|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The cosmic conspiracy. | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That's the dumbest thing I've read all day --- in the face of very stiff competition.
However, instead of whining about the real physics that you don't understand, how about you try to explain the observed phenomena in terms of your plasma gobbledegook? Good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh, we have just started on quasars. Don't be impatient, it's how astronomers make mistakes by jumping to conclusions to explain what they see. http://www.thunderbolts.info/...009/arch09/090720quintet.htm What goes "Unremarked is the fact that the differences in redshift of the background galaxies place them (under consensus belief) farther from each other than the foreground galaxy is from the Milky Way." Stephan's Quintet - Wikipedia quote:These galaxies are of interest because of their violent collisions.... Also of interest, NGC 7320 (to the lower left in both photos) indicates a small redshift (790 km/s) while the other four exhibit large redshifts (near 6600 km/s). Since galactic redshift is proportional to distance, NGC 7320 is only a foreground projection and is ~39 million ly from Earth versus the 210-340 million ly of the other five So the foreground galaxy is closer to us than the other 4 are to each other, yet they are interacting, colliding? If I were to claim two galaxies 39 million light years apart were colliding, you would call me a well, idiot, but claim yourself galaxies separated by even vaster distances are, because obviously they are. Even though their individual redshifts tell you that is impossible, but that fact is almost never mentioned.Yet you have those 4 galaxies interacting, despite your belief redshift = recessional velocity and distance. So when too obvious to claim distance separation, you just gloss over that little fact, that your redshift theory does not allow them to be close enough to interact. Apparently one of the things you can't do is read.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I posted it, read it many times ... But evidently without understanding it. Comprehension is a fairly important aspect of reading, wouldn't you agree? Unlike the ability to copy-and-paste.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
unlike you where your own scientists are telling you something and you are ignoring them???? It's not like I said it, your own scientists say it, yet you disagree, funny how that works. Ahh, I see, data is only good when it seems to fit your theory, otherwise the data is wrong and not the theory, right? Hand waving, dismissal of evidence, makling up Fairy Dust, par for the course. Might not be so bad if every discovery in space since we launched spacecraft didn't come as a surprise to astronomers. So much for their predictive power. Now I got someone trying to tell me that Fred Whipple was correct about Haley being a dirty snowball when your own scientists say it has been positively ruled out that it could be that. Double talk and misdirection, that is all standard theory has. If you want people to take you seriously, you could lie less. I do not have any scientists, but if I did they wouldn't be telling me the crazy crap you've made up in your head. And you did in fact say the things you said, unlike scientists, who without exception aren't you. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
well good, since they aren't your scientists you should have no problem admitting they were totally wrong about the composition of Temple 1, and by association, every other comet they describe. So if all their data before impact pointed to a loose aggregates of material, and they have positively ruled out any theories that rely on such, then all the data that claimed Temple 1 and Haley and every other comet was a loose aggregate of material is also highly suspect. You should look in the morror when you call others liers, since you do it every post in an effort to defend a theory that has been disproved. That's the sad part, that somehow you feel the need to lie in an attempt to defend a theory all the leading comet scientists say is incorrect. Why is that? Why attempt to defend a theory no one agrees is correct anymore? Not even NASA believes they are dirty snowballs any more. It seems that you are the only one that believes this disproved theory. Wake up, the future is here and is passing you by. You are letting your anger get in the way of reasonable thinking because you're upset that you were proved wrong. I understand. That's the typical response from 8 year olds, but I was expecting more from adults who claim to understand science. You are a fool and I will waste no more time on you. If anyone else wants to have a reasonable discussion we can, but fools and idiots will no longer be replied to. You are apparently insane. I have of course never discussed the composition of "Temple 1". If you are unwilling to respond to my posts, I quite understand your real reasons for running away from me. This will not, of course, prevent me from pointing out your numerous errors. It will, on the other hand, prevent you from answering back. That's fine by me. For example, I can point out that you are telling stupid lies about "Stephan's Quintet". According to your principles, you are unable to reply to me, and the fact that you are a stupid liar will go unrefuted even by you. That's OK by me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Last time I'll answer since you continue to ignore the facts Gravitational lens - Wikipedia
quote: it will appear as a ring in relativity theory. They are not rings, or even multiple images of one object, they all have filaments connecting to the CENTER of the galaxy they are interacting with. And as the quasar's increase distance from it's host galaxy over time, the filaments thin and the quasars become brighter as they begin to form into galaxies of their own.300 Multiple Choices Your own photo's disprove everything you've ever said which is nothing by the way, except to claim everyone else is wrong, haven't seen you present one fact yet. All you have ever done is say others are wrong without saying how. Because you have no how. Funniest looking ring I ever seen, pointing inwards like an X not circular like an O. At least get an explanation consistent with the observations, not in direct contradiction to what we see. Oh, but that's right, we didn't have the technology then that we do now, couldn't see those connection like we can now, so you could get away with that explanation before, but our own technology is catching you up now. Here's another quasar not connected to it's parent galaxy according to mainstream.http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm These bizarre ravings are not a reply to my post. Why do you think they are?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No but you did, since they must be distorted in a ring, what part of that do you not understand????? Any distortion must be in the planar ring around the source, not towards it. Einstein's theory leaves no other interpretation. Redshift, claimed to be due to Hubble’s theory, but we find it isn’t:Georges Lematre - Wikipedia Hubble himself stated many times: It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination We may predict with confidence that the 200-inch will tell us whether the red-shifts must be accepted as evidence of a rapidly expanding Universe, or attributed to some new principle of nature. (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific Vol. 59, No. 349). And lo and behold, the 200-inch telescope did indeed tell us whether the red-shifts must be accepted as evidence of a rapidly expanding Universe, or attributed to some new principle of nature. Halton Arp found quasars in connection with their parent galaxies. But you ignored Hubble and his assistant Halton Arp. Halton Arp was the lone voice among a crowd of scientists who conformed to the standard Big Bang model when he began to publish papers that did not demonstrate that inflationor the Big Bang hypothesiswas valid. As Edwin Hubble predicted, Arp’s research using the 200-inch Hale reflector demonstrated some new principle of nature. For daring to question he was denied access to any telescope in the US, this is how science treats those who might question the proposed model. And now with the Hubble Space Telescope we not only see the bridge linking the two clearly, but also observe two other quasars’ embedded inside this filament. That one might be chance alignment but that 4 are is astronomically impossible.http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203466 Plasma redshift has been observed in the laboratory, a newly discovered principle of nature just as Hubble predicted and Halton Arp verified.http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf The cards are quickly blowing away in the wind. Perhaps you overestimate the power of wind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Perhaps you underestimate it. So much evidence you presented there in refutation, I am at a loss to respond. See message 129. Was that the one that consisted mostly of nonsensical ramblings, or the other one that consisted mostly of nonsensical ramblings? I forget.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The best comedy is always unintentional. That was priceless, thank you.
Nonetheless, since I assume it is not actually your intention to come off as a hapless buffoon ignorant of the very vocabulary of astronomy, now would be a good time to start listening to NoNukes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But it has been quite crank free at EvC for a while; so please, do stay. What about Peter Lamont, then? You've had a choice of people who are cranky about cosmology. Of course, justatruthseeker is wrong about a much wider range of things, but I don't think the contributions of Mr. Lamont should be overlooked.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024