incomprehensible

[JacobsLadder]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Lets hope it is the best half!

Really? What fallacy?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion

[Strange]

2 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

You are demonstrating a logical fallacy.

It would be nice if you could actually read my arguments before jumping to conclusions.

OK. I have re-read what you said.

It seems (and correct me if I am wrong) that you were saying that the evidence for stars (e.g. the graph of spectral distributions) could be as well accounted for if they were painted on a dome. OK so far.

And as support for this, you introduced the holographic principle and black holes ("We already know that the mass entropy of a black hole is determined by its surface area..."). But as black holes cannot exist in your painted firmament, you cannot use them as evidence for it. (That would be rather like a Flat-Earther saying that the fact that all the other planets are spheres proves the world is flat.)

I'm not sure I see the ignoratio elenchi there. Could you explain where I have gone wrong?

Edited April 23, 2018 by Strange

[JacobsLadder]

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. I have re-read what you said.

It seems (and correct me if I am wrong) that you were saying that the evidence for stars (e.g. the graph of spectral distributions) could be as well accounted for if they were painted on a dome. OK so far.

And as support for this, you introduced the holographic principle and black holes ("We already know that the mass entropy of a black hole is determined by its surface area..."). But as black holes cannot exist in your painted firmament, you cannot use them as evidence for it. (That would be rather like a Fat-Earther saying that the fact that all the other planets are spheres proves the world is flat.)

I'm not sure I see the ignoratio elenchi there. Could you explain where I have gone wrong?

You are putting words in my mouth.

I can't see why you struggling with black holes. They are no more relevant than any other astronomical feature.

A projection in line with the holographic principle can explain what we see.

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

I can't see why you struggling with black holes. They are no more relevant than any other astronomical feature.

Because you used them to support a worldview where they can't exist.

18 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

A projection in line with the holographic principle can explain what we see.

But the holographic principle doesn't exist in your cosmology. So you can't use it as justification for your cosmology.

You would be better off saying that "planetariums exist, therefore what we see in the sky could be a projection as well".

Except everything on the planetarium screen is the same distance away; a 2D image. Whereas, the things we see in the sky are all different distances away.

20 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

You are putting words in my mouth.

I don't see how. The only literal quotation there is copied from one of your posts. The rest is my attempt to interpret it, with a request for you to correct it if I was wrong. You haven't, so can I assume I was correct?

Edited April 23, 2018 by Strange

[JacobsLadder]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

Because you used them to support a worldview where they can't exist.

But the holographic principle doesn't exist in your cosmology. So you can't use it as justification for your cosmology.

You would be better off saying that "planetariums exist, therefore what we see in the sky could be a projection as well".

Except everything on the planetarium screen is the same distance away; a 2D image. Whereas, the things we see in the sky are all different distances away.

I don't see how. The only literal quotation there is copied from one of your posts. The rest is my attempt to interpret it, with a request for you to correct it if I was wrong. You haven't, so can I assume I was correct?

 

I particularly like the 'my cosmology' bit and how you misrepresent what I have said and then try to 'tell' me what my position is.

And then the 'You haven't, so can I assume I was correct?'

I'm sorry but you are wasting my time.

 

 

[Strange]

39 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

I particularly like the 'my cosmology' bit and how you misrepresent what I have said and then try to 'tell' me what my position is.

Well you are, or appear to be, presenting the idea of a firmament with the stars painted/projected on it. I don't know where you got this from so I can only credit you with it. I was suggesting that you point out what I have misrepresented but you, again, choose not to do that.

If I have misunderstood or misrepresented what you have said, you only need to explain what you really meant.

And if you want to give someone else the credit for it so I can call it their cosmology rather than yours, then feel free.

On the other hand, if you are just trolling by making up stupid random objections to things people say, then that's fine too. (Well, no it isn't, but you know what I mean: you can't really object to being misrepresented in that case.)

