Ever wondered who would win the American elections if the wh

posted on December 11th, 2008, 9:57 pm

Centrifugal force is an effect which comes from rotation. In fact all the stars in a galaxy would fly off if it spun fast enough. Most importantly, it is merely an effect, only existing when we think we are in an inertial (non-accelerating) frame of reference even though we are not. The whole universe is not rotating because it has nothing to rotate into (remember that?).

Sorry to say, but why do you insist on talking such nonesense when you know I'm a physicist? This just shows the scale of your arrogance, even when you are wrong. Kinda a rule of thumb for your general attitude really. Maybe if you spent more time learning basic physics and less time reading about the Fables of Speridunkilus of the Kingdom of Waaah, you would be able to forge a better argument.

I see also that you avoided responding to me altogether earlier. Perhaps you should go back and see if you can find a response to one of my earlier posts - you know one of the ones that stumped you.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 11th, 2008, 10:13 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 11th, 2008, 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

god almighty...

What happens on a macro level will have micro level implications.

If you now want to go into the details, and miss the point thta was being made... very well.

Firstly, you cannot demonstrate that centrifugal force has no bearing on cosmological expansion. the theories are being discussed at teh moment.
So even if you are quoting some text book from which you have derived your singular opinion you arent in any position to emphatically be sure.

A Positive Cosmological Constant as Centrifugal Force in an Expanding Kantian Mo
http://www.scienceandresearchdevelopmen ... om/wz1.pdf

You can search and check out the results.

But, if you say centrifugal force has no influence on expansion at all, you're not looking at the complete picture.

as regards your false association of my 2 separate posts.

I didnt say planets are causing cosmological expansion. I said the the verse describes planets that recede, which is aprt of the cosmological expansion structure.
Gravity and centrifugal force being related at teh micro level and playing out on the micro level.

The macro level galactic expansion you're referring to does not completely prove centrifugal force as irrelvant on a micro level. so maybe here you were talking at cross purposes with me - as usual.
focuses on redshift and teh hubble constant too presents one aspect that too is being contested in scientific circles...

so with what surety are you going to make absolute statements about any of hte micro or macro level elements that play in the current galactic setup, or the meaning of that verse.

Other than a slight display of highty-flighty attempts to merely contradict, you aren;t citing cold hard facts and evidence.

Ironically, you aer citing theories which you have been taught, ignoring those which you missed - and of course in lectures when teaching a specific theory the scientific community's debate around it is almost always ignored.. so what you;re ultimately quoting is your implicait trust in those theories.. since you studieed only them.. and your unwavering FAITH in your professors and curriculum...

Are you for real in using that as part of our discussion... You're demonstrating what I have been stating from day 1.

thank you.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 10:13 pm

Laz. give it a break. Your credibility died with the brief and compact post 

[Dr. Lazarus]

posted on December 11th, 2008, 10:28 pm

Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on December 11th, 2008, 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Typical mirroring behaviour from a typical apologist. If you lose credibility, you just accuse your opponent of losing it. Quite pathetic really.

And it's like I said, the ultimate arbiter of science is observation. The proper conclusions only arrive once we have verified the various hypotheses. By finding a hypothesis you like, you've proved nothing except that you are scrounging to find "evidence" that your belief system is true. You already formed a pre-conceived idea, and you are seeking to prove it. This is backwards thinking.

I'm a theoretical physicist and I see lots of speculative stuff in the weekly seminar. Publication does not mean something has been verified. Most of the ideas I see discussed each week are disgarded, that's how science operates. So no, I won't be asking for any refunds, I go to a prestigious university where people at least know how the scientific method works. The chaps postulating Kant's several rotating superstructures in an attempt to explain the expansion would not be taken too seriously here. The universe has nothing overall to expand into. It really is that simple.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 10:31 pm

I think mahatma monodies gonidy Said it best a eye for a eye makes the world go blind. in this case the forum.

