Thread: What would it look like if...

Originally Posted by Alamaral

AHHHHHH I just spent a half hour writing my response, previewed the post, tried to edit it and when I hit <bs> went back to the previous web page, losing my edits!!! So, I'm sorry if this is a bit more terse, but I'm not going to type it all in again... Sorry...

Been there, done that...got the lack of hair to prove it....

Originally Posted by Alamaral

My final point was that there seems to be many things in conventional theories that are not yet explained, like the apparent acceleration of distant galaxies away from us, and the need to find a cause, such as dark matter or a cosmological constant. I think many of these unknown things can be potentially explained, or explained away, with my model...

Wouldn't it be ironic if the cause of this was nothing more than magnetic....

This Thread Belongs in ATM forum.

The OP was attempting to skirt having to actually defend his pet hypothesis by placing it as an innocently asked question. He prefers to not be educated, however. Any chance a Mod or Admin can move it to the appropriate forum?

Originally Posted by Alamaral

You said that "we are not discussing particles here". You might not be, but I am, and there's the disconnect.

Ah, yes. I see the disconnect now and I referred to it above and below.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

The valloons are ....

You have No Idea what they are. You made it all up off the top of your head.
I refer you back to post number 6 in this thread.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

The valloons could very suddenly convert their vibrational energy into something else, background radiation for example.

How would they convert What energy?

Originally Posted by Alamaral

but I just pulled that one out of my arse, so haven't thought it through.

We agree on one thing.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

As to the WMAP data the background radiation would seem to be the remnants of the original vibrational energy of the valloons.

How would it seem to be? Did that actually make sense to you? Seems pulling things out of your arse is a habit. What vibrational energy? That's complete gibberish!

Hogwash. You have no idea what you're talking about- So you invented a justification for your pet hypothesis and then sat back and hugged yourself gleefully.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

My final point was that there seems to be many things in conventional theories that are not yet explained, like the apparent acceleration of distant galaxies away from us, and the need to find a cause, such as dark matter or a cosmological constant. I think many of these unknown things can be potentially explained, or explained away, with my model...

You think so? Hardly. Your "model" doesn't even explain COBE and WMAP. It is not a model at all. A model is Tested, well thought out, examined and compared to evidence. A Model is Supported by evidence. A model undergoes vigorous testing to keep it as accurate as possible.
It appears that you're willing to ignore evidence to justify the belief you've placed in your pet hypothesis.
Do you know what the Scientific Method Is? Guess what: If the shoe doesn't fit- Pet theory meets trash can. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

I'm no physicist

True.

You know, I had assumed that an innocently posed "what if" question regarding something I was interested in discussing with people more educated on the subject than myself would be an opportunity to learn a few things, and possibly get others thinking. Apparently Neverfly doesn't agree, and instead of trying to understand my idea, and encourage my interest in the subject he finds it more appropriate to belittle me in public.

Is this the sort of closed minded reply I can expect on this forum? If so then I'm not really interested in continuing to be a part of it... I don't know why anyone would be... I guess it's just the internet mentality where people feel they can attack someone, essentially anonymously, and get away with it.

So, I came here to learn, and I learned that I don't need this sort of crap...

Originally Posted by Alamaral

You know, I had assumed that an innocently posed

It stopped being innocently posed when you went into denial about the evidence and purported your pet hypothesis, instead.
If you want to pose an ATM hypothesis- feel free to do so in the appropriate place.
But don't insult the readers intelligence. Or my own.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

"what if" question regarding something I was interested in discussing with people more educated on the subject than myself would be an opportunity to learn a few things, and possibly get others thinking.

You failed at the "learn a few things" part. Denying the evidence and pushing your own opinion is NOT learning, contrary to some groups beliefs...
If you wanted to learn, you would have asked More Questions and done less Pushing of your pet hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

Apparently Neverfly doesn't agree, and instead of trying to understand my idea, and encourage my interest in the subject he finds it more appropriate to belittle me in public.