39 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

And then the 'You haven't, so can I assume I was correct?'

And, again, you haven't corrected any misapprehensions so I can only assume I was correct.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Strange

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

I particularly like the 'my cosmology' bit and how you misrepresent what I have said and then try to 'tell' me what my position is.

And then the 'You haven't, so can I assume I was correct?'

I'm sorry but you are wasting my time.

!

Moderator Note

Instead of continuing to claim Strange is misrepresenting your words, can you PLEASE take him up on his offer to correct the specific mistakes? 

 

[Scott of the Antares]

On 16/04/2018 at 5:46 PM, studiot said:

 

'Why?' is not a Physics question.

 

Surely this is the first physics question ever asked?!

[John Cuthber]

12 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

It seems somewhat hypocritical that your reply includes these sentences:

" However we checked and what we found suggests that they are stars more or less like the Sun. "

"We can form an hypothesis that they are stars, and we can test that hypothesis. Thus far, for the mots part, that hypothesis holds".

"Not for the planets, and not for the dark matter, but that doesn't meet this description"

I suggest you read this study:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149885

 

 

Well done for spotting evidence of Skitt's law.

Now, can you supply evidence for your assertions?

[beecee]

10 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

There is no evidence to support your assertions that cannot be explained by the holographic principle.

We already know that the mass of a black hole is determined by its surface area, so it is theoretically possible that we are viewing the universe as projected on the interior of a sphere.

My assertions are not my assertions. They are simply the theoretical application of overwhelming observational evidence. But as per usual, and as is evidenced in the vast amount of evidenced based cosmology that you reject and infest with your  nonsensical remarks,  it is obvious you are here, simply to preach and infer your  mythical supernatural nonsense.

6 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

I particularly like the 'my cosmology' bit and how you misrepresent what I have said and then try to 'tell' me what my position is.

The only misrepresentation being undertaken is by yourself, driven by what you see as some evangelistic crusade against the evils of science for extinguishing your mythical supernatural deity in explaining the universe.

Quote

And then the 'You haven't, so can I assume I was correct?'

Your assumption as usual would be incorrect since it is not based on science nor the scientific methodology.

Quote

I'm sorry but you are wasting my time.

Pot, kettle black....I'm really not sure about who you believe you are fooling, other then yourself and your baggage. 

7 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

You are putting words in my mouth.

You are the only one responsible for the stupidity you post.

Quote

I can't see why you struggling with black holes. They are no more relevant than any other astronomical feature.

The only struggle I observe is your own inner struggle and angst in the fact that observational cosmology, astronomy and science in general has demoted the creationist myths that still plague you.

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by beecee

[beecee]

10 hours ago, Scotty99 said:

In my estimation, there is one universe. The thing is, as our current understanding sits multiple universe's actually makes more sense in regards to what we witness in the cosmos

Wrong. The current overwhelming accepted cosmology of the universe called the BB says nothing about any multiple universe. At this stage that is just speculation.

Quote

. The important thing to understand is how much of our understanding from the past did we get right.

Science/cosmology is a discipline in continued progress...the further we see, the more we see, the better access to instruments etc are a result of advancing technology. What we observe today certainly has changed our picture of the universe, compared to past epochs that lacked the technological equipment to delve deeper. eg: Hubble and his new "scope showed that the MW was not the whole universe, and that it [the universe] was also expanding. It also has  added on and reinforced past cosmological thought. eg: we once only hypothesised about possible planets orbiting distant star systems like our own Sun. Now we know there is in  excess of 3000 extra solar planets that we have observed so far. 

The fact that science is a discipline in eternal progress is why it is our greatest aspect of human endeavour and is responsible for the advancement and knowledge today and surpasses and replaces the old myths of creationism and other supernatural nonsense of the past.

Edited April 23, 2018 by beecee

[Moontanman]

13 hours ago, Strange said:

Cause and effect. The mass exists before the event horizon forms. The radius of the event horizon that forms is proportional to the mass. 

