fayfreethinkers.com

graybear13 wrote:"Common sense is not so common." Voltaire

Agreed! For example, you said that you don't have to support your position with evidence. That's not very sensible.

Savonarola wrote:

graybear13 wrote:"Common sense is not so common." Voltaire

Agreed! For example, you said that you don't have to support your position with evidence. That's not very sensible.

Actually I was trying to convey the notion that the Big Bang Model is a misuse of truth that bears no resemblance to "common sense" .

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/index.html

3.10 Implications on the Big Bang Model

"...theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in the time available since the Big Bang"....bremsstrahlung

What I said was...I have the same evidence that you have. And that, at the point where 'classical physics' begins to fail,
my position makes complete "common sense".

I claim as much license with the truth as you do.

gray

graybear13 wrote:Actually I was trying to convey the notion that the Big Bang Model is a misuse of truth that bears no resemblance to "common sense" .

I'll be generous and choose to interpret your earlier statement as meaning that, because you're not a scientist, it is not you who must do the experimentation to produce the evidence. Fine. But you still must show why the evidence that exists supports your model. You continually refuse to do so. Merely saying that your model fits the evidence is not enough. Why don't you understand this?

No, seriously, what don't you understand about the requirement of linking your model to the evidence?

graybear13 wrote:"...theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in the time available since the Big Bang"

Using a paper that was written 25 years ago usually doesn't help your case. 25 years ago, some people thought that redshift was quantized, too.

graybear13 wrote:And that, at the point where 'classical physics' begins to fail, my position makes complete "common sense".

Then you ought to be able to explain it. Why don't you?

We keep having this same conversation over and over. Answer the questions or we're done here.

graybear13 wrote:I claim as much license with the truth as you do.

Then you must be able to explain how your model predicts the cosmic microwave background radiation, and of the appropriate temperature.

Savonarola wrote:

graybear13 wrote:Actually I was trying to convey the notion that the Big Bang Model is a misuse of truth that bears no resemblance to "common sense" .

I'll be generous and choose to interpret your earlier statement as meaning that, because you're not a scientist, it is not you who must do the experimentation to produce the evidence. Fine. But you still must show why the evidence that exists supports your model. You continually refuse to do so. Merely saying that your model fits the evidence is not enough. Why don't you understand this?

No, seriously, what don't you understand about the requirement of linking your model to the evidence?

graybear13 wrote:"...theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in the time available since the Big Bang"

Using a paper that was written 25 years ago usually doesn't help your case. 25 years ago, some people thought that redshift was quantized, too.

graybear13 wrote:And that, at the point where 'classical physics' begins to fail, my position makes complete "common sense".

Then you ought to be able to explain it. Why don't you?

We keep having this same conversation over and over. Answer the questions or we're done here.

graybear13 wrote:I claim as much license with the truth as you do.

Then you must be able to explain how your model predicts the cosmic microwave background radiation, and of the appropriate temperature.

Thank you for your generosity, I 'am' trying to demonstrate the connection.

The Big Bang Model is based on a mathematical model that when followed to its logical conclusion, ends in a singularity that must exist for a big bang to have happened at all.

Science assumes that a big bang happened and that the math is correct.

The E + V' = M model uses the same mathematical model rotated 180 with respect to time which is the black hole mathematical model, if I'm not mistaken, minus the singularity of course.

I assume that all mass is being created, projected and held together by vortexes. The projected energy from the explosions is what science measures. It is the cosmic radiation. Behind that radiation is the cosmic microwave background radiation caused by the almost invisible vortexes. They are not completely invisible...look at Hubble pictures of quasars and spiral galaxies. These things are part of and the result of energy vortexes, as is everything that has mass. And I also believe in the math except for the singularity. It doesn't have to go that far, it ends with the creation of mass which is what provides the heat.

Of course if my experiment were to work out and I could have under my control a vortex strong enough to create it's own gravity (the first step toward creating mass) then the proof would be in the pudding. Then a vortex could be made that could cause fusion and contain it.

The asymmetry of matter/ antimatter, that Kevin spoke of earlier, can be explained using vortexes. We can't know until we can create and control black holes with opposite rotation and see them attract each other and when they come together destroy each other. And likewise hold black holes spinning in the same direction and see them repel each other and grow in gravitational force.

gray

graybear13 wrote:...the proof would be in the pudding.