Would you like a tissue?

I did not belittle you. I DID belittle your behavior, however. Welcome to the Adult World. If you pose an absurdity- be prepared to get smacked upside of the head. Instead of complaining, learn how to... you know... LEARN, instead.
"Neverfly" Was not belittling your idea up until the time when you started defending a pet hypothesis and slipping into denial about existing evidence.
You even tried to twist and distort that evidence in order to pander to your own pet hypothesis. If you want to go into denial, fine. But don't consider the rest of us a ship of fools who will blindly follow your lead.

You also seem to forget post number 5-- and 6-- where I DID encourage your interest in the topic but also gave you advice on how to keep scientifically grounded. Advice that you also chose to ignore.
Your whining is cute, but it isn't going to make anyone feel sorry for you in light of your recent posts, behavior and glaring contradictions.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

Is this the sort of closed minded reply I can expect on this forum?

It is from me.

But just because I put you into your place doesn't make me closed minded. It makes you flighty, ungrounded in scientific behavior and a poor sport about being smacked when you're not only "not right, but not even wrong!" That's YOUR responsibility and I suggest you grow up and cope with that instead of trying to place the entire burden on my rather abrasive nature. I was not so abrasive until you shoved your pet hypothesis (Which is pretty absurd all by itself) down my throat. If you were truly interested in Learning, you would attempt to learn instead of attempting to push your pet hypothesis. You were More Interested in refuting BB Cosmology and hammering the evidence of BB into your pet idea like a square peg in a round hole.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

If so then I'm not really interested in continuing to be a part of it... I don't know why anyone would be... I guess it's just the internet mentality where people feel they can attack someone, essentially anonymously, and get away with it.

Yes, it could be Everyone Else on the internet. Or maybe it's YOU. Might wanna think about that.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

So, I came here to learn, and I learned that I don't need this sort of crap...

And I learned that you will pretend to be interested in learning. But in reality, you'll deny evidence, cherry pick evidence, fail to ask legitimate questions and push your pet hypothesis. Then you'll cry foul when someone else points out what you're doing.

Try Loose Change Forum, instead.

Try Loose Change Forum, instead.

Try the loose SCREW forum. You haven't a clue what I'm about, or what my intentions are. You'd apparently rather just assert your own dominance here, and not bother listening to what anyone else has to say if you don't agree with it. And when someone disagrees with you YOU START attacking.

Go back and READ my posts. I'm not pushing anything. I clearly and repeatedly state that my idea was just that, that it was not well thought out, that I was probably mistaken, and that some of it was just pulled out of my ass. I'm not saying I'm right, but I am saying you are WRONG, on MANY LEVELS, the least of which is in your understanding of my idea and intentions. Since YOU can't understand what I'm suggesting, the way I'm suggesting it, and in the spirit in which I do it, you get all pissed off...

What the hell did I do to make you so upset? I asked some questions. I threw out some ideas. I challenged your understanding of what I was saying, oh, heavens. Is that it? I challenged you? You didn't like it so you attacked me...

Get a fucking life, and a clue...

Originally Posted by Alamaral

Try the loose SCREW forum. You haven't a clue what I'm about, or what my intentions are. You'd apparently rather just assert your own dominance here, and not bother listening to what anyone else has to say if you don't agree with it. And when someone disagrees with you YOU START attacking.

The problem is not that you were 'unfairly' attacked. The problem was just as I described in my post above. You were pushing your pet hypothesis. You were denying WMAP data or trying to misapply it. Whatever you THINK your intentions were.

Denying data. -- An innocent questioner would not ignore evidence when it's presented. They would ask more questions in order to understand it. That's why they would ASK.
Cherry picking data. -- An innocent questioner would ask for an understanding of WMAP data rather than try to cherry pick it for anything they can force fit to their pet theory.
You say you admitted you may be wrong. Good, because you are. But saying, "I could be wrong, but..." and then ignoring data, cherry picking data and forcing data to fit your idea is NOT the behavior of an innocent questioner.

