at least I am willing to learn the science of the physical nature, willing to ask questions of something that I understand, and will admit if I made some mistakes, but also willingly to learn from them.
And astrophysics, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics, are actually new stuffs that I have been slowly learning for the last 15 or so years. It doesn’t make me expert in this subjects, but I try to learn enough of each fields, to understand at the very least, the basics.
With you, you are refusing to learn the basics, you plow your way, attempting to smash away any attempts to understand the science.
You did with it the Milky Way, and now you are doing the Big Bang model. You are refusing to understand there are more than one force in the physical cosmology, being so biased for EM & light, but against gravity and gravitation. You don’t understand either, and you don’t understand air pressures and nucleosynthesis.
Many here have tied to help you understand the subjects, but you have rejected all help. So many of us have been fed up by your arrogance and distrust, and it looks like Polymath257 is nearly at the end of the rope. He has been far more patient with you than you deserve.
Why are you so insistent in being right, when you clearly don’t understand many subjects on physics that you are arguing about?
gnostic
The Lost One
exchemist
Veteran Member
OK, I've had a further look as Massie's paper and as I feared he seems to be just a crank. There is an extremely far-fetched attempt to account for the gravity that holds the earth in its orbit round the sun, by means of an (unexplained) "vortex" of ZPE particles. This, he claims, carries the earth along like a cork on a stream, which explains why the Michelson-Morley experiment found no "ether wind". (The obvious objection is that another object could equally well orbit the sun in the opposite direction, which his notion would seem to forbid.)
It all looks like the work of just another of these anti-relativity cranks that are two a penny all over the internet. The funny (or tragic) thing is he goes to great lengths to simulate Newton's Law of Gravitation, ignoring the fact we have observations that show departures from that law in exactly the manner predicted by general relativity! To use a well-known example, GPS would not work without GR.
Like all cranks, this guy has a lot more explaining to do than he seems to realise.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that is the Far Side of the Moon. Since it is not "Dark" there would be no pressure differences. Scientists know the cause of the Moon getting further away. Why did you not look that up?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
If you were following my comments, we are talking about radiation from the cosmos as a whole, and continuously, that means every em wavelength in existence, at all times, in the context of the Casimir effect principle, and that all wavelengths greater than the Earth Moon distance are excluded from the radiation pressure between them. I take your point that direct em radiation pressure from the Sun at whatever the spectrum would factor in to counter this effect when the Moon was further from the Earth, but it would reinforce it when the "dark side of the Moon' was facing the Sun at conjunction periods, ie. full and new moon.