TomTomBinks
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2017 06:29 pm
@cameronleon,
I said those things about you to Roger because I don't know how to respond to someone like you. Obviously I was aware you would see my remarks.
Do you reject EVERYTHING you don't understand? I mean do have your own ideas on electricity? How about aerodynamics? Is there any science you DO accept?
cameronleon
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2017 07:23 pm
@TomTomBinks,
Quote:
Do you reject EVERYTHING you don't understand? I mean do have your own ideas on electricity? How about aerodynamics? Is there any science you DO accept?


OK.

Lets play fair.

You are curious of why I reject several of those good for nothing theories, those theories that enjoy your support.

You have now the opportunity to provide your own opinion, an opinion free of the doctrines of those theories.

I will give you an example of how these good for nothing theories are used as influence for observation of phenomena, and why your current position when is about science is very questionable.

Please, follow the example. And please answer the question the best as you can.

The example is very simple.

EXAMPLE:

The telescopes using the most recent technology are detecting galaxies going away. The distance of these galaxies is increasing very fast in relation to our position in the cosmos.

These galaxies appear to travel very fast when going away.

At one moment, it has been calculated that their speed must be over the speed of light -180,000 miles per second- because they seem to disappear from our sight in a very short period of time.

According to one theory, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light -180,000 miles per second- and in exchange it does exist another theory claiming that space is expanding. When these two theories are put one against the another, the result agrees with both.

The conclusion is that the galaxies are not traveling faster than the speed of light -180,000 miles per second- but there is the process of the expansion of space the one carrying these galaxies at the assumed faster than light speed.

________________________________________

QUESTION:

Put those theories on one side.

With the best that you can, explain why those galaxies "suddenly" disappear from our sight while going away from us.

Find another answer for the observation of this phenomenon without the influence of the current theories..

____________________________________________

This is the way I study science, when I use all possibilities, read and analyze the "genesis" of each theory, verify if their sources are factual and reliable, and so forth.

I already have the answer for that phenomenon given in the example, an answer which can be tested millions of times and always comes successful.

I want you please, to read the example and give the answer to my request.

Hope you find the same answer I found years ago, an answer which deletes the claim that those galaxies must be traveling that fast due to expansion of space.



TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2017 05:19 pm
@cameronleon,
Cam,
I don't pretend to know something that I haven't studied. The volume of knowledge in this subject is vast and would take many years to accumulate. Also one would need a background in the appropriate math and physics, which I don't have. I could just Google the subject and repeat what I find there, but that would be pointless.
Do you have the background to comment on this subject? Do you have the expertise to formulate a new theory?
I think the mistake you're making is you underestimate the extent of human knowledge. You think everything can be explained in a few paragraphs.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2017 09:07 pm
@TomTomBinks,
It is amazing to me that people who reject science do so while sitting in front of a semiconductor based digital computer on the internet.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 06:49 am
@maxdancona,
I think It is amazing that people who accept science (and pat themselves on their back for having the intelligence to discuss this) and are sitting in front of a semi conductor based digital computer on the Internet, and have a very good understanding of the research planning and thought required to create that computer and the program it is operating, and at the same time make fun of people who oversimplify the technology and intelligence it took to create that computer. Are the same people that look at a human body and the amount of complexity that is involved in the structure of that body and the DNA program it is running on, (not to mention it's ability to even carry on this conversation) and say no intelligence behind this complexity and programming. Nothing to see here. No discussion needed no questions need to be asked about where this complexity came from. It just happened and it's stupid to ask questions like who thought of this who planned it and why. Don't ask that question in school children. At least don't expect an answer because if somebody attempts to answer that they are a bigot and a religious zealot who, needs to be stifled by the Constitution and its separation of church and state.

The problem is in the paragraph above not a single church or religion was mentioned. And for some reason the only acceptable worldview that is allowed to be discussed is an atheistic point of view. That seems like a point of view based on bigotry. So either the founders of our country that wrote our constitution were worldview bigots, or we are misinterpreting what they meant when they wrote the constitution. This bigotry is hindering our search for a unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 08:12 am
@edgarblythe,
There was far too little information in the article on the new theory to form an opinion on, plus, I'm always suspicious of any theory that uses the term 'emergent. It's much like the DKS theory that more or less says about everything, 'this is the way things just naturally happen.'

That is no more explanatory than saying 'God did it'. In fact, it's almost like saying just that.

By reading between the lines, it sounds like the author is saying that Gravity is the result of decaying matter - more decaying matter = more gravity. I suppose it's possible but IDK.
0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 08:39 am
@TomTomBinks,
Quote:
I don't pretend to know something that I haven't studied.


Well, you wrote me the following

Quote:
Do you reject EVERYTHING you don't understand? I mean do have your own ideas on electricity? How about aerodynamics? Is there any science you DO accept?


When you don't know about something that you have not studied, how you pretend to challenge or criticize someone who knows the subject in question and understand it?

