Spyman

Personally I would not have any problems accepting valid scientific evidence of a "creator" but I think in such a case it would be of uttermost importance for the human race to find out the purpouse of our Universe and whether we are part of the great scheme or an unexpected mishap that might need correction.

I don't get this part, can you use easier words? Sure, how about like this: Everything we can see all around us is placed in a similar fashion everywhere in the Universe. Modern scientists thinks that the whole Universe is like our view from Earth, nothing special here and nothing special somewhere else. So that would mean that the whole Universe is filled with stars similar to our view. IF and that is only IF the Universe is infinite, which we currently don't have knowledge of, then there would be a infinite numbers of stars shining on Earth from every direction. The reason we don't see a bright night sky are because: 1) it takes long time for light to reach us from very distant stars and the Universe is not yet old enough, 2) space is able to expand faster that light and thereby increase distances faster than light can traverse them. The twelve pages of argument are regarding the theory of Relativity with Owl and Michel and doesn't seem to have any end. (We wrongly thought you "got it" already on the first page, sorry for that mistake.) ---------- According to scientific consensus space IS expanding and is NOT thought to have bounds. ---------- Yes Owl, you are confused because you don't understand the basics of Relativity. Can you give us a good reason to continue explaining when you don't want to learn? The answers have been given several times already, no point in repeating them. In modern cosmology there is no infinite emtiness, space is homogeneously filled with matter and energy. In modern cosmology distance is expanding without objects moving and space doesn't have to be infinite. In modern cosmology space is able to warp/bend/curve which means it could be wrapped around itself. Well, that is your personal opinion of the Universe which you are entitled to have, but it is certainly NOT how modern cosmology envisions the Universe or what the Big Bang theory is about. It is obvious that you don't understand the evidence we already observe on the inside of our horizon.

The Great Cosmic Battle The expansion of the Universe itself provides an intensely dramatic example of the ubiquitous struggle between the force of gravity and entropy. As the Universe expands and becomes more spread out, gravity resists this trend and tries to pull the expanding Universe back together. The particular fate which our future holds depends on whether gravity wins or loses this cosmic battle, whose outcome depends on the total amount of mass and energy contained within the Universe. Current astronomical data strongly suggest that gravity has already lost this critical conflict and our fate will be determined by a continued and unending expansion. http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/0001/cosmic.html

It is assumed that all of space is homogeneously filled with stars. The observable matter in all directions around us, is from our viewpoint in the Universe spread uniformly throughout the universe. In accordance with the cosmological principle modern cosmology assumes that our location in the Universe is normal and don't differentiate from remaining regions. Thus all unseen parts of the entire Universe are thought to be filled with equal quantities of stars in roughly the same configurations as we can see from Earth. A finite space have finite stars and likewise if space is infinite then it's likely stars are infinite also.

Did you even bother to read my quotes and think about what they said? Our knowledge and understanding of different phenomenas in and about the Universe is not perfect, we don't know everything and likely never will either, but lack of knowledge doesn't mean that the scientific method to try to learn more is equal to pseudoscience. Some threads are certainly "blurred" but that doesn't depend on scientific consensus but are much more affected of participating peoples post quality.

I take that as a "No" then, not possible to interpret it in any different way. Sure you do, but since you obviously are not capable to understand them nor interested to learn, why would I waste my time?

Maybe this will help you make better distinctions: Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context. Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, homeopathy, medical quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy. The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests that something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

What if I disagree with the poster but still thinks the question/argument was good? If voting an "approve", "disapprove" or "neutral" standpoint is demanded before I can post a reply, it is very possible that I will skip replying to a lot of posts... Secondly, you would have gotten a negative reputation point by me for above post in such case which I don't think you deserve as person. All reputation points your posts accumulate are also reflected on you as a person and I don't value people negative because they don't agree with me. ---------- What I would like was the ability to change a vote, like if I misclick and vote on the above or below poster to what I wanted to vote, then that post/person gets an unfair vote that I can't easily undo.

Iggy, or any one else for that matter, doesn't get paid for helping people here and is therefore under no obligation to answering your questions, furthermore whether he choose to do so or not doesn't make any arguments right or wrong, thus you are in no position to make demands and ultimatums. As such, IMHO, your "countdown" seems rather childish... Ask polite with patience, not everyone have the opportunity to drop everything else in their lives to spend lots of time on customizing a reply to your specific desires and then be grateful IF you get a good explanation - animation or whatever asked for.