If what you are doing is about one up men-ship you will just get to be wright and not find the answer you set out for. If your goal is just to be wright nether of you have credibility.

Lets try tho shift this to finding answers and away from being wight or making the other wrong...

posted on December 11th, 2008, 10:33 pm

I'm sorry Serpicus, were you saying that I was right? (The ambiguousness of religious books is found in verse like the one I am discussing with Dom.)

"The verses I was referring to were the verses that deal with one;s religion - meaning what people believe and accept as part of their religion which in turn affects their behaviour on various social issues... this was the initial context of my conversation with Dom and Laz, and it was this point that I was addressing. Those are the commandment type verses."

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)...from Qur'an 9:5
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book...from Qur'an 9:29

Very clear indeed.

Ambiguous has always been ambiguous. It really doesn't matter what time frame you are talking about; for example saying that "a great evil will befall this nation" does not rely on temporal scale to be ambiguous. You are arguing that these sort of statements are not ambiguous when put in the original setting, but that is you simply assuming as much.

Ha!! You quoted that piece of shit! (A Positive Cosmological Constant as Centrifugal Force in an Expanding Kantian Mo)
It's 1998; way outdated because that article doesn't even discuss the possibility of dark energy! Not to mention that it discusses that the universe must become stable in terms of expansion due to rotating bodies (this model has been rejected) You didn't even read the whole article did you, for the second one. It has nothing to do with centrifugal force and cosmological expansion: it deals with the constant rate according to Hubble's Law as discussed thru Bohr's model!

Note: don't use google search. The first several hits are ancient, and irrelevant so don't post them without reading. Try going to a local library, because those papers haven't been put online yet (or you need to belong to a university to get access to a few of them)


So yes, centrifugal force. Has. No. Effect. Second, those "theories" have long since been discarded (physics goes very quickly Serpicus: 11 years is an absolute eternity). Third, the macro level does not affect the micro in this case because dark matter outweighs the effect of dark energy within a galaxy. Only when galaxies are far enough apart does dark energy take over, hence the expansion (this is why we do not expand). Praise your god almighty all day, but please just stay out of physics because your understanding is ridiculously limited.

I know that you didn't say "planets are causing cosmological expansion"; but not only does centrifugal force not cause cosmological expansion, but why on earth did you mention planets to show off this "proof"? The planets are not receding from one another (unless you are talking about one planet in one galaxy, and another in another far-off galaxy).

Also I didn't say that on a micro scale centrifigul force was irrelevant. I said it was very important in fact. So learn to read before arguing a point no-one was arguing. "As usual," to quote you, you completely lost sight of the point.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 10:36 pm

What he's arguing is akin to arguing that a motionless centre of mass system is in fact moving because its micro components are. It's absurd. I particularly resent him insulting my education and implying that I don't know my physics, when he's the one who's clueless. Is that how inadequate people compensate, by mirroring?

posted on December 11th, 2008, 10:39 pm

I'd rather this be on messages, but my girlfriend here (the astronomer) is appalled at the level of ... absurdity in Serpicus's recent posts. And apparently she calls him a nincompoop 

posted on December 11th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Undoubtedly just one example of a person who finds his feeble attempts to pass the Koran off as a miracle book amusing. Makes you wonder who else is reading his crap. 

posted on December 11th, 2008, 10:42 pm

--Typical mirroring behaviour from a typical apologist. If you lose credibility, you just accuse your opponent of losing it. Quite pathetic really.

well, Laz, cite your facts and demonstrate what you;re saying. Otherwise this is just one more of your rants.


And it's like I said, the ultimate arbiter of science is observation. The proper conclusions only arrive once we have verified the various hypotheses. By finding a hypothesis you like, you've proved nothing except that you are scrounging to find "evidence" that your belief system is true. You already formed a pre-conceived idea, and you are seeking to prove it. This is backwards thinking.

the hypotheses you speak of are from the very observations of the very scientific community you;re citing. So are we to then take it that now YOU are disowning those hypotheses which go gainst you?