I know what I'm talking about when I establish that Gravity is motion in action, no more than that. That the rest is just pure imaginations.

You recognize that your knowledge is based in what you have read about gravity from different sources, not from what you have study about gravity because you really don't know much.

I told you to try using your own deduction, your own insight, your own point of view, disregarding the explanation given by the current theories, and think what other phenomenon or cause might be the reason why galaxies traveling away at fast speeds just "disappear" from our observation.

Regardless of your background, do it at least once, think, try to explain that observation with those galaxies. Be free of the "scientific religion" imposing its doctrines and controlling you.

The answer is very simple, and you and I and everybody can prove it with millions and millions of tests.

It is so simple, that even causes laughs when compared with all that garbage the current theories of science establish as the explanation of such a phenomenon.

Take your time. This is a very interesting topic and eventually, if you liberate yourself from those theories, you will find the solid answer.

Until then, if you don't know much about a topic, you might not be the right person to challenge another poster who discuss it. Opinoons are always welcome, but if a person is not prepared for a discussion, the best is to give opinions without challenging.

My best wishes.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 08:53 am
@cameronleon,
I'm aware that distant galaxies will eventually disappear from our view, but as far as I know, we have not actually seen one do that. They just get increasingly red shifted, but not far enough to disappear. We even still 'see' the CMB at the 'edge' right now.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 09:18 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
.... are the same people that look at a human body and the amount of complexity that is involved in the structure of that body and the DNA program it is running on, (not to mention it's ability to even carry on this conversation) and say no intelligence behind this complexity and programming. Nothing to see here.


And these are also the people who are curing diseases, saving lives and extending the lifespan of human beings. Yes, with modern science we have literally doubled the life expectancy of human beings and we have cut the infant mortality rate from about 30% to almost zero.

Science actually solves real problems and makes our lives better. When you take antibiotics, or have laser eye surgery, or use a digital computer or fly on a jet airplane you are reaping the benefits of people who do real science with mathematical thinking and the scientific process.

You reject science (or parts of science) for your religious beliefs... but religious beliefs have never really helped anyone in a practical way. You don't understand the mathematics or scientific theory behind gravity, so you reject it. But you should understand that the same careful mathematics and scientific process is behind the computer you are using and the modern technology that you enjoy every day.

I had a ruptured appendix that would have killed me had I been in the hands of God rather than in the hands of modern medicine. I owe my life to modern medicine because modern medicine actually saves lives. Religion has never helped me.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 02:01 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
you reject science (or parts of science) for your religious beliefs. Period. But religious believes have never really helped anyone in a practical way. You don't understand the mathematics or scientific theory behind gravity so you reject it.
. Maybe you have me confused with Cameronleon I don't reject any part of science. The only thing I reject is that all this order came without intelligent guidance. We don't have a complete theory of gravity. I understand relativity very well. I think relativity is very accurate and correct but incomplete. It does a great job of explaining gravity but it has it does a poor job of explaining why we have gravity. It does nothing to describe what is warping in space. What scientific theories have you seen me reject? I agree with everything scientists have revealed I just don't agree with all their interpretations
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 02:03 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
I understand relativity very well.


I doubt that. Relativity is a highly mathematical field. In order to understand relativity at all you need to have mastered at least 5 semesters of college math (starting with calculus and going through differential equations).

Do you have this background?

It sounds like you reject evolution at least. Am I wrong?
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 02:26 pm
@maxdancona,
I did that. I had that accomplished by the end of my sophomore year in engineering college. Understanding the math of relativity is quite difficult at first. And so is understanding the math of Maxwell Shroedinger's and Planck. I haven't attempted to understand Higgs math but i understand entropic gravity. The key to truly understanding the math is being able to picture in your mind what the math is describing. If you cant do that, you don't fully undderstand it. I understand the math well enough to be nearly 100 percent sure of the picture.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 02:52 pm
@brianjakub,
Based on your posts here... I don't believe that you have had any math or science education at the University level. You are just making stuff up based on terms you don't understand from some dictionary..
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 03:53 pm
@maxdancona,
Give me an example of something i said that you don't think i understand. I am trying to address the audience so, I will mix technical and laymen terms and analogies. If i am wrong i would appreciate being corrected.

To answer your earlier post:
I do not reject any part of the theory of evolution except that purely random mutations and other randomly established systems are able to produce the variation and complexity we currently observe in biological organisms. I believe all of evolution occurred during reproduction, and every complex organism came into existence as the result of natural biological reproduction with only one qualifying exception to neodarwinian evolution,"intelligence was involved in guiding the mutations most likely during sexual reproduction or, during the early stages of embryonic development to plan and guide the development of new complex organ systems and organisms". I believe this manipulation of proteins in DNA was done in a fashion that is similar to how your intelligent thoughts manipulate the proteins in your brain so you can create complexity. Do you believe your thoughts can manipulate proteins in your brain and create complex things?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 05:01 pm
@brianjakub,
brianjakob wrote:
He is looking at gravity in the same way that entropy changes pressure and temperature in a gas. That is similar to wind in a hurricane. That causes him to average all matter and all of the empty space together in a galaxy as if all the matter in that galaxy is one continuous hurricane.