I hardly think this is true, more likely people are to lazy to vote or don't notice. This is an old thread and people are not notified of reputation changes inside every thread, so threads like this is right now easy targets for people without sound ethic and moral values. Concealed sockpuppets with no other purpouse than to take a tiny and ridiculous revenge with negative reputation votes, is hard to discover and counter. I like the idea with reputation points, to some extent it can be an easy way for a less knowledged member to make a fast evaluation, if a for them unknown member are considered trusted by other members or known to spout rubbish, when they lack the knowledge to judge the content. Sometimes when I don't feel up to the task to explain when a poster is wrong, I can choose to vote a negative reputation on that post, so that other readers later will at least get a small varning that someone thought this post to be wrong. For me the reputation points also gives a small indication whether I should put extra effort in a reply or if it would be a waste of time to make any reply at all. Reputation points might not be an ideal way to measure peoples knowledge or reliability but on average someone with high reputation is likely a polite and credible person, while someone with negative reputation is often found to be a troublemaker. [EDIT] Read through my reply again and found out I didn't mention positive votes, maybe I am myself to restrictive with my use of them as I have so far not found out what the limit of positive votes for one day is, but they should be more important than the negative ones and used more often. When I found some post to be extra good in a explanation or with a "tasty" comment then I usually vote. (But I certainly think I need to improve and use the positive vote option more often.) Posts with positive reputation are much more likely to be true, important and helpful than posts with negative reputation.

No Owl, you are actually wrong and you don't seem to understand or be willing to accept this. Do you want to learn and understand why you are wrong? (Refusing to answer again will be interpreted as "No".)

I don't think this is made by random new members, much more likely it's done by a banned user's sockpuppets. [EDIT] Maybe a post limit new members must reach before they can vote for reputation on posts.

Yes, but clear distinctions between frames and with respect to what objects have velocities are necessary. If A is moving at speed X and B is moving in the opposite direction also at speed X, then either: 1. they are both separating from each other at X, or 2. they are each separating from a central point at X In case 1: A and B will measure the other to travel at X, but if you want to know how fast a third observer in a central point will measure their separation you need to switch frame. In case 2: The central observer will measure their separation to be 2X, but if you want to know how fast A or B measures the separation from the other then you need to switch frame.

I couldn't have said it better myself, well phrased.

Now I am getting notifications of them quoting the above post, although their posts have been deleted. And come on guys, our community are better than this... All should HELP removing the negative reputation points for the OP.

The most common case of an event horizon is that surrounding a black hole. Light emitted from beyond the horizon can never reach the observer. Likewise, any object approaching the horizon from the observer's side appears to slow down and never quite pass through the horizon, with its image becoming more and more redshifted as time elapses. The traveling object, however, experiences no strange effects and does, in fact, pass through the horizon in a finite amount of proper time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

You are presenting a personal perspective that is NOT in agreement with scientific consensus and observations. The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that observers non-local speed is not interfering with their local measurements. You don't seem to understand what implications that have on your "global overview". I can imagine a lot of things, however neither life or the world are as in fantasies. If you want to propose a new theory of relativity, then it's on your responsibility to explain it properly. I suggest you read through this short thread: So, you've got a new theory... No, I am NOT, since I am responding. You can claim that I don't understand or misinterpreter you, but not that I am "totally deaf". But continuing doing so will end up with it getting true... I did not ask for whatever units we are measuring light speed in. I want to know "in reference to what" or "in respect to what" or "relative what" does any observer measure the speed of light to be constant according to your view. Well, people are for sure trying, although I am beginning to have strong doubts about you.

I think Wikipedia reflects the scientific consensus rather well and therefore can be considered evidence of what is generally agreed upon by professional scientists in the area. "The universe is immensely large and possibly infinite in volume. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years, based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe "The diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years), putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46-47 billion light-years away." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe "Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" to mean "observable universe". This can be justified on the grounds that we can never know anything by direct experimentation about any part of the universe that is causally disconnected from us, although many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe. No evidence exists to suggest that the boundary of the observable universe constitutes a boundary on the universe as a whole, nor do any of the mainstream cosmological models propose that the universe has any physical boundary in the first place, though some models propose it could be finite but unbounded, like a higher-dimensional analogue of the 2D surface of a sphere which is finite in area but has no edge. It is plausible that the galaxies within our observable universe represent only a minuscule fraction of the galaxies in the universe. According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, if it is assumed that inflation began about 10−37 seconds after the Big Bang, then with the plausible assumption that the size of the universe at this time was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age, that would suggest that at present the entire universe's size is at least 1023 times larger than the size of the observable universe." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#The_universe_versus_the_observable_universe

I bet a very large chunk of those threads are made with the aim to return later and edit in spam links. Parallel thread discussing spammers here: No links in the first 2-10 posts? Or 24 hrs?

Hopefully we will have improved on our diplomatic skills by then or otherwise our first Galactic War is about to start...

No, it was not, it's you who are ignoring the replies that where given. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed no such global overview. In reference to what do you consider light to always travel with the same speed?

Here is a thread where LightHeavyW8 tries to argue Superluminality due to closing speed: If Two Spaceships Close at 1.4c...? Maybe you will find it interesting while thinking... (Nice animation by Janus in post #34.)

Ncie qotue soundoflight, do you hvae any cmenomt too?

I am sorry but we are not trying to be nasty or clever. If everyone creates threads randomly everywhere, then the forum would end up in total chaos. We are supposed to make ONE thread on the subject we want to discuss and IF the thread fails because of low interest or whatever, then you have to come up with a NEW approach. Creating another thread in a differnet subforum with a simple link and reference to the first one is not a good idea and won't result any better than the first. My best advice to you is to focus on your first thread and answer swansont's questions instead.

If none was interested to reply in your first thread why do you think they would reply in a second almost identical version?