The Big Bang and Magnetic fields

You are an Idiot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see

But nevertheless you did agree with me

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trolling again? Were you not moderated for that?


But just for the record.....Sure, I agree that Plasma existed just after the BB. But Plasma/Electric nonsense as you so often fanatically push , was not the process by which the Universe and matter/energy within was built.
As you know, that was gravity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

O

Response by paddoboy

No

You agreed that at the begining not after or just after but at the begining of BB , there was a Plasma of protons and electrons

Post # 96

 

paddoboy, you have not changed or learned much of anything Science Methodology since Sept. 12, 2013 when you Posted in this Thread :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?136179-Science-and-science-methedology

So...Post #95 :

Your Post #96 :

Post #97 :

Your Post #98 :

Post #99 :

Your Post #100 :

Then your Post #101 :

Post #102 :

Then your Post #103 :

paddoboy, your "attention to detail" is still seemingly non-existent.

paddoboy, you seem to not fully comprehend statements/questions prior to responding to them.

paddoboy, you seem to suffer from an "attention deficit disorder" or...

paddoboy, you seem to have no problem with "flip-flopping" or contradicting your own self in a period of only 8 or 9 minutes.

paddoboy, you seem to fall back on "attacks/accusations/allegations and name-calling" when your ability to comprehend or your ability to logically and rationally communicate reaches its very shallow limit.

Regardless, paddoboy, of whatever is motivating you on these Threads, and your seeming incompetency to express your views/ideas/beliefs...

...regardless of that, it sure is an experience following your Posts!

 

The point I was making was, science appears to notice something in the distance and calls it dark energy and dark matter. We notice it by the impact it appears to have on other things far away, but we can't see it close up in the lab. A mirage works the same way. At a distance we might see a mirage in the desert. But as we get closer it disappears or seems to remains just out of reach. Other things can fall into this category. So why not call it the breath of God, since this too have been postured to permeate the universe, but it too disappears as we get close and try to see it in the lab.

The challenge I created was say we had to do cosmology, but could only use what we can see up close, to make sure there is no mirage effect due to a need; necessity such as a flaw in the theory. Could the theory stand without the mirage effect?

In ancient times, Helios road his chariot across the sky; he defined the path of the sun. Everyone could see this ancient interpretation of visible data with the naked eye, but nobody ever saw Helios up close. It became dogma without close up proof. It is easier to induce fantasy when there is mystery. Maybe Helios has a new gig and he does the dark matter thing for retirement, but only far away, since up close we cannot see him.

The challenge I propose would force one to conclude we need Helios, breath of God or dark energy to keep the existing theory in play. The alternative is to start from scratch to avoid the necessity of a mirage mystery.

I have mentioned elsewhere of the calibration of consciousness since it is the main tool of science. A mirage mystery is a good way to lose calibration.

 

That's great!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Firstly, I don't need to change, at least not in the manner you perceive, and secondly, I would hate to indulge in the uneccessary pedantory that you so often post. I suppose it's one way to distract from the meat of the argument.
I wish I had a dollar for every time you mentioned paddoboy, and another dollar for everytime you misconstrued or just down right took out of context and lied, and another dollar for the sheer goblydook nature of your posts in an effort [I suppose] to at least look like you know what you are talking about...which for your info has had the opposite effect.

Didn't you say somewhere to someone about yourself being "educated"at peace with yourself and the world, and a myriad of other self grandeur comments.

I leave the bulk of your posts for others to judge, just as they will with mine.

 

wellwisher, Hope you do not mind that I concur to your Post #108. Very well worded.
I had never heard it described as "calibration of consciousness" before but focus is easily lost by the easily distracted and a mirage is nothing, if not a distraction!

 

jump

 

Really ?

What meaning of quintessence are you using ?

Superforce ? ( now what ) no

Energy was there , obviously

You have , now

Soooooo....?

 

No, mirages are more religious folk and anti mainstream fanatics.
DE was proposed [and we are not sure yet what form it takes] to explain the observable acceleration in the expansion of the Universe.
Do you have anything better to explain the observation?
Perhaps tomorrow someone may, and then the DE theory will be modified.
That's how science works.
The Catholic church now recognise evolution and the BB/Infaltionary theory of Universal evolution....Too much evidne to deny it.
But that is where they depart from the scientific process. They put it down to the work of God, while science keeps searching for answers....
That's how science works.


The acceleration in the expansion is not a mirage, nor is it a fairy tale...It exists, and they explain it through DE/CC/Qunitessence.

The tools of science are experimental results and observations.
If they are mirages, that in time will come to light. But calling it a mirage is in itself a fairy tale and mirage.
We see space/time warp/curve and twist. GP-B saw that for us.

Calibration of consciousness as you put it, is not science as much as is observations, hearing, learning and Imagination and deciphering those qualities.


The definition of a mirage is as follows....

an optical phenomenon, especially in the desert or at sea, by which the image of some object appears displaced above, below, or to one side of its true position as a result of spatial variations of the index of refraction of air.

We thus have no reason to believe what we observe is a mirage...If there was, guess what? Science would be the first to reveal it.
In that respect your mirage reasoning is unsupported and unlikely to say the least.

 

Yes, and as of now we don't know.
Go check out WIKI or some other more reputable source if you doubt it.

Yep superforce as I explained earlier [you can search for it. The eopch when the four known forces were united due to excessive pressures and temperatures of that epoch.

Some doubts, but also plenty of secure observations and data...And more Importantly, nothing matches all those observations any where near as well as the BB.
But I certainly know you will remain ignorant and ignore any pertinent data.

Keep grovelling in pseudoscience...You have ben there too long to focus properly on any thing fair dinkum.

 

Plus of course, it is always quite revealing how you and your ilk, are so adapt at asking self evident questions, but quite insidiously ignore all questions put to you.

 

What is this

Space/time has an inbuilt CC/DE/quintessence component....

Define

 

Maybe you can find some answers on this Thread : - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?138970-Is-there-a-way-to-tell-when-you-are-deluded/page10