I have a questions, one of newtons law states every action has an equal but opposite reaction yes.
So how do rockets move in space without anything to push against?
Rocket exhaust carries some mass and momentum (= mass times velocity).
So by Newton's IIIrd Law the rocket moves in the opposite direction with
prorata velocity (velocity is a vector whereas speed is its magnitude)
hey good question..but it has got a very silly answer...the rockets got their propulsion system in such a way that they carry both fuel and oxidiser together which gives thrust to the reocket to move in space and when coming to the atmospheric condition in earth the gravity will be its opposite and it uses atmospheric air as oxidiser so...this is the way how a continnum develops in rocket in using newtons III law
"How does comets move in space?"
Like planets. Due to the gravity between them and the sun (mainly).
What is percentage of comets falling into Sun and how many escape from Sun's Gravitational field.
Why some comets fall into Sun and do not escape and why some go back into space.
Jesús,
You said: "Like planets. Due to the gravity between them and the sun (mainly)."
Answer: According to the classical model, dust collapsed on iteself to form planets. Planet movement came from the collapse. But the question is: does the collpase continue till today or did it stop? And if it stopped, when did this happen?
Nandan Bhandari said:
"What is percentage of comets falling into Sun and how many escape from Sun's Gravitational field.
Why some comets fall into Sun and do not escape and why some go back into space.
"
I don't have a precise answer but maybe you can find interesting the entrance of Wikipedia about the so-called "sungrazing comets":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sungrazing_comet
Also it is interesting the website of the SOHO satellite related to these comets:
http://sungrazer.nrl.navy.mil/index.php
Why some comets fall in the sun and others departure from the Solar System is mainly due to gravitational interaction with other object, especially planets and among them mainly Jupiter. In the case of the sungrazers seems that most of them are fragments of larger comets that broke into pieces.
You can see a nice movie of 2 comets (or fragments of a comet) here:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/Movies/C3_2comets_CME/C3_2comets_CME.mpg
@ Ni Ha:
What do you mean with "planet movement came from the collapse"?
Jesús,
According to the classical model, planets formed when “dust” from an “unknown previous SN” started attracting itself by “gravity’s force”. This process “similarly created the sun”. Models say that the attraction started planet rotation around their axes and movement in space. Do you want more explanation or is that clear enough for you?
But is the movement of the planet "due to the collapse" or is it just the combination of the movements of the particles that when collapse produced the planet?
An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality. The information gathered by the eye is processed in the brain to give a percept that does not tally with a physical measurement of the stimulus source. There are three main types: literal optical illusions that create images that are different from the objects that make them, physiological ones that are the effects on the eyes and brain of excessive stimulation of a specific type (brightness, tilt, color, movement), and cognitive illusions where the eye and brain make unconscious inferences. They can also be known as "mind games".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion
Ni Ha,
you should clarify what do you mean with "stop of collapse" and when for you the planets is already formed (when they reach 50%, 70%, 90%,99% of its current mass or when some fraction of the mass is within the current radius?). There isn't a moment in which "tachan!" a planet is formed. It is a continuos process so you should defined a priori when for you the planet is already considered as such. I have no idea which are the current standards to decide this but you can look in internet and provide us with this information.
With respect to the SNe and the CMB. There are many reasons to discard the SNe origin:
a- they are not as uniformly distributed as the emission of the CMB
b- the spectra of the SNe is different to that of the CMB
c- the radiation from SNe that formed the Solar System is long time ago processed by the material around (they ocurred >4.5 billion years ago) or it is 4.5 billions light-years away.
If I think in any other I will tell you. Don't spend more time in this idea (well, you can do wherever you want, I'm just warning you that this path leads to nothing).
Jesús
You said: “There are many reasons to discard the SNe origin:
a- they are not as uniformly distributed as the emission of the CMB
b- the spectra of the SNe is different to that of the CMB”
Answer: How do you know for sure that:
1) Heat signatures of what remains of our SN and SNe in general are not as uniformly distributed as the CMB?
2) The spectra of what remains of exploding SNe are different than those of the CMB?
You said: “If I think in any other I will tell you. Don't spend more time in this idea (well, you can do wherever you want, I'm just warning you that this path leads to nothing).”
Answer: How do you know for sure that this path leads to nothing? You see, I don't believe whatever I am told. If the CMB was not due to the BB, then maybe there was no BB after all. The corollaries from this conclusion are yet to follow.
N.B.: Please support your arguments with proof and reason.
How do you know for sure that?
Because I am an astronomer and I know what I'm talking about.
And so you clarify:
what does "Heat signatures of SNe" means?
what do you mean with "heat signatures"?
Heat staying where?
how does it last for 4.5 billion years?
