My Cosmology

[paddoboy]

Read it pad .

Anyone really , just read it yourself .

I'm always open to questions

I read it river...It's nonsense...The Plasma/Electric hypotheticals were debunked many decades ago. Gravity drives the universe....gravity is responsible for stars, planets, galaxies etc
And no I'm not falling for your little trick in discussing it here, as it is against the rules to raise the subject of that thread that was closed.

 

[paddoboy]

As another alluded to.....If you see the need to invalidate or debunk the incumbent model, then first you must know the incumbent model.

 

[river]

As another alluded to.....If you see the need to invalidate or debunk the incumbent model, then first you must know the incumbent model.

Since you have not read my original thread you have no idea what I kept of the mainstream theory and what I didn't .

 

[James R]

river:

Has been closed

Yet no good reason has been provided by JamesR

Explain to us all , your good reason for doing so . JamesR

I apologise that you didn't understand my reason for closing your thread. I thought that "It was rubbish" summed things up fairly well, but I appreciate that I should have been more explicit.

It's a good idea when raising this kind of complaint to link to the original thread, by the way. Here is the link:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/my-cosmology.161279

Here's what I wrote before closing it:

Even for the Pseudoscience forum, this thread looks like a waste of everybody's time. river obviously has very little idea what a scientific theory looks like. This could be stupidity or it could be trolling; it's a bit hard to tell. Either way, it looks like the time to close this thread is fast approaching.

So, to expand:

• A lot of your content in that thread - the parts of the "theory" that are yours - are either nonsensical or a baseless fantasy of yours.
• The content of the thread does not approach the scientific idea of a hypothesis, let alone a theory.
• In a lot of your posts, you just make stuff up, failing to link to any known scientific or cosmological concepts.
• There appears to be no evidential support for your hypothesis, and you have not attempted to provide any such support.
• Some of your posts contradict known facts.

My main reason for closing thread, in line with our published site rules, is that the content of your "cosmology" is incoherent. Your posts are full of nonsensical notions that you appear to have invented on the spur of the moment, probably at the time of posting.

As such, the thread was a total waste of everybody's time, despite the fact that some members chose to engage with you to try to explain the many faults with what you put forward.

Hope this helps you to understand.

 

[James R]

I see that I also explained the closure of the thread in more detail in a private message sent on 12 December. To be concrete, I gave an example of river's last post to that thread, and my comments on it, as follows:

High energy is high energy plasma , heat , you all understand this , because we see it , Quasars on down

But cold energy , is in the efficiency of movement , the frictionless movement of both the proton and electron .

The Birckland currents . The Cosmic Web .

And hence why they are not seen . Because these currents have not become matter .

Matter becomes when the currents collide . From multiple directions . Hence then Quasars , galaxies become

My comments:

1. There's no such thing as "cold energy".
2. Energy is not movement, let alone "efficiency of movement".
3. The term "efficiency of movement" is vague.
4. Friction is not a concept that applies to individual protons and electrons.
5. Mentioning Birckland currents (whatever they are) and the Cosmic Web (whatever that is), as if they were self-explanatory, is a waste of everybody's time.
6. You didn't explain how a current could ever "become matter".
7. You didn't explain what kind of "current" you're talking about.
8. You don't explain how currents can collide, or what that would mean.
9. Many of your sentences contain no verbs and so are not proper sentences for expressing coherent ideas.

In short, the post is a nonsense waste of time, as are most of [river's] posts to that thread. So, closed.

 

[NotEinstein]

Birckland currents (whatever they are)

(For the record: they are a typo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current )

 

[paddoboy]

Since you have not read my original thread you have no idea what I kept of the mainstream theory and what I didn't .

Don't be so obtuse river....I have already told you that I read your thread that was rightly closed. Again when you chose to post nonsense, be prepared to cop the rebuttals.

 

[river]

James R said: ↑
Birckland currents (whatever they are)

(For the record: they are a typo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current )

thanks NotEinstein for the link , should have done this myself . nevertheless thankful that you have .

river

now you know

 

[NotEinstein]

thanks NotEinstein for the link , should have done this myself . nevertheless thankful that you have .

(No problem, glad I could help makes things at least a bit clearer for everyone involved.)

 

[river]

the Cosmic Web is made of Birkland currents

these currents get focused , hence produce Quasars , hence galaxies

now why have they become focused at a certain areas of space or Universe , because the attraction between these currents , hence collide , because of the orientation of the plasma , currents . protons and electrons , hence attraction at higher than light speeds

also notice that the Cosmic Web is not visible nor detected by electromagnetic detectors

 

[DaveC426913]

these currents get focused , hence produce Quasars , hence galaxies

now why have they become focused at a certain areas of space or Universe , because the attraction between these currents , hence collide , because of the orientation of the plasma , currents . protons and electrons , hence attraction at higher than light speeds

also notice that the Cosmic Web is not visible nor detected by electromagnetic detectors

Just so we're clear Riv, you won't be surprised when this thread gets closed for the exact same reason as the last one, right? (See JamesR posts 44, 45 - above)

 

[river]

Just so we're clear Riv, you won't be surprised when this thread gets closed for the exact same reason as the last one, right? (See JamesR posts 44, 45 - above)

it shouldn't be

you are now just understanding what I'm suggesting

we live in a world where freedom of ideas , knowledge and speech is a right

 

[DaveC426913]

it shouldn't be

You would be happier on a forum where such things are acceptable.

you are now just understanding what I'm suggesting

I understand what you are suggesting.
Everyone does.

You are suggesting that
- there is a such thing as "cold energy".
- Energy is "efficiency of movement".
- protons and electrons experience friction
etc.

We also understand that the things you are suggesting are not only false, but that you have no reason to even suggest them, since you are just making them you as you go along.

 

[river]

You would be happier on a forum where such things are acceptable.


I understand what you are suggesting.
Everyone does.

You are suggesting that
- there is a such thing as "cold energy".
- Energy is "efficiency of movement".
- protons and electrons experience friction
etc.

We also understand that the things you are suggesting are not only false, but that you have no reason to even suggest them, since you are just making them you as you go along.

the superfluid is the birkland current

 

[DaveC426913]

the superfluid is the birkland current

How many times can you misspell the same word - one that's core to your idea?

It's almost like you're not really familiar with it - like you just sort of found it in a salad of words.

 

[river]

How many times can you misspell the same word - one that's core to your idea?

It's almost like you're not really familiar with it - like you just sort of found it in a salad of words.

I understand , but nevertheless my thinking is not false , because of this

it happens I have so many ideas , thoughts going through my head , its hard to slow down . I'm ahead of my typing

 

[DaveC426913]

I understand , but nevertheless my thinking is not false , because of this

it happens I have so many ideas , thoughts going through my head , its hard to slow down . I'm ahead of my typing

Sure, but my not start with things that exist? Why make up stuff?
Ideas are not science.

 

[river]

river said: ↑

I understand , but nevertheless my thinking is not false , because of this

it happens I have so many ideas , thoughts going through my head , its hard to slow down . I'm ahead of my typing

Sure, but my not start with things that exist? Why make up stuff?
Ideas are not science.

there is nothing about my theory that is based on things that do not exist . they ALL exist

 

[DaveC426913]

there is nothing about my theory that is based on things that do not exist . they ALL exist

They do not. They're your ideas. Nothing that supports them.

 

[river]

river said: ↑

there is nothing about my theory that is based on things that do not exist . they ALL exist

They do not. They're your ideas. Nothing that supports them.

yes they do

the cosmic web , protons , electrons . magnetic field , Birkland currents , Quasars , Galaxies