Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Pretty sure i could come out with a load of stuff they wouldn`t bother "challenging" if i put my mind to it

 

Really? What qualifications have you got that would make them take you seriously in the first place? he has directly put these questions to some of the top peer reviewers in science. Gal-Yam in Israel did engage in a brief discussion which resulted in his referring to the work of others and "believing" in their work, yet could not scientifically or mathematically answer the contradictions raised by Crothers, surely if current theory based on general relativity is solid then providing answers to Crothers questions would be straight forward..

Nit picking by you, so many questions raised and you come out with that drivel

If all of these people know Einstein's work so well then they should be able to simply answer his questions mathematically.
Kirchhoffs law on black body radiation has been proven wrong in the lab, it is not universal and independent of materials of the cavity.Planck's law uses Kirchhoffs law so that cannot be correct either and that really questions quantum physics too as they were born the same day as Planck's law. Materials do have a big effect on results, and this is physics performed by physicists like Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille who set the world record for high res imaging. His list of published papers is extensive. He destroyed WMAP, technically, the best way to destroy something. He made a great point about the Cosmic background radiation. If WMAP is showing CBR then they should be able to produce the exact same map over and over, it would not change, yet they cannot replicate it, to image changes in CBR you would need to image for a thousand years or more to see changes in the map.

So it's not some crazy people that are being ignored, there are papers and lab results that CAN be replicated.
Many many predictions have been made and confirmed as the new data comes in.

Crothers makes a good argument and I am hoping one of the big wigs takes on the mathematical challenge.
The contradictions are many, and don't make sense at all.

 

It's such a hoot!

The truth is GOD knows - because He did it. He's now having a good laugh watching you foolish people argue about what you THINK may have happened as your puny brains haven't been able to prove anything. Despite all the time, effort and money that you've spent on it.

 

Answer me this though. Seeing as you are a scientist and you know the laws of physics
if the universe was in the beginning according to Hawking, 0 size and infinite temperature, where was the matter to create the temperature, infinite temperature, wouldn't that require infinite exponentially increasing friction between particles to create infinite temperature. Doesn't 0 size kind of prevent this because you have no matter and no room to move it if you did, no particles?!.

Doesn't make a lick of ****ing sense if you ask me. This is where the mathematics part company with reality.

Also, mounting objection to the big bang, of which we have 3 types btw

if the BB goes, they can also scrape that Higgs Boson barnacle off the hull of the good ship Physics too.

Another science question, how do you divide by 0 to get infinity? Infinity is not a ****ing number, it cannot be worked out mathematically yet they ****ing do

Edit. Kirchhoff's law and so Planck's law are not correct.
A paper on it. http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2014/PP-36-11.PDF
I'd say this has pretty significant implications, like the gaseous star formation for example is incorrect if Kirchhoff's law is wrong. No one has refuted Robitaille's paper.

 

You may be right Dave

 

http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...9/12/paper-illustrating-more-of-crothers.html

Oh dear, Mr Crothers does not do too well when people point out his errors. Many of the links off this page make things look even worse for him.

 

Dealing with creationism blog, are you serious? Wiki links?!? they have no place in science or scientific debate, none whatsoever.

That's clearly an attack on Crothers, not the paper referenced in it but the article. It deals with Einstein's field equations and general relativity and mainly how Einstein's equations work out in terms of black hole universes and big bang universes as they currently stand.

I've obviously followed the mainstream stuff for decades and then looked at some of the newer ideas, hopefully humans didn't stop advancing in 1916 after the publication of Einstein's work as so many seem to think.

Also, I have no idea and neither do you if that is really Corthers in the comments section.
Also worth mentioning, both sides of the argument are unprovable in a physical context on these issues, though he certainly has blown holes in Hawking's logic in a way we can understand. the laws of physics seem to stop when something cannot be explained.

When I see the likes of you not even look at Crothers work and go looking for a link to debunk him, that's pretty standard for people trying to make a point in a debate where they have no idea what they are even talking about but want to point score.

Those that usually have no clue resort to character assassinations. I see some even just think he's nuts and part of the Electric Universe project, as if this is some stigma, funny that.
Here's an example of the bullshit attack on Crothers.

"The day someone can demonstrate a relativity-free GPS system, or a working GPS receiver interpreting the received signals with whatever alternative you advocate, you statement might have some validity. Until then, your statement is only wishful thinking."

GPS was initially worked out without General relativity! This is the problem with crackpot articles and comments sections and people who have no ****ing idea about history or what they are talking about.


Provide me something from a credible source that is not just a personal attack on someone. Cheers

 

Infinities are anathema in mathematics and physics.

 

True that yet some pretty big theories rest upon it.

Singularities, infinite density infinite mass, more anathema, Special relativity doesn't allow for infinite density or mass

 

That's why it's not feasible to travel faster than the speed of light.

 

always wondered on that theory.

is that because it is mathematically impossible? or we just think it is etc ie with what little knowledge of things we have so far we just dont know the equation yet or know of other means to be able to just yet?

seems as naive as saying aliens don't exist

 

E = MC2 is the reason.

 

I think that to be a falsehood though. Quantum entanglement has shown that information can travel faster than the speed of light.

Quantum entanglement is not magic obviously, there is a connection between two entangled particles at an atomic level along which information must travel. two entangled particles in 2 different galaxies can pass information to one another in seconds or less maybe.

 

It's very much a moot point as to whether that actually constitutes 'travelling' faster than the speed of light.

 

Again Bridgeman attacks Crothers but at least he is doing some maths though avoiding the salient points of Crothers argument.
http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...06/some-preliminary-comments-on-crothers.html
The reply by Crothers. Not that I think you'll read either. Crothers dares to bridge the gap between logic common sense, physical reality and mathematics, Bridgeman uses a purely mathematical approach that sometimes takes purely mathematical constructs and applies to them physical properties, you cannot do this and then try call it physical reality. The danger of that is you get so buried in maths that physical reality is forgotten. Hence my sig quote from Halton Arp.
Crothers reply
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/bridgman.pdf

 

so in other words we just don't know the equation yet to counter that argument.

shouldn't say not feasible, as it well could be, just we don't know it yet.

 

It's been proven

 

don't want to start an argument rhc but lol they say you need water to have life, that theory could well be blown out the water (no pun intended) one day.

just because that's our understanding of how life works, doesn't mean you cant have life by other means, just so far we cant counter that argument.

 

How so? Space and\or distance are just references on the xyz planes between objects. It cannot be folded. There is no logical, scientific or physical reason to assume there is 0 distance between entangled particles in different galaxies.

If this is true then E = MC2 becomes meaningless in this context or at best an incomplete solution.

 

Water is essential for carbon based life. But other life forms could well exist though would "we" call it life? that's the thing. We might not even recognise it as life as what we are looking for is all based on what we are and what the earth is, bacteria and so on.