Are all dissenting voices cranky ?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by The God, Jun 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    That was the point, Paddoboy, how it is stable over 250 million years ? Too much of a time for a tiny dot to survive against the vagaries of MW distribution...
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Answer TGs points . That is all that is asked .
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    The solar system is not a tiny dot.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And the point is the solar system certainly is in a stable orbit around the galactic center, just as is evidenced.
    If you have access to any state of the art instruments that show differently, then please let us all in on this new revelation.
    Or as usual, all we see, is as we see on any science forum, any day of the week, is the ranting and ravings of "would be's if they could be's" and egotistical trolls with nothing but talk.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Why don't you ask him what his points are that have not already been answered by myself Dave and others.
    In the mean time see if you can get him to answer the question that I have asked him and that he has totally ignored.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    That's a good fella!
    Here's that question again........
    "You have said many times that curved spacetime is ridiculous, BH's are ridiculous and other accepted aspects of GR...presumably because you cannot put your finger on any of these and grasp them, like you grasp a bit of fruit, or see them directly......But yet by your own admittance, you believe in an all powerful, omnipotent, invisible, infinite deity.
    Can you explain the contradiction please?"
     
  8. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    The God, is the only reason you think the sun is part of a binary star system, is because it's not mainstream?
     
  9. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Ok, do the GR on our solar system around GC without considering it as a dot.......let me give you a simple exercise, do the mercury orbit around our sun in GR without considering the mercury as a dot.......best is find out the size of our solar system and compare it with 25000 light years radius sphere surface area...since you can't find out surface area, take Deacon's help. May be he can.
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    TG I looked at the site.
    I did not say what I thought by the way.
    If there is anything to your link and the evidence they suggest than one should be able to model it and establish where he other star is and then we could observe it....one would then not speculate.
    So you say you know math such a task should be simple and you only need Newtonian gravity to calculate the position of your star.
    also the orbit of pluto should fit the model... I think that is how science works.
    If it is there its influence will dictate its location.
    So you can prove it or not.
    Alex
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    You obfuscate again my dear friend.
    The mainstream cosmology with relation to our solar system and its orbit around the MW galaxy system, is done and dusted.
    If you have any evidence to show otherwise, the onus is on you to present it...The same as the onus is on you to invalidate GR, BH's GW's [silent on that I've noticed of late] and all the other cosmology you believe to be invalid in favour of whatever it is that drives you [Your religious agenda obviously,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ]
    Oh, and you still have a question to answer my friend.
     
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Paddoboy,

    Neither I obfuscate nor get silent.....I will take up all one by one, I have posted only 2 of 10....
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    And both have been decided as per mainstream theory.
    How about answering the question and stop your obfuscating?
    Afraid it may box you into a corner?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Ask all the questions for these two points, balance as and when I post, on BH, BB, TT, WH etc..
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And tell me, when you are through, what in this big wide wonderful universe, will have changed?
    What will academia and mainstream science do?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Do you really believe what you are trying to get the rest of us to believe?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    Sure.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    You have my sympathy re the power of such delusions. Sad.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Worth noting to counteract the "free thoughts"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , being applied to the observed cosmological data, that the stable orbit of our solar system around the galactic center, would also be affected somewhat by the fact that the MW is a "barred spiral" Still though our stable orbit is relatively maintained.
     
  19. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Assuming GC means "Galactic Center" and assuming "orbit" means closed Keplerian elliptical orbit, this badly misstates the mainstream position which is that the solar system is gravitationally bound to the galaxy, not the Galactic Center (whatever that is supposed to mean) and does not have any sort of simple shape, but on the basis of statistics and conservation of angular momentum, there is a rough estimate of when it will finish one lap about the core. Because the stellar densities about us are not particularly dense, there is no reason to believe one or more stars in the local neighborhood has any special gravitational relationship with the sun so the mainstream position would be that detailed study of the relative positions and velocities of all known nearby stars indicates we are in a fairly uniform part of the galactic disk and not part of a cluster or binary system. (In contrast we know what a gravitationally bound clump of stars looks like (Hyades) and that's the only local clump -- an evaporating open cluster.) Thus the toy estimate of 225-250 million years for "the orbit of the sun" is just the statistical mean for this part of the galactic disk with unconsidered variance because The God didn't understand the mainstream position. To adopt The God's definition of the mainstream position is to fall victim to a straw man position. To fail to object to the form of this question is to fall victim to the logical fallacy of false dilemma.