Is this another one of your typical "pot calling the kettle black" arguments? talk about backward thinking LOL



I'm a theoretical physicist and I see lots of speculative stuff in the weekly seminar. Publication does not mean something has been verified. Most of the ideas I see discussed each weak are disgarded, that's how science operates. So no, I won't be asking for any refunds, I go to a prestigious university where people at least know how the scientific method works. The chaps postulating Kant's several rotating superstructures in an attempt to explain the expansion would not be taken too seriously here. The universe has nothing overall to expand into. It really is that simple.


what refunds?
plus - if yuo are part of a society that would not lend credibility to those chaps quoting Kant - that's more for the scientific community to get its shit inorder and come to an actual understanding of the universe.

Maybe then, once youve actually sorted out what science is and actually have proof and evidence, then you cna talk about religion.

till then you've just admitted that your own premise for rejecting religion is part of a body that itself still has to sort out its head from its anus.... *excuse my crude imagery*.. but maybe once scientists actually knew what they were talking about, instead of being quintessential fish in fishbowls declaring what their vantage point observation can imply for them about the entire Pacific Ocean and beyond, you would be in a position to speak about religion; otherwise you're just as faithful a believer in your "school of scientific thought", as any Catholic or Protestant...

So can we consider this tobe our common ground and end this unnecessary debate, with acceptance that absolute statements that "religion is a fairy tale" and "science is absolute" are themselves inaccurate based on what you have just implied.  :woot:

posted on December 11th, 2008, 10:45 pm

I give up grrr!!!

posted on December 11th, 2008, 10:50 pm

Even though your garbage is tiring me Serpicus, I must pin you to the wall about one thing. If I say that most hypotheses are to be disgarded, this does not mean I am a hypocrite, it actually means I respect the scientific enterprise. I never cease to be amazed at how you twist things. How you have any self respect, I do not know.

The debate is, in fact , unnecessary, but not for the reason you think. It is unnecessary because your Holy book has already been shown to be intolerant and absurd, and the concept of a personal God has been refuted, by me, in the very post which you finally could not respond to - yes, the short and sweet one. Therefore, your attempts to show that the Koran contains inspired utterances of science are in vain. This is all the more so when you actually consider what the verses actually say. Like I said, you are a slimy, manipulative scripture apologist. Not an enviable title.

posted on December 11th, 2008, 10:57 pm

@ Dom

I'm sorry Serpicus, were you saying that I was right? (The ambiguousness of religious books is found in verse like the one I am discussing with Dom.)

"The verses I was referring to were the verses that deal with one;s religion - meaning what people believe and accept as part of their religion which in turn affects their behaviour on various social issues... this was the initial context of my conversation with Dom and Laz, and it was this point that I was addressing. Those are the commandment type verses."

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)...from Qur'an 9:5
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book...from Qur'an 9:29

Very clear indeed.

YAWN
WEll, my discussion with EWM was clear enough. If you couldn;t fathom that, then your reading of religious texts is moot.
again your attempt to misquote, the full verse is as follows:
ura At-Tawba (Arabic: سورة التوبة, Sūratu at-Tawbah, "The Repentance") also known as al-Bara'ah "the Ultimatum" in many ahadith is the ninth chapter of the Qur'an, with 129 verses (see, however, the discussion of ahadith 785-787 in Sunan Abi Dawood, relating to merging Suras 8 and 9, and the discussion of numbering the Basmala (q.v.)). It is one of the last Madinan suras. It is the only sura of the Qur'an that does not begin with the bismillah. It is very important to note that the starting verses of this sura were revealed at the time of war. It is therefore that Allah demands the Muslims to fight under these situations.

a war of self-defense as we have already discussed

9:5] The famous Sword verse reads as follows:
“ But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

so yes. CLEAR AS CRYSTAL. If you are at war, in a war that has been initiated by the likes of Hitler then use every stratagem to win. And if they repent - meaning they desist then indeed cease for the 1 is most forgiving and merciful



So yes, centrifugal force. Has. No. Effect. Second, those "theories" have long since been discarded (physics goes very quickly Serpicus: 11 years is an absolute eternity). Third, the macro level does not affect the micro in this case because dark matter outweighs the effect of dark energy within a galaxy. Only when galaxies are far enough apart does dark energy take over, hence the expansion (this is why we do not expand). Praise your god almighty all day, but please just stay out of physics because your understanding is ridiculously limited.