I liked this part with the pudding. And it's the only part that made any sense to me.

I think you should spend more time talking about pudding, and less time on the hard "sciency" stuff.

Here's an example:



When you talk about science, your material comes across as something else that this pudding also resembles, but isn't nearly as pleasant, as, pudding.

D.
-------------------
PS. Does some to be a bit of vortex action going on in that pudding.

graybear13 wrote:I 'am' trying to demonstrate the connection.

Then either you are doing a terrible job or you do not understand the difference between "asserting" a connection and "showing" or "demonstrating" a connection.
Let's face it: virtually nothing speaks as loudly as a laboratory experiment. Now that would would a demonstration. But that's perhaps asking too much of someone without a lab. So I'll settle for a logical connection. But you're not doing that. Observe:

graybear13 wrote:The E + V' = M model uses the same mathematical model rotated 180 with respect to time ...
I assume that all mass is being created, projected and held together by vortexes.

You assert that you're using the same math and then assume that vortices have some sort of creative effect that is nowhere to be found in that math. This not only isn't a demonstration, it's not even an explanation of a connection; it's merely a bare assertion not based on any component of the big bang model or any extant mathematical model of which I'm aware.

I ask for a prediction of the CMBR, and you say,

graybear13 wrote:Behind that radiation is the cosmic microwave background radiation caused by the almost invisible vortexes.

This is neither a prediction nor an explanation. It is an assertion with no mathematical modeling. There exist vortices, and there exists radiation; therefore one caused the other. This is not sufficient and is in fact a logical fallacy without a demonstration of causality.
You further insist:

graybear13 wrote:They are not completely invisible...look at Hubble pictures of quasars and spiral galaxies.

In other words, "We see these things, and they're evidence for my position because I say that they are." No, they're not. I can claim that the Great Green Arkleseizure's sneezes are what create quasars, and I can say that my math that proves it is just like the big bang model's math, but that does not make it so. Where's the beef?

graybear13 wrote:Science assumes that a big bang happened and that the math is correct.

Here you're just lying. The big bang model is a conclusion based on evidence, not an assumption used as a starting point. For someone who claims to know the origins of the big bang model, this is a bonehead claim to make.

graybear13 wrote:Of course if my experiment were to work out ...

then that certainly would be sufficient evidence to accept your position. But wishful thinking doesn't make it so. If the Great Green Arkleseizure really does sneeze to create quasars, then a little bit of pepper would create all the quasars we wanted! But this is no reason to accept that this is how quasars are created in the first place.

graybear13 wrote:The asymmetry of matter/ antimatter, that Kevin spoke of earlier, can be explained using vortexes. We can't know ...

Another mere assertion that magical energy vortices somehow have some sort of explanatory power... oh, except that we can't really know if that's correct. "So until we see the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezes a quasar into existence, we should just accept that that's how it happens with neither mathematical models nor observational evidence!"

You have multiple scientists challenging you to make your claims, and you're failing miserably. And this is how science works! This is the peer review process: you send your ideas to people who will consider them, and their job is to make you make your case better. Your case has only gotten more muddled, outlandish, and inexplicable since its peer review began here.
If you think that we're being harsh, you should try submitting an article to any astrophysics/cosmology journal. They won't be nearly as kind, and that's if they bother to respond at all instead of dismissing you as an ill-informed crackpot.

We're not dumb people. We're not incapable of understanding math or models. You say that your math and your models work. Show them. Be specific about what an "energy vortex" is. Be specific about how it spits out matter and causes explosions. Enough with the bald assertion. Show the math. Show the models.

I bet you won't because you don't have any.

Savonarola wrote:

graybear13 wrote:Science assumes that a big bang happened and that the math is correct.

Here you're just lying. The big bang model is a conclusion based on evidence, not an assumption used as a starting point. For someone who claims to know the origins of the big bang model, this is a bonehead claim to make.
We're not dumb people. We're not incapable of understanding math or models. You say that your math and your models work. Show them. Be specific about what an "energy vortex" is. Be specific about how it spits out matter and causes explosions. Enough with the bald assertion. Show the math. Show the models.