    So fucking ridiculous, this is the anti-science trope of “Were you there?” A more useful and more general question is, "How do you know?" If the person making a claim can not answer that question, you may consider the claim as tentatively baseless. In this case we know 225-250 million years is a statistical average of how long it takes stars in our neighborhood to complete a lap about the core because the disk doesn't obey Kepler's third law, but rather has a "flat rotation curve" similar (but obviously not exactly like) a phonograph record. And we know that is fairly typical because the gravity of galaxies doesn't just come from the center but from all their stars, gas clouds and importantly dark matter. It's fairly certain that no one in science cares on the exact time the sun needs to complete a lap, as (1) that is unknowable due to influences from other stars that we can't estimate (2) it's likely to vary somewhat for every lap, (3) there are no fixed markers to pass, (4) no one is expected to mark the event. The ESO made an animation based on the position and velocity of over 10,000 nearby stars to show that the local neighborhood of the sun changed a lot over one galactic year.
    http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/StacyLeong.shtml
    http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso0411/
    http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2004/18/aa0959.pdf

    To what end? How is knowledge in astronomy relevant to your beliefs when you know none of it and don't keep up with progress? This seems closest to the anti-science trope of “You cannot trust what scientists say, since it may be different tomorrow.” But to hold out hope for some unspecified companion star being discovered or large bound intermediate structure in the galactic disk seems unsustainable in light of the understanding of the local neighborhood.

    You are comparing one field of utter trivia, cataloguing the slow-moving, distant and therefore trivial parts of the solar system, with hope for paradigm shift overturning the toy model you have of galactic motion. But not only do they have nothing to do with each other, the mainstream doesn't share your toy model so no paradigm shift is required other than for you.

    Unclear antecedent. Do you mean how many stars are in the Milky Way? No one knows. Estimates vary wildly. Do you mean the mass of the Milky Way? It's long been considered about the same as Andromeda. Do you mean the diameter of the Milky Way? Recently the Monoceros Ring and the Triangulum Andromeda have been proposed to be part of the galaxy which would mean the diameter of the disk is larger than previously thought, solving a puzzle about why the galactic diameter seemed anomalously small. But that's irrelevant to the Sun's position a mere 8 kpc from the center.
    http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/blueshift/index.php/2015/07/22/how-many-stars-in-the-milky-way/
    http://www.space.com/29270-milky-way-size-larger-than-thought.html

    You are misstating the laws of probability. The probability that a star in our local neighborhood is binary is about 1/3 but the probability that our sun is a binary is too close to zero to compute. The very complete surveys from where the 1/3 probability for an unknown star come from are precisely the studies which make it exceedingly unlikely that any companion of the sun will ever be found.
    The Two Micron All Sky Survey found over a hundred brown dwarfs, but none near our Sun.
    The WISE surveyed the whole sky and found more brown dwarfs 20 light years away, but found none near the Sun.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_survey#List_of_sky_surveys

    Since your position is based on nothing rational you have communicated, there is no understanding of why you hold it. Since your false assumption that the mainstream believes the Sun orbits an unperturbed Keplerian orbit about a point at the center of the galaxy is a misunderstanding, the expectation is no one should be able to confirm your misconception. Since you don't understand the burden of proof lies with the one making claims, you don't see the need to support your own claims, so you embrace flaky ideas without rational support.

    Your reasoning seems to be "If scientists don't know everything then they know nothing, therefore The God who knows nothing is just as likely to be correct as scientists. Therefore The God don't have the burden to support his claims, conjectures and debate points, others have the burden to proof him wrong." That's just anti-scientific denial of reality, logic, probability, and possibly ethics.
     
  20. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Rpenner,

    I have not taken you in quote, but however disparaging for me, it has tremendous educational value for all. I am sure it will be useful for all. Your first para is excellent.

    Great you took so much time in clearing what the mainstream position is on the issue because none seems to know including me. Well my opinion still stands, but now I find mainstream position quite acceptable...

    Pt stands settled in Favour of unitary system.
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,645
    Yup. To where it belongs.

    Here, I've got one for you.

    The sun is gripped gently by the teeth of an invisible Cosmic Pink Unicorn. This is what holds it in place in the galaxy.
    Why could this not be so? Prove to me why it couldn't.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  22. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Continuing with your downward trip ? You are no better than creationists, they can't defend their position and you too can't defend yours despite pretending to know......They at least don't pretend.
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,645
    I see you do not have a response.

    You know full well the onus is on you to make your case.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page