Please, if you are so willing to know things about astronomy and cosmology, why don't you just study them????
"N.B.: Please support your arguments with proof and reason."
Well, you should put something from your side trying to gain some deeper knowledge in what you are so willing to challenge.
I know that learning things would make things not so easy to you and the fun will fade since you would realize how nonsense are many things that you say. As the poet said: "ignorance is bliss".
Ni Ha said: "Also, again I ask: did the collapse stop or is it still going on tiil today?"
Jesús just cut & paste from a previous post that seemed to be missed by Ni Ha:
"you should clarify what do you mean with "stop of collapse" and when for you the planets is already formed (when they reach 50%, 70%, 90%,99% of its current mass or when some fraction of the mass is within the current radius?). There isn't a moment in which "tachan!" a planet is formed. It is a continuos process so you should defined a priori when for you the planet is already considered as such. I have no idea which are the current standards to decide this but you can look in internet and provide us with this information."
Jesús:
I said: How do you know for sure that?
You said: “Because I am an astronomer and I know what I'm talking about.”
Answer:
It seems that you ran out of logical arguments and thus you are now resorting to the appeal to authority fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies. I thought you said that you are prepared and in the right mindset. However, now I have more and more evidence that what you said was not true. It seems that you spent too much time in fallacy land while on vacation. Again I ask you to give reasonable and logical answers and abstain from fallacious responses.
You said: “
what does "Heat signatures of SNe" means?
what do you mean with "heat signatures"?
Heat staying where?
how does it last for 4.5 billion years?”
Answer: My question was very clear and simple but your answer is twisted and unreasonable. Let me rephrase my question: Logically speaking, how do you accept the explanation for heat that arose from an event that is said to have occurred 13.5 billion years ago but do not accept the same argument for an event that assumedly happened 4.5 billion years ago?
You said: “Please, if you are so willing to know things about astronomy and cosmology, why don't you just study them????”
Answer: Why do you attack my character rather than my arguments? Please read more about this weakness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I said: Please support your arguments with proof and reason.
You said: “Well, you should put something from your side trying to gain some deeper knowledge in what you are so willing to challenge. I know that learning things would make things not so easy to you and the fun will fade since you would realize how nonsense are many things that you say.”
Answer: Do you have proof that I do not make reasonable arguments? On several occasions I begged you to give arguments which destroy what I say but you never gave such arguments. Have you considered the applicability of your statement above to you than to me?
As the poet said: "ignorance is bliss".
Most of your arguments are based on the ignorance of so many facts that it would take years to explain to them you from first principles. The same years that people used to study something.
You are willing to know a lot of things taking a shortcut and avoiding the hard path of learning and studying physics. You think that with your "reasonableness" you can challenge the scientific knowledge and here is where the saying of the poet fit.
I don't say that I know it because I'm just an astronomer, I said that because this means that I have spent time dealing with what I'm talking about. You just shot the first things that come to your mind without even known what you are talking about.
And by the way, to know why the SNe cannot be uniformly distributed there's no need to be astronomer but just to think a bit and go out and night. Do it and check if stars are uniformly distributed and remember that SNe are dead stars.
So, use your brain also to challenge your own ideas as your are challenging the others.
To think that you know more than many professionals in their fields is not very reasonable although you want to cover in "skepticism".
I repeat: "ignorance is bliss"
I wouldn't mind to explain you things if you wouldn't be so arrogant.
Jesús:
You said: “Most of your arguments are based on the ignorance of so many facts that it would take years to explain to them you from first principles.”
Answer: You made three mistakes:
1) You resorted to ad hominem
2) It is incorrect to say that it takes many years to explain truth. The only thing that takes years is having courage to admit that one does not know rather than say fallacies.
3) You still did not answer the questions.
You said: “You are willing to know a lot of things taking a shortcut and avoiding the hard path of learning and studying physics. You think that with your "reasonableness" you can challenge the scientific knowledge and here is where the saying of the poet fit.”
Answer: If you have reasonable answers to the questions then please post them. Otherwise, it would be more reasonable to just say that you don’t know.
You said: “I don't say that I know it because I'm just an astronomer, I said that because this means that I have spent time dealing with what I'm talking about. You just shot the first things that come to your mind without even known what you are talking about.”
Answer: Why the ad hominem? Please answer the questions and don’t beat around the bush.
You said: “And by the way, to know why the SNe cannot be uniformly distributed there's no need to be astronomer but just to think a bit and go out and night. Do it and check if stars are uniformly distributed and remember that SNe are dead stars.”
Answer: I never said that SNes are uniformly distributed. Also, your statement about distribution of SNe and death of stars is non sequitur. Please read carefully the questions that I asked.
