What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,013
Reaction score
2,416
Points
1,940
Can you tell us where the reference "T1" comes from and its relationship to a DS0/DS! platform? And what is the T1 spec?​


I have been assembling information on this topic for at least twenty years, during which time standards have changed dramatically. You are the toobfreak, not I. Look it up. Anything I would have to say, you would dismiss and criticize, so do it for yourself. Suffice to say it was fast, twenty years ago, if not today.

Shouldn't you at least take into account that everything we have is based on the fact that it was CREATED in an oxygen environment as were we so naturally is based upon, compatible with and dependent on it? And that certain fires and combustion DO take place without free oxygen otherwise, how do you explain our ability to make hypergolic rocket engines which operate in the vacuum of space?

Context is everything. Your attempts to take things out of context is unscientific and irrational. Rockets carry their own fuel and oxidizing agents.

Put simply, what your long diatribe...

Is something you cannot address line by line, most particularly the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis. You're a toobfreak who knows nothing of synthesizing proteins. We can't even make hemoglobin in the lab. The best we can do is drain it from the veins of volunteers to give to others. Whoop de do. Hemoglobin is a scant 574 amino acid residues in length. Titin, by comparison, is 33,450.

Reflect on those with your Shakespearean references, please.
And try to say something informative, not just petty and inane.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
38,365
Reaction score
23,728
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
I have been assembling information on this topic for at least twenty years, during which time standards have changed dramatically. You are the toobfreak, not I. Look it up.
I don't have to, CE. I used to design telecom gear much of which was built around the T1 standard. I could write a book about it. I would think that someone having studied it for 20 years would be able to answer my simple questions. Apparently you cannot.

Anything I would have to say, you would dismiss and criticize, so do it for yourself. Suffice to say it was fast, twenty years ago, if not today.
Of course it's slow compared to today. What isn't? Not that it still doesn't serve its purpose and still isn't in use. But your deflection is typical of a libtard trying to evade a topic. Why do you evade if you really know your stuff?

Your attempts to take things out of context is unscientific and irrational. Rockets carry their own fuel and oxidizing agents.
I took nothing out of context. My point was valid given what you claimed. Nothing I say is unscientific or irrational, otherwise, prove the invalidity of my claims laying out my fallacy using a truth table.
You're a toobfreak who knows nothing of synthesizing proteins. We can't even make hemoglobin in the lab. The best we can do is drain it from the veins of volunteers to give to others. Whoop de do. Hemoglobin is a scant 574 amino acid residues in length. Titin, by comparison, is 33,450.
You're right. I'm not a chemist. My chemical knowledge is limited. Yet interesting you cannot answer and avoid my ONE chemical question about Henry's Law and hexyl glucosides, a PLANT based material but somehow veer onto talking about an ANIMAL product. o_O

Reflect on those with your Shakespearean references, please. And try to say something informative, not just petty and inane.
Another typically leftardish deflection and dismissal. I'm surprised you haven't called me an atheist too. Just so happens that I'm probably one of the most religious and conservative people on the board. But when I see someone tout their education as you claim to and wave your (former?) profession as their handle, I'm loathed to test it and sorry bub, you FAIL. I've known a hundred engineers and research scientists in all kinds of fields besides being one myself, actually run a group elsewhere still teaching astronomy, optics and related fields to the backyard astronomer and astro-imager, and YOU ARE NO ENGINEER. My guess is that you were some disgruntled flunky lab technician somewhere. Yep.

Engineers LIKE to talk shop. You don't. You are here just to push your pseudo-science Bible bullshit, and to call anyone who challenges any of it, petty, inane, and irrational. Won't fly with me, bub.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
10,075
Reaction score
1,161
Points
170
You are here just to push your pseudo-science Bible bullshit,

I have never heard a creationist call what's in the Bible pseudoscience bullshit. I may not know what you two are arguing about, but what is the pseudoscience that you claim? Can you explain so we would understand the differences?
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,013
Reaction score
2,416
Points
1,940
You're angry. You're rude. You concede nothing, even when you are wrong and misguided, which clearly is often. I am a libertarian and you are so ignorant as to call me a "leftard." I don't propound pseudo-science.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man." - That's Biblical

If I were remotely as ignorant as you so angrily claim,you should ignore me, but you can't. You just go ballistic like Antifa. So I'll add you to my Ignore List. You're overdue, "bub."

ciao brutto
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
38,365
Reaction score
23,728
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
You are here just to push your pseudo-science Bible bullshit,

I have never heard a creationist call what's in the Bible pseudoscience bullshit. I may not know what you two are arguing about, but what is the pseudoscience that you claim? Can you explain so we would understand the differences?