I bet you won't because you don't have any.

"Falling into a hole: ...it also gave Stephen Hawking
A moment of insight. By reversing the direction
of time, and running the event Penrose was
describing backward, Steven realized that he had
a perfect model for the Big Bang. A singularity,
he argued, was what Einstein's mathematics
corresponded to Lemaitre's primeval atom; and it would
explode outward with the Big Bang, reversing the
dynamics of a black hole and releasing matter as it
evolved. Steven and Roger Penrose published a paper
in 1970 which proved mathematically that, if Einstein's
mathematics were correct, a singularity had to
result from a black hole, and had to exist at the
start of the universe..." Filkin

You guys have it backward in time. The black hole time frame can be truncated at the creation of mass and it works great...no singularity. It is the 96% moving toward the 4% collapsing in toward singularity and exploding into creation along the way. The last 4% coming back at you. It's common sense.

I don't know what caused the initial movement of energy toward mass, weather it was as you say the Great Green Arkleseizures or maybe Pink Unicorns eating dark matter, drinking dark energy and shitting galaxies or the hand of God. I think that is a topic for another discussion. I think it is ironic that an atheist is preaching to me about his God (BBM), which I totally reject. There is no connection between the effect of mass and the big bang, you're making it up...no different than saying creation exists so therefore God (BBM) made it happen.

E + V' = M does not address where energy comes from or what set it in motion. My focus is on what causes gravity and then mass, in that sequence of time...1st gravity and then mess. Science seems to be stuck thinking backwards in time by saying mass causes gravity when actually collapsing clouds of energy cause gravity and when the gravity gets strong enough you get the effect of mass.

Any and all collapsing clouds of gas are energy vortexes. Liquid energy such as water or pudding cannot form a vortex because it cannot collapse or compress. Maybe I should use 'black hole' instead of the word vortex. This seems to have caused some confusion in Darrel's mind, comparing a dish of pudding to Hubble pictures of quasars and galaxies, that's a good one , but that's just semantics.

I never said that the math and the models where mine. They belong
to anyone who would use them. Just like all the other evidence of existence.

"I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free" Michelangelo

gray

Savonarola wrote:You say that your math and your models work. Show them. Be specific about what an "energy vortex" is. Be specific about how it spits out matter and causes explosions. Enough with the bald assertion. Show the math. Show the models.

I bet you won't because you don't have any.

grabear13 wrote:I never said that the math and the models where mine.

Is this the best you can do? I ask for the math, and you don't present it because it's "not yours"? How pathetic. This would be like my refusing to give argumentation that red is not the same as blue because I don't own the rights to either.

You continue to weasel and squirm. Where's the beef? I don't need to hear you repeat yourself about why you think the big bang model is wrong. I don't need to hear you repeat what your model does not allege to explain. I don't need to hear you repeat (without reason or evidence) that your model is exactly the same to a certain point in time. I need to hear you explain WHY your idea is correct, using math and/or models; I need you to explain how your vortex idea is exactly the same as 96% of the current model. Instead, you can't even decide what the hell you're talking about: vortices are energy, then gas, then not gas, then gravity, then black holes. Every reader here no doubt feels that you have no clue what's going on, and you're doing nothing to change that feeling.

Savonarola wrote:Be specific about what an "energy vortex" is. Be specific about how it spits out matter and causes explosions. Enough with the bald assertion. Show the math. Show the models.

Or -- like I said -- if you think that we're being unfairly harsh, submit an article to a cosmology/astronomy journal. Let us know how that goes.

Until you either answer the questions or submit your ideas to a professional journal, go away.

Savonarola,

Hey man...no hard feelings. Thank you for your consideration
and I won't let the door hit me in the ass on the way out.

It has been fun.

gray

Savonarola wrote:Until you either answer the questions or submit your ideas to a professional journal, go away.

graybear13 wrote:I won't let the door hit me in the ass on the way out.

So that everybody understands what has happened, I'll recap: graybear had three options:

1. Answer our questions about his model.
2. Submit his ideas as an article to a scientific journal.
3. Leave.

He chose #3.

This is why science works as well as it does. When somebody comes up with a new idea, we want it defended. If it has merit, we spread the idea for more consideration. If the new idea can't be defended, we stop considering it.