Entropy, not mass.

"The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which conjectures that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

But this says nothing about your wacky "firmament" story.

 

And, hang on a minute ...

You are arguing for a fantasy cosmology using arguments from objects that cannot exist in that cosmology! (There must be a name for that fallacy, but I have no idea what it is!)

There is a name for it Strange, it's called lying for god... 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Moontanman said:

There is a name for it Strange, it's called lying for god... 

While that may apply in some cases (defenders of Creationism seem to have no problem with lying to support their case, for example) this is slightly broader. Rather like Apollo hoax believers using data from NASA in their arguments: if that data from NASA is OK, why not the rest.

This is slightly more than just cherry-picking data because it relies on using a source to discredit the same source (on another forum, someone is using data from a single NASA document to "prove" that the conclusions of the same document must be wrong).

[studiot]

17 hours ago, Scott of the Antares said:

 

Surely this is the first physics question ever asked?!

One of the earliest questions asked was

How do I light a fire?

That is a Physics question.

Should I light a fire?, why light a fire? and many more are not Physics questions since Physics does not deal with motivation (the why question) or morality .

[Scott of the Antares]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

One of the earliest questions asked was

How do I light a fire?

That is a Physics question.

Should I light a fire?, why light a fire? and many more are not Physics questions since Physics does not deal with motivation (the why question) or morality .

 

I agree with you when you say "Why should I light a fire?' is not a physics question. But a physics question could be 'Why does fire manifest?' In the same way we can ask 'Why is the sky blue?' (inspired by another topic on these forums). I think 'why' is a valid starting point for any enquiry, but not all instances of the use of the word 'why' are related to physics.

[studiot]

Why is a rather overused word, which sometimes oversteps its boundaries.

26 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

'Why is the sky blue?'

Let me change your question slightly to

 

Why is your car blue?

 

Answer 1)

Because I Iike blue best.

 

Answer 2)

Because it reflects the non blue light present in sunlight.

 

Answer (1) is a motivational answer and not Physics.

 

Answer (2) is a Physics answer but would not be more correct to ask "By what mechanism...?"

IOW how (come) ?

[Scott of the Antares]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Why is a rather overused word, which sometimes oversteps its boundaries.

Let me change your question slightly to

Why is your car blue?

Answer 1)

Because I Iike blue best.

Answer 2)

Because it reflects the non blue light present in sunlight.

Answer (1) is a motivational answer and not Physics.

Answer (2) is a Physics answer but would not be more correct to ask "By what mechanism...?"

IOW how (come) ?

You certainly may change my question, but then it is not the point I was making. You are right when you say a car can be blue (rather than any other colour) due personal preference. The sky however is blue due to mechanisms outside of human control (I think?!). In this example, the word 'why' relates purely with these mechanisms and not any emotion or whimsy of humans.

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Scott of the Antares said:

You certainly may change my question, but then it is not the point I was making. You are right when you say a car can be blue (rather than any other colour) due personal preference. The sky however is blue due to mechanisms outside of human control (I think?!). In this example, the word 'why' relates purely with these mechanisms and not any emotion or whimsy of humans.

Except that I was not questioning your point about the sky or its blueness.

I was questioning the appropriateness of the use of the word why.

Do little children ever ask any question other than why (not).

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Except that I was not questioning your point about the sky or its blueness.

I was questioning the appropriateness of the use of the word why.

Do little children ever ask any question other than why (not).

My yongest son always asked "how Come" 

[Scott of the Antares]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Do little children ever ask any question other than why (not).

So true! My nephews have all been through the ‘why?’ phase and every given answer was met with another ‘why is that the case?!’

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Scott of the Antares said:

So true! My nephews have all been through the ‘why?’ phase and every given answer was met with another ‘why is that the case?!’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

 

[John Cuthber]

The kids who don't grow out of asking "yes, but why?" become scientists.