I'm not a creationist, nor am I calling anything in the Bible bullshit or pseudoscience. I was referring to the OP. The Bible is an assemblage of accounts written long after the fact about events in their past as both a matter of record and faith. Some of it is traceable, some is not. There is no "science" in any of it.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
38,365
Reaction score
23,728
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
You're angry. You're rude. You concede nothing, even when you are wrong and misguided, which clearly is often. I am a libertarian and you are so ignorant as to call me a "leftard." I don't propound pseudo-science.
"Go from the presence of a foolish man." - That's Biblical
If I were remotely as ignorant as you so angrily claim,you should ignore me, but you can't. You just go ballistic like Antifa. So I'll add you to my Ignore List. You're overdue, "bub."
ciao brutto
Fuck off, asshole. Fakes and Jerks like you make me angry. You concede nothing. You prove nothing. You just call people wrong and misguided like a little girl. You talk nonsense like some idiot. You taking drugs? Brain damage? I called you out to test your veracity, you shit your pants, and now you will run like a scalded dog. Go ahead, fuckhead, I bet you end up with a LOT of people on ignore, anyone who challenges your phony bullcrap.

j0091035.gif


RUN BITCH RUN.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
38,365
Reaction score
23,728
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
I graduated with a degree in chemical engineering, a science by any definition of the term. Therefore I understand, and subscribe to the tenets of the scientific method.

Too funny. So by implication I suppose the OP is claiming he has a bachelors in chemical engineering? Subscribes to the scientific method? Would anyone care to show me where the "Chemical Engineer" has used the scientific method in reaching a single theory or proving a single hypothesis anywhere in his long OP diatribe or in any of his replies?

YOU WOULD THINK that if he actually was onto something and had a real point that he would be more than willing or able to both discuss, defend and prove it rather than running away putting everyone on ignore.


SPANK DAT BITCH!

137-002gently.jpg
 

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
29,554
Reaction score
15,909
Points
1,415
You're really stuck on the ancient past,

Ancient, in historical terms, refers to the period between 3000 BCE and 500 CE. The witch burnings (and hangings) to which I refer, occurred between the 16th and 18th centuries.

Someone who went to college would know that, wouldn't they?
 

luchitociencia

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
277
Points
80
I graduated with a degree in chemical engineering, a science by any definition of the term.

That is good to know. Lets see if you graduated in the right place.

Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate island universe, apart from the Milky Way.

That is a very nice expression: "separate island universe".

Excuse me, but in layman language, taking out the poetry in your expression, what the hell is a separate island universe?

This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude.

So, you watch the sky with your naked eyes at night and see stars by hundreds, but later you use a telescope and see starts by thousands, because finally you can see beyond your naked eyes threshold. Then you find out the universe is greater than the size you thought it was, but, is that a reason to think that the universe has expanded? Just because your naked eyes threshold didn't allow you to see further before?

Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe.

In your classes, before you became a scientist, did they taught you to think?

The superfluous theory of the big bang originally claims that the universe came to be from "a primeval atom".

Stay with me now.

Look at the stars, use the Hubble telescope to see much further.

Are you sure that all those galaxies far away and practically disappearing from our view and the entire mass from all the galaxies, stars, planets, asteroids, meteors, and including us, have come from that "primeval atom in the middle of nothing"?

Excuse me but, are you out of your mind?!!!

And you call yourself a scientist while believing in such a fantasy?

This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science,

Hold it, hold it right there.

If you believe in the big bang theory with a microscopic particle expanding "who knows how" (actually the literal words of the original paper) and forming the current universe, then you practically are another pontificating atheist, because you are not even using science but you are using debunked theories of science to "prove the bible is right"

You are very confused. Look, there is a huge difference between science and theories of science.

The big bang is not a validated theory of science and can't be use to explain anything. A partially validated theory is never a validated theory. And worst for the big bang theory, its assumed validated claims can be caused by several other phenomena not related at all with the theory doctrines.

In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable."

Well, Einstein wasn't a real scientists anyways, his diploma was practically given as honorary. He was a teacher and not a student in that university, and diplomas are given only to students making thesis.