. In that case if you say that centrifugl force has no effect, then you should also then consider teh new theory that says that the hubble constant and redshift only support galactic balance and not expansion.

so then - what causes galactic expansion... in the end no theory suffices.
Secondly your citation of 1998 means nothing. You need to prove the theory is incorrect. no one is disproving it, they are merely citing more important causes at the macro level... yet do not say anything about micro level expansion...
So what I said to Laz - step back and read up on ti a little more.. thiking the established compendium of your local textbook sources to be enough is yet another example of how solipsist you really are
So indeed even if I praise God all day, you cannot disprove the verse nor the theories in science that range from a variety of citations and conclusions.

all you;re doing is sticking to those that suit your argument, and falling back on what you claim to have learnt from your sources... tht's it..
If indeed this theory is crap - Please explain so that we may all benefit why this theory is failed and where exactly your current model solves the limitations tehrein..

othersei you're as limited as any of us, the only difference is you dont see your limitation with a puerile sense of condescending pompeity..

let's chalk one more Palinesque remark up to Dom... keep em coming m8
ROFL

[Anonymous]

posted on December 11th, 2008, 10:59 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 11th, 2008, 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh dom.

your girl may be an astronomer.. ok.. the i ask her.. Indeed I am a nincompoop.

Please explain why the galaxy is expanding, and what exactly is the role of the hubble constant and redshift.. Im a finance grd so may be I may benefit from it..

Maybe when she contributes on teh financial issues we discussed we can call her a nincompoop too.



As regards Laz - prove your point about the Quran. You merely quote once more from preconception notjhing more.. answer the quotes i posted, and disprove it.

Neither you nor Dom have actually prove one verse false... all you;ve done is dance from one topic to another. Like typical pansies called in your Girlfriends to give your arguments credence..

When in all - at the end of the entire set of posts.. you have PROVEN not one word.
all youhave done is cited theory x, theory y.. which you have subscribed to...

theories like the one which called the sun static for 50+years in the 20th century, or the one that for all empirical purposes called the universe infinite...

But not one of you - not even Dom;s girlfriend can conclusively demonstrate your points.

I am a nincompoop.. ok. granted... but in the end when all 3 of the so called intelligencia here, end up proving nothing and demonstrating nothing against nincompoop.... not even one post ....
kinda makes all 3 want to hang their heads in shame... ROFL

In the end.. quoting theories that are accepted in the frameowrk of today;s science that are still morphing and will morph still onec string theory is fully elucidated, to proclaim oneself a physicist when your physics cant even reconcile general relativity and quantum dynamics is amusingly arrogant...

If arrogance is all you have.. there is no point in taking thios discussion further.
but rest assured you have proven absolutely nothing... and for people who claim empiricity vs fairy tale... it;s the most damning and saddening aspect of your arguments.

LOL

posted on December 11th, 2008, 11:02 pm

You can disprove a verse just by reading it Serpicus. Unless it explicitly says what you want it to say, then it was written by a sheep herder on magic mushrooms who happened to looking up at the sky at the time. As an occupant of the 21st century who tried to match it up to real science, this just made you a dumbass.

Science hypotheses can also be tested, by observations. The strange things that "you cannot disprove" are bizarre unphysical entities like spirits or Gods. In otherwords things that have no real meaning.

If I read anymore long-discredited crap from you, I think the bloodvessel in my eye might explode. You just go round and round in a circle. Your strategy is to leave it six months since I refuted something, and then start again. Unfortunately for you I remember refuting the point.