You said: “So, use your brain also to challenge your own ideas as your are challenging the others.”
Answer: I asked the questions after doing that. But did you answer the questions after doing what you told me to do?
You said: “To think that you know more than many professionals in their fields is not very reasonable although you want to cover in "skepticism". I repeat: "ignorance is bliss"”
You again give unreasonable answers. Why don’t you just say that the things that you were told might not be reasonable as you thought they were?
You said: “I wouldn't mind to explain you things if you wouldn't be so arrogant.”
Answer: Why don’t you just say that you do not have reasonable explanations instead of making statements that do not have basis in fact?
"The only thing that takes years is having courage to admit that one does not know rather than say fallacies."
Well, you are the perfect example of this statement :D
As we say in Spanish: "Consejos vendo que para mí no tengo" (http://www.spanish-learning-corner.com/famous-spanish-sayings.html) :D
In cosmology, the Steady State theory (also known as the Infinite Universe theory or continuous creation) is a model developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi and others as an alternative to the Big Bang theory (known, usually, as the standard cosmological model). In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, so that the perfect cosmological principle is adhered to.
The steady state theory of Bondi and Gold was inspired by the circular plot of the film Dead of Night, which they had watched together. Theoretical calculations showed that a static universe was impossible under general relativity, and observations by Edwin Hubble had shown that the universe was expanding. The steady state theory asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); it has no beginning and no end.
The theory requires that new matter must be continuously created (mostly as hydrogen) to keep the average density of matter equal over time. The amount required is low and not directly detectable: roughly one solar mass of baryons per cubic megaparsec per year or roughly one hydrogen atoms per cubic meter per billion years, with roughly five times as much dark matter. Such a creation rate, however, would cause observable effects on cosmological scales.
An aesthetically unattractive feature of the theory is that the postulated spontaneous new matter formation would presumably need to include deuterium, helium, and a small amount of lithium, as well as regular hydrogen, since no mechanism of nucleosynthesis in stars or by other processes accounts for the observed abundance of deuterium and helium-3. (In the Big Bang model, primordial deuterium is made directly after the "bang," before the existence of the first stars).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
"How do you know for sure that the CMB is from the 13.5 billion years ago BB and not from the 4.5 billion years ago SN?"
I've never been there so most probably whatever I say it is not going to be convincing to you, so there is no need to waste more energy.
Argumentation theory, or argumentation, is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should, can, and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based, soundly or not, on premises. It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings.
Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions. It also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal. This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing.
Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory
Self-service:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/outreach/all_papers.cfm
First, you must understand what the CMB is then you can try to "argumentate".
Have fun!
I had fun.
No one said anything about the question of whether the CMB could be a remnant of the 4.5 By SN rather than the 13.5 By BB.
Try it yourself: search the site you gave me for Solar Nebular Disk Model (SNDM) and see how many hits you will get.
My conclusion then is that the unanswered SN question raises serious doubt about the validity of the BB hypothesis.
"My conclusion then is that the unanswered SN question raises serious doubt about the validity of the BB hypothesis. "
Well, then with all your knowledge and reasonableness and your high confidence in the SNe theory, the next step is to write a scientific paper presenting your hypothesis , how this hypothesis fits better all the empirical data than the BB theory and send it to a peer-review scientific journal.
With your infinite wisdom you will have no problem and even better for you, you will have feedback from more than just one ignorant astronomer.
Good luck and don't forget to send me your paper once is published!
"The paper is already published and you already have it."
Sorry but I have missed something. Where? How? When? Could you post the reference of this paper so I can search for it in the ADS? So I look for "Ni Ha et al."?
"Your name could be included as coauthor if you provide reasonable feedback."
Whew! Then it looks that I'm safe to not be included in it. :D
Still waiting for the references of your paper....
Polls are not very useful since almost nobody votes. If you want I can stop the other two to show the results.
"The references are everywhere on the Internet."
Wow! you have papers everywhere in internet. I didn't know it!
Come on! Just one "Ni Ha (20##)" paper.
What do you mean by saying :"I can stop the other two to show the results."?
Since I started them I can decide when to stop them. I think that then is when results are visible to everybody.
You said: “Wow! you have papers everywhere in internet. I didn't know it! Come on! Just one "Ni Ha (20##)" paper.”
Answer: You know that everything I said is well documented and supported. Your sarcastic behavior tells me that you ran out of reasonable arguments. Stay in your bliss of fallacy if that is what you want.
You said: “Since I started them I can decide when to stop them. I think that then is when results are visible to everybody.”
Answer: Do whatever you want. However, your actions will not change the fact that the polls show how interested people are in the subject and that they miss all the fun. So much for preparedness and having the right mindset.