This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation.

How do you know their speeds are proportional to their distance? From our angle of perception we can only guess their motion speed.

If they are going away from us, and you just perceived them recently since the invention of greater telescopes and other instruments of detection, then... how do you know they weren't traveling at such same speed since always? Explain why you are so sure they didn't have fast speeds before? Conjectures at work?

Excuse me, but as a scientist you are taking for granted conclusions which have not a valid foundation.

You better start all over again.

And use science based on facts, because by using the current good for nothing theories of science you are just wasting your life in pure scientific garbage.
 

luchitociencia

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
277
Points
80
Yet another disappointment. The thread title is a fraud.

No science matters identified in any of the bibles.

That's not the case, Hollie.
In the 1100's, from Genesis alone, Maimonides realized that there were at least 10 dimensions. 4 seen and 6 hidden. Until the 19th century, we believed there were 3. Einstein located the 4th, thanks to Hubble. And in the 20th century, Hawking realized there were at least ten dimensions. 4 seen, 6 hidden.
More science:
Hawking died not knowing the characteristics of dimensions. The author of the Bible knows. He used science to create them.
Dimensions can be torn, rolled up, burnt... Science doesn't know that yet. In fact, envision a tub full of bubbles. Imagine those bubbles representing dimensions. Our father is a creator. He's good at it. He created Earth for His children, who will rule and reign in love, with Christ over all of it. It is our inheritance...

Because you know what they say, "Where there's a will, I want to be in it."
^for ChemEngineer :71:
Maimonides, Einstein and Hawking are pure fraud. The last two individuals were nothing but pure idiots. One believing time flows and dilates, and the other one saying he is an expert in black holes when black holes like time, are not physically existent.

So, "hidden dimensions" eh?

Look, this is a science discussion, and no hidden dimensions are allowed.

Comprende?

By the way, please straight up your longitude dimension because is bent since the car accident at front of your house... ha ha ha ha ha

And if you don't like the width dimension the way it is, then torn it inside the garbage disposal... ha ha ha ha ha...

Hard to know who is writing more comedy in here, ChemEnginner or you.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
38,365
Reaction score
23,728
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
Excuse me, but in layman language, taking out the poetry in your expression, what the hell is a separate island universe?
To be fair, island universe is a pretty common term in the popular culture, referring to the fact that before Hubble, the Milky Way (our galaxy) was seen as the entirety and extent of the entire cosmic creation. After Hubble, we realized there were many innumerable "island universes." (This also presupposes total emptiness between the galaxies)

If you believe in the big bang theory with a microscopic particle expanding "who knows how"
Interestingly enough, the person to originally coin the phrase: "Big Bang" was actually ridiculing the idea of it.

How do you know their speeds are proportional to their distance? From our angle of perception we can only guess their motion speed.
There are many questions with the Doppler Shift. For one thing is the question of parallax and non-radial direction. But more to the point, these objects really aren't flying away from us, but is more a measure (we hope) of the expansion of space itself. Presumably, the fabric of space itself is stretching away from us faster and faster the farther out we look, but of course, I have a bit of a problem trusting measuring something whose measurement DEPENDS on the very medium being measured!
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
10,075
Reaction score
1,161
Points
170
You are here just to push your pseudo-science Bible bullshit,

I have never heard a creationist call what's in the Bible pseudoscience bullshit. I may not know what you two are arguing about, but what is the pseudoscience that you claim? Can you explain so we would understand the differences?


I'm not a creationist, nor am I calling anything in the Bible bullshit or pseudoscience. I was referring to the OP. The Bible is an assemblage of accounts written long after the fact about events in their past as both a matter of record and faith. Some of it is traceable, some is not. There is no "science" in any of it.

Well, we are looking at the Bible differently. I look at it as a work of non-fiction and history. It isn't like the Quran which is considered Scripture or work of theology with both non-fictional and fictional accounts. For example, I think in the Quran, God used fictional stories to get a point across. However, the Bible is like God's autobiography. Someone's autobiography can be verified, but also someone could come forward and show evidence of disagreement in order to contradict or to make it controversy. What we find is it can and has been verified.