You asked VERY few actual questions.

Think about this: If you were serious about learning things, would you push the WRONG idea? Or would you ask questions about: Expansion, Dark Energy, Relativity, Spectroscopy, doppler effect and so on and on and LEARN about the topic?

A lot of people use the excuse that they are persecuted. Innocently asking misguided questions- Almost always they make this claim when they get confronted about how they are pushing something that is scientifically---- GIBBERISH.
It's Typical that you claim I don't "Agree" with your idea. So since "I don't agree I must attack you." Riiiiight... You're just the poor little victim of mean me.
Of course, I don't agree with it- it's nonsense. This is not about whether or not we AGREE, it's about Evidence- data- facts. Not your ideas or opinions which you cling to by ignoring data, evidence and facts. An innocent questioner would not have ignored data. They would have started asking lots of questions about it. You didn't. You tried to fit part of it with your pet hypothesis and ignored the rest. And I'm the bad guy for calling you out on it.

Can a person honestly learn about a topic by teaching something that's all wrong?
Absolutely not.

I was perfectly polite and tried to make helpful posts until you went and shot yourself in the foot. And now, instead of taking responsibility for it- you are trying to blame mean ol Neverfly. Yeah, it's all my fault that you got all backwards.
Well go on, then. Blame me. But you are going to find that you will be inhibited in learning anything for as long as you roll over answers with gibberish that you invent. No matter HOW MUCH you point out that you may be wrong, you may be mistaken, you make be pulling it out your yazoo. As long as you keep pulling it out, ignoring data and force-feeding data into what you just pulled out of your butt- You're not an innocent questioner.

You won't learn anything pulling crap out of your butt. You'll learn by putting knowledge inside of your skull.

Now, I can keep on feuding with you, here. It's nice stress relief for me. You have a choice:
1.) Step back and examine whether or not you are demonstrating (Claims of innocent questions notwithstanding, everyone makes claims.) a lack of desire to actually learn anything and are demonstrating pushing your own agenda. In which case, I will be quite easygoing again...
2.) Back up off my back about you having a poor understanding of how one learns anything.
3.) Keep on going and I can have lots of fun lighting you up.

While this thread could certainly go into the ATM forum without it feeling out of place there, data is data - evidence and facts are the interpretation of data.

Most of the data I have - is third hand and I probably got it off the telly.
That doesn't stop me from speculating about the nature of the Universe, but I am aware that I may not know a lot of what I know.

Everywhere.
Very high vibration plus entropy. It "cools".
At some point - a phase shift.
Cymatics.
And space/time itself, like a gas becoming boiling liquid bubblefrothwalloons.
Vibration -> energy -> particles (standing wave type "particles")
Hydrogen. (Everywhere cymatically distributed)
Space/Time being "in-formed" by where/when all the matter had suddenly coalesced - that might
have the appearances, when you look at "light" from very far away, of an expanding
universe. (if the space/time medium density was what was phase shifting)

Originally Posted by TaoZero5

While this thread could certainly go into the ATM forum without it feeling out of place there, data is data - evidence and facts are the interpretation of data.

"Interpretation" does not mean, "Make the data say whatever the hell you want it to say."

Originally Posted by TaoZero5

Most of the data I have - is third hand and I probably got it off the telly.

Well, then... Maybe someone who got it first and second hand can weigh in. Oh wait- that's already happened.

And MisterMe weighed in short, concise and to the point; he said, "It's Hogwash!"

Let's see now... Is data just data? How "open to interpretation" is it?

Were these Innocently asked questions? Was I simply disagreeing with something he said so I was viciously attacking the poor victim?
Review:

Originally Posted by Alamaral

You said that "we are not discussing particles here". You might not be, but I am, and there's the disconnect.