Sure Brian. Pretty much any post you have made shows that you have little understanding of science... sometimes comically so.

Entropy doesn't change pressure and temperature in a gas. This is not similar to wind in a hurricaine. And the phrase "average all matter and all of the empty space together" is nonsensical.

Your posts are what you would get if you threw a physics dictionary into a blender.

TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 05:23 pm
@cameronleon,
Cam,
You wrote:
I know what I'm talking about when I establish that Gravity is motion in action, no more than that.
You say you "know", but I really doubt it. What is your educational background?
You say "disregard all that scientists have learned". How do you "know" anything unless you are adding to existing knowledge?
Are you so arrogant that you can say you know a subject better just by "thinking about it" for a while than a scientist who has devoted his entire life to that study?
I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain some astronomical phenomenon when I don't have the appropriate education. "Just thinking about it" for a while is really not enough.
Since you're dying to reveal your amazing theory, let's hear it.
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 05:29 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
It is amazing to me that people who reject science do so while sitting in front of a semiconductor based digital computer on the internet.

There's a bunch of 'em around here. They'd be right at home in the Dark Ages!
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Sep, 2017 07:24 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Your posts are what you get if you threw a physics dictionary in a blender.
. Yeah, that's pretty bad. I can explain this much better than that. I need to get to my computer.
0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Oct, 2017 08:19 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
I'm aware that distant galaxies will eventually disappear from our view, but as far as I know, we have not actually seen one do that. They just get increasingly red shifted, but not far enough to disappear. We even still 'see' the CMB at the 'edge' right now.


As long as you point to a moving object, you will obtain the red shift or blue shift effect. The current argument in science is about how can you be sure that slow increase or fast increase of red shift is actually accurate with the real speed of those far away galaxies. Ones add dark matter, others use space-time, and so forth. The discussion is not over because the contradictions are strong.

Notice that you won't perceive any red shift if you don't point to an object. Like the police officer won't obtain any fast or slow speed (red shift transmitted and translated data) when pointing to nothing.

With millions of stars in the universe, and uncountable number of galaxies, you must have to have a great aim to claim that you are hitting the right target at such an immense distance.

Attorneys challenge very often police speed tickets when other cars where near the one that received the penalty. The argument is how accurate was the aim of the police officer pointing a target a certain distance with several moving objects. In most cases the charges are dropped.

And I'm not telling you that astronomers have bad aim, but use one of those telescopes, and try yourself using computer, to target one that is between others at the further locations according to our calculations.

From here, read the next below.

____________________________________________

About the CMB, you must read the following link

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/304103/why-is-cmb-not-considered-as-the-edge-of-the-universe

Quote:
So....
Why is it that the Cosmic Microwave Background not formally considered as the edge of the universe as a whole?...

...
1- Is there an assumption that there could be some matter beyond the CMB — except the hot, dense and opaque soup of plasma?

2- Do we know with reasonable certainty that there are galaxies (or matter) that have already receded away from us forever — without any detection yet and without any chance of being detected in future (which means, it's already drifting away faster than the speed of light, owing to the accelerated expansion of the universe)?

3- If answer to the above is yes, and if those galaxies (or matter), that were born ONLY AFTER the Recombination Era (CMB), have already drifted away beyond the sphere of the observable universe, why is the CMB still visible? Is it not like saying that we see the "old", but we don't and won't see the "new"? How did some matter (formed later) overtake the CMB (created before it) in the race of ever receding space?


I love this kind of thinkers, because they challenge conventional ideas which have been erroneously accepted as facts.

There are lots of scientists who have challenged the Cosmic Microwave Background in many ways, proving it wrong to its supporters.

To start, if there is enough matter to justify the big bang in the first place, and so forth. It is a lot of things involved that have been passed over in order to proclaim the big bang a valid theory.

The Cosmic Microwave Background is one of them.

________________________________________










cameronleon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Oct, 2017 08:23 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
And these are also the people who are curing diseases, saving lives and extending the lifespan of human beings. Yes, with modern science we have literally doubled the life expectancy of human beings and we have cut the infant mortality rate from about 30% to almost zero.

Science actually solves real problems and makes our lives better. When you take antibiotics, or have laser eye surgery, or use a digital computer or fly on a jet airplane you are reaping the benefits of people who do real science with mathematical thinking and the scientific process....


You are talking of science.

No one argues about that.

The argument is about "some of the theories of science".

In your examples given above, nothing proved right the theory of evolution, but proved right that thanks to science several discoveries and their applications are making our lives much better.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Theory of Gravity
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/06/2022 at 02:16:49