In terms of scholars and intellectuals, I think most Bible scholars look at it the way I do. As for the intellectuals at universities, I think they treat it as part allegory and metaphor. The parts in the OT where the supernatural is discussed is the part where they would say is allegory. To people like me, YEC who read the Bible literally, i.e. the OT and NT as literal, but the prophecies such as Book of Revelation and Book of Daniel are allegory and metaphor. We don't know exactly what the seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven bowls mean in terms of real world objects and events. We understand Jesus isn't a litereal door as part of the narrow gate to the path to heaven, but it means that he is the one to believe and follow. The intellectuals probably have a hard time believing the supernatural of OT people living a long time, divine beings living with humans, or maybe God creating Adam from dirt. They compare what we know of our world today to that of the past when things were different. How do we know things in the past were as described?

Am I close to what you are discussing or what you mean? Not all is an "assemblage of accounts written long after the fact." The OT is since all of it happened before Moses wrote it, but the prophecies were not. People in the OT had to believe in Jesus as Messiah. What was the first thing written by Moses for the Bible?

>>There is no "science" in any of it.<<

This is wrong. The Bible was not written as a science book, but science backs up the Bible. There wasn't any science as we know it today when it was written.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
38,365
Reaction score
23,728
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
Well, we are looking at the Bible differently. I look at it as a work of non-fiction and history.
As do I, for the most part. The books of the Bible were written in most cases many years to centuries after the events happened based on storied accounts, not as much in real time first hand. And who wrote the book of Genesis?

However, the Bible is like God's autobiography.
Men wrote the Bible, not God. In certain cases it is fair to say that God directed the writing of parts of it or perhaps in whole.

>>There is no "science" in any of it.<< This is wrong. The Bible was not written as a science book, but science backs up the Bible.
There is no SCIENCE in the Bible. It is quite a different thing to say that some parts of it can be explored, explained or verified with science.

That said, I do believe the collective work of the Bible carries with it a certain "holiness." Through it one can know the God of Abraham.
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,013
Reaction score
2,416
Points
1,940
You're really stuck on the ancient past,

Ancient, in historical terms, refers to the period between 3000 BCE and 500 CE. The witch burnings (and hangings) to which I refer, occurred between the 16th and 18th centuries.

Someone who went to college would know that, wouldn't they?

Of course. "Someone who went to college" would know everything about every topic, wouldn't they.

Let me tell you about the local librarian who went down your path with me a few decades ago.
Politics came up, as politics are wont to do. She blurted out, "You conservatives just want to KILL everyone and let GOD sort it out!" She was passionately angry, as she had no doubt been with her Leftist friends when such a phrase was uttered to widespread head noddings.

In the Socratic Method, I asked her, "Can you name for me ONE prominent conservative who said 'Let's kill everyone and let God sort it out"?

She was speechless, stunned. After thinking, she uttered her second lie: "I didn't say 'kill'."

I replied, "Oh but you did. I heard you quite clearly. Now can you name them?"

Dead silence. Finally she recovered and said, "What about the Inquisition!" It was, she thought, her touche moment.

My reply: "That took place in the eleventh century. There was no America much less conservative. Now can you name a prominent conservative who said what you claimed?"

She picked up her telephone which had been completely silent and said "I've got to get this."

No call, but she's "got to get it." Lie after lie. It's the way of "progressives" (sic).

The murderous rampages of the godless Left took place centuries after your pathetic events and eclipsed them by orders of magnitude in numbers of deaths and yet you dwell on trifles. How unscholarly of you.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
38,365
Reaction score
23,728
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
You're really stuck on the ancient past,

Ancient, in historical terms, refers to the period between 3000 BCE and 500 CE. The witch burnings (and hangings) to which I refer, occurred between the 16th and 18th centuries.

Someone who went to college would know that, wouldn't they?

Of course. "Someone who went to college" would know everything about every topic, wouldn't they.

Let me tell you about the local librarian who went down your path with me a few decades ago.
Politics came up, as politics are wont to do. She blurted out, "You conservatives just want to KILL everyone and let GOD sort it out!" She was passionately angry, as she had no doubt been with her Leftist friends when such a phrase was uttered to widespread head noddings.

In the Socratic Method, I asked her, "Can you name for me ONE prominent conservative who said 'Let's kill everyone and let God sort it out"?

She was speechless, stunned. After thinking, she uttered her second lie: "I didn't say 'kill'."

I replied, "Oh but you did. I heard you quite clearly. Now can you name them?"

Dead silence. Finally she recovered and said, "What about the Inquisition!" It was, she thought, her touche moment.