You see, I had misunderstood what Alamaral was saying as at that time, I thought he was actually asking a question. And particles as put, had nothing to do with the actual answer to that question and I informed him of such. Did he correct his question as someone just trying to ask innocent questions would have done? Nope. He went right back at it- defending and promoting his pet hypothesis.
I even defended what he seemed to ask to MisterMe, at first. And I ended up feeling like a fool for it. Thanks, Alamaral...

Originally Posted by Alamaral

No, not at all what I'm saying at all. The valloons are very energetic particles, I'll call them preatomic (strings, branes, or whatever there was before strings or branes formed), the vibration of which takes very large amounts of "virtual" space, much more than they do today. The sum of all the virtual space initially taken up by the vibration of the preatomic particles equals the size of the universe.

That wasn't a question. That wasn't even a "could it be?" That was a "Here's what I think Happened!"
And what the heck does it even say? Virtual Space? Is this physics or cybernet 101?
He went Pre-BigBang on that one and none of it made a lick of sense.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

The valloons could very suddenly convert their vibrational energy into something else, background radiation for example.

Here, he "innocently asks" if he... Oh wait, no. He makes the claim that "Valloons" (concept he invented off the top of his head) suddenly converted their vibrational energy (whatever the hell that is) into the Background Radiation I brought up in regards to WMAP.
This is a clear distortion of the data, force fitting it to support his claim.
No innocent question here- in fact, it shows he did exactly what I accused him of.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

I suppose it could even happen very slowly, more like a slow leak than a pop, but I just pulled that one out of my arse, so haven't thought it through.

Trust me, buddy- that wasn't the ONLY thing you pulled outta there... Look above. And below.
It hit the fan, I think. Because it's all over the place.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

There would be no compression at all, so no need to draw any energy from anywhere, it would initially be in the valloons themselves, like the energy in an inflated balloon, or a vibrating guitar string.

More wild speculating that bases itself on the assumption of this invented "Valloons."
Problem is, it still makes no sense at all.---- "Well, the energy just happened to already be in there, so that problem is solved. "----
Well, that was an easy solution. Why not just say they had batteries, while you're at it?

Any doubts as to whether this is ATM, yet?

Originally Posted by Alamaral

As to the WMAP data the background radiation would seem to be the remnants of the original vibrational energy of the valloons.

Taking the data and misapplying it, force-fitting it to his pet hypothesis again. With reckless nonsense, at that.
And, again, no innocently asked questions here, either.

Originally Posted by Alamaral

My final point was that there seems to be many things in conventional theories that are not yet explained, like the apparent acceleration of distant galaxies away from us, and the need to find a cause, such as dark matter or a cosmological constant. I think many of these unknown things can be potentially explained, or explained away, with my model...

He finds mainstream Models to be inadequate and feels his "MODEL" is superior.
Was that him just idly speculating and asking innocent questions?
Are there STILL any doubts as to whether or not this is ATM? Did I unjustly accuse this poor man of doing exactly what I said he was doing?


...I think not.

Originally Posted by TaoZero5

That doesn't stop me from speculating about the nature of the Universe, but I am aware that I may not know a lot of what I know.

I refer you to post number 6, made prior to the drama outbreak:

Originally Posted by Neverflyjerkfacemeaniepoopoohead

Now, armchair dreaming and speculating is a Great Thing. All of the worlds highly educated and successful scientists do it. But once they do, they obtain and examine data. If the data does not support the dreaming fantasy- the fantasy is introduced to the Trashcan.

Valloons, meet Trashcan. Trashcan; Valloons.
"Charmed."

Originally Posted by Neverflyjerkfacemeaniepoopoohead

Dream...
Then take that dream and sledge hammer it with facts until it either rolls over and dies or sits up and says, "I told you so."

His dream sat up and belched.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

His dream sat up and belched.

Methinks thou art enjoying thyself overly much...

Originally Posted by David E. Eaton Sr.

Methinks thou art enjoying thyself overly much...

Me makes meanness more funner.