My reply: "That took place in the eleventh century. There was no America much less conservative. Now can you name a prominent conservative who said what you claimed?"

She picked up her telephone which had been completely silent and said "I've got to get this."

No call, but she's "got to get it." Lie after lie. It's the way of "progressives" (sic).

The murderous rampages of the godless Left took place centuries after your pathetic events and eclipsed them by orders of magnitude in numbers of deaths and yet you dwell on trifles. How unscholarly of you.


. . . and as usual, FNC, you can see once again the ruse to deflect from the actual topic much less answering the questions by trying to distract and divert to a totally irrelevant topic about some fictional librarian in the OP's youth.

Funny how he was apparently able to spank the librarian with his linguistic logic yet exhibits none of the promised acumen here.

Why do I feel like I am talking to Admiral Tory or Charwin95?
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
10,075
Reaction score
1,161
Points
170
As do I, for the most part. The books of the Bible were written in most cases many years to centuries after the events happened based on storied accounts, not as much in real time first hand. And who wrote the book of Genesis?

Which ones then? Moses wrote the OT, and we know this was after Noah so Adam and Eve's generation were already dead. This, you are right. However, he also wrote about people he didn't know and how long they lived and who came first. Can people living in those times be able to verify this with other records? This is what was done with the Bible. How would one know what was valid or be able to validate what was written?

I asked some question, but you didn't know so do you not know Genesis that well?

What did he start with? The Ten Commandments. What do they tell us?

What was the first science in Genesis? You deny there is any science, but it's why the universe, Earth, and everything is here. God created the universe, Earth, and everything in it in 7 days. How does science back this up? First, we have the void or nothing. There was no space and time, but it came into being. What science backs this up? We think there is a fourth dimension of space and time even though it hasn't been proven yet. It's one of the things scientists at CERN are trying to prove of its existence. The light or the electromagnetic spectrum was created on the first day. We see the separation of light and dark called day and night . The Aurora Borealis is an example. On the second day, there was a division of the waters above the Earth and waters below meaning there was heavens or sky and atmosphere above the Earth as well as the waters of Earth (thought to be mostly water vapor). It means Earth was created on the second day. In between the days, we have evening, but I don't think it would be like the days and nights we have now. It's a period of dark and a period light. Isn't this what happens with the Aurora Borealis? Anyway, the waters on Earth were gathered in one place so dry land on Earth appeared. He called where the water pooled seas. Next, all the plants, trees, and fruit were produced on the third day.

What do you think? The Bible isn't a science book or else the ancient peoples would not understand it, but we find science does back it up. If you were an ancient person in those times, would you believe what Moses wrote? The Ten Commandments and Genesis part of which I just explained to the third day of creation? It would probably based on what you thought of Moses and his credibility.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
38,365
Reaction score
23,728
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
As do I, for the most part. The books of the Bible were written in most cases many years to centuries after the events happened based on storied accounts, not as much in real time first hand. And who wrote the book of Genesis?

Which ones then? Moses wrote the OT, and we know this was after Noah so Adam and Eve's generation were already dead. This, you are right. However, he also wrote about people he didn't know and how long they lived and who came first. Can people living in those times be able to verify this with other records? This is what was done with the Bible. How would one know what was valid or be able to validate what was written?

I asked some question, but you didn't know so do you not know Genesis that well?

What did he start with? The Ten Commandments. What do they tell us?

What was the first science in Genesis? You deny there is any science, but it's why the universe, Earth, and everything is here. God created the universe, Earth, and everything in it in 7 days. How does science back this up? First, we have the void or nothing. There was no space and time, but it came into being. What science backs this up? We think there is a fourth dimension of space and time even though it hasn't been proven yet. It's one of the things scientists at CERN are trying to prove of its existence. The light or the electromagnetic spectrum was created on the first day. We see the separation of light and dark called day and night . The Aurora Borealis is an example. On the second day, there was a division of the waters above the Earth and waters below meaning there was heavens or sky and atmosphere above the Earth as well as the waters of Earth (thought to be mostly water vapor). It means Earth was created on the second day. In between the days, we have evening, but I don't think it would be like the days and nights we have now. It's a period of dark and a period light. Isn't this what happens with the Aurora Borealis? Anyway, the waters on Earth were gathered in one place so dry land on Earth appeared. He called where the water pooled seas. Next, all the plants, trees, and fruit were produced on the third day.

What do you think? The Bible isn't a science book or else the ancient peoples would not understand it, but we find science does back it up. If you were an ancient person in those times, would you believe what Moses wrote? The Ten Commandments and Genesis part of which I just explained to the third day of creation? It would probably based on what you thought of Moses and his credibility.

Not sure what your point is or what it is you want me to say. THERE IS NO SCIENCE in the Bible, you clearly do not understand what science is or you would not argue the point. The Bible is at best a subjective account written in many cases by people who did not live the events first hand themselves and taken literally, leaves the Earth at what, about 10,000 years old? Many things in the Bible are vague and seemingly metaphorical and subject to interpretation. Much of it seems to be a good account of the historical record. So enjoy the Bible for what it is, Holy Scripture written long ago by the ancients at a time when they had at best a very poor understanding of the world around them.
 

luchitociencia

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
277
Points
80
To be fair, island universe is a pretty common term in the popular culture, referring to the fact that before Hubble, the Milky Way (our galaxy) was seen as the entirety and extent of the entire cosmic creation. After Hubble, we realized there were many innumerable "island universes." (This also presupposes total emptiness between the galaxies)

To me that expression sounds with malice to cause confusion and give the idea of the existence of several universes. This reminds me the books of Sagan, Hawking and others, filling their pages with lots of caricatures and ancient myths references. All of that as ornaments because the reading of their words was bored.

Interestingly enough, the person to originally coin the phrase: "Big Bang" was actually ridiculing the idea of it.

Was to make famous the theory of expansion. Still, galaxies going further from us is not an "expanding universe". Same as a car going away at faster speed each second won't mean the route where the car drives over is expanding

There are many questions with the Doppler Shift. For one thing is the question of parallax and non-radial direction. But more to the point, these objects really aren't flying away from us, but is more a measure (we hope) of the expansion of space itself. Presumably, the fabric of space itself is stretching away from us faster and faster the farther out we look, but of course, I have a bit of a problem trusting measuring something whose measurement DEPENDS on the very medium being measured!

"You hope" is the space itself because doing so you can still take for certain the idiocy of relativity. So, because a fake theory you hope the universe works the way you want it to work. What a pity.

"Presumably" my butt, no fabric of space-time exists and you are talking peanuts.

No evidence no science, and you have posted lots of conjectures trying to accommodate them as factual statements.

Do a favor to yourself and the rest who read your topic.

Retract from those fantasies and keep your approach solely with solid verifiable science.

I know you ca do it, but you must break the chains of fantasy from those fake theories which are making you their slave.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
38,365
Reaction score
23,728
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
To me that expression sounds with malice to cause confusion and give the idea of the existence of several universes.
Using literary license, they were really intending to mean island cities or worlds; ie, self-contained systems. No intelligent person thought they were compete universes.

Still, galaxies going further from us is not an "expanding universe". Same as a car going away at faster speed each second won't mean the route where the car drives over is expanding
Non-sequitur. The spreading out of galaxies is as a function of expanding space AFAWCT. Highways systems are not expanding.

"You hope" is the space itself because doing so you can still take for certain the idiocy of relativity. So, because a fake theory you hope the universe works the way you want it to work. What a pity. "Presumably" my butt, no fabric of space-time exists and you are talking peanuts.
No evidence no science, and you have posted lots of conjectures trying to accommodate them as factual statements.
Do a favor to yourself and the rest who read your topic.
Retract from those fantasies and keep your approach solely with solid verifiable science.
I know you ca do it, but you must break the chains of fantasy from those fake theories which are making you their slave.

"My" hope?
The idiocy of relativity?
Fake theory?
The way "I" want?
No fabric of space-time exists?
Fantasies?
Making me a slave?

Look, fool, I have degrees in physics, teach physics on the side (retired) and study QET and GUT. Unless you can intelligently discuss the likes of quantum chromodynamics and quark confinement, you are nothing but a silly facile bullshitter.

Social media seems to really attract them.

Relativity is a long proven and wholly verified science. Space-time as a matrix is proven and verifiable. While I didn't care for or agree with much of Hawking's theories, unless you are prepared to come on here and offer up your proof to dispel Special and General Relativity as well as quantum electrodynamics, you should shut up and not make an even bigger fool of yourself.

And if you can actually prove half of what you claim, we can celebrate you as the most brilliant mind in the last 150 years.

I'm betting the former.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top