"You know that everything I said is well documented and supported"
No, I don't and anyway, maybe someone else is interested and you are not giving them the chance to know what you have published. This is an open debate, isn't it?
"Your sarcastic behavior tells me that you ran out of reasonable arguments."
I'm sarcastic. You are arrogant. The first without sins throw the stone.
"Stay in your bliss of fallacy if that is what you want."
Yes, I want. Like you want to stay in yours.
"Do whatever you want. However, your actions will not change the fact that the polls show how interested people are in the subject and that they miss all the fun. So much for preparedness and having the right mindset."
Well, then here you have the outcome of your long time desired polls:
http://www.researchgate.net/group/Astronomy_Astrophysics/polls
Sorry, people likes more my fallacy than yours. Which is a relief to be honest.
I said: "You know that everything I said is well documented and supported". You said: “No, I don't and anyway, maybe someone else is interested and you are not giving them the chance to know what you have published. This is an open debate, isn't it?”
Answer: Everything that I said in our discussions is well documented and supported by references, facts and logic. You cannot prove that this is false. Also, as I told you before, you have seen nothing yet of what I know. I repeat: what I did not tell you yet is more complex and only people who are prepared and in the right mindset can understand it. Are you prepared and in the right mindset?
I said: "Your sarcastic behavior tells me that you ran out of reasonable arguments."
You said: “I'm sarcastic. You are arrogant. The first without sins throw the stone.”
Answer: Don’t change the subject. Thank heavens that there is no BB after all. Please comment on my observation that you ran out of reasonable arguments.
I said: "Stay in your bliss of fallacy if that is what you want." You said: “Yes, I want. Like you want to stay in yours.”
Answer: I know that I am in real bliss because, unlike you, I am aware that I do not believe whatever others tell me.
I said: "Do whatever you want. However, your actions will not change the fact that the polls show how interested people are in the subject and that they miss all the fun. So much for preparedness and having the right mindset." You said: “Sorry, people likes more my fallacy than yours. Which is a relief to be honest.”
Answer: You have a history of inappropriate behavior. It is possible that you manipulated the poll results. Even if you didn’t, the lack of interest in the poll is a sad sign which shows that people who claim to be interested in astronomy aren’t really interested in the subject and that they miss much of the fun.
"You have a history of inappropriate behavior."
Yes! Continue discussing with you is the best proof of my inappropriate behaviour :D
"It is possible that you manipulated the poll results"
Well, then why did you ask me to do them? So if they would support you then they would prove that you are right. Since they are against you, then it is me the one that has manipulate them. You are a bit paranoid, aren't you?
And I am still waiting for your paper with your results in a peer-review astronomical journal....
You said: “Yes! Continue discussing with you is the best proof of my inappropriate behaviour :D”
Answer: I never attacked your character nor mocked you. So your statement is false and mine is true.
You said: “You are a bit paranoid, aren't you?”
Please do not discuss medicine. If your medical arguments are as reasonable as your astronomical arguments then I strongly suggest that you stick to astronomy.
You said: “And I am still waiting for your paper with your results in a peer-review astronomical journal....”
I might publish the paper if you give me your formal evaluation of the arguments that I presented so far.
"I might publish the paper if you give me your formal evaluation of the arguments that I presented so far."
Ah. I thought you have already done it. Please, decide, have you or haven't you publish your results ***in a peer-review astronomical journal***?
It is easy, decide the journal (ApJ, MNRAS, A&A, PASP,...) in which you want to publish your results and send the paper to them.
But if this your way to do science better if you stick to these forums instead of trying to publish in real scientific journals.
BTW, you have overlooked the Sunyaev-Zeldovich in your "theory":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunyaev%E2%80%93Zel%27dovich_effect
How does your "SNe theory" explain it?
Although knowing your "history of inappropriate behaviour" maybe you just consciously hid it because I cannot imagine that you didn't know it.
Are Galaxy Clusters Corrupting the Echoes from the Big Bang?
In recent years, astronomers have obtained detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation – the ‘echo’ from the birth of the Universe during the Big Bang.
These results appear to indicate with remarkable precision that our Universe is dominated by mysterious ‘cold dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’. But now a group of UK astronomers has found evidence that the primordial microwave echoes may have been modified or ‘corrupted’ on their 13 billion year journey to the Earth.
The results from a team at the University of Durham, led by Professor Tom Shanks, are based on a new analysis of data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite.
The team has found that nearby galaxy clusters appear to lie in regions of sky where the microwave temperature is lower than average. This behaviour could be accounted for if the hot gas in the galaxy clusters has interacted with the Big Bang photons as they passed by and corrupted the information contained in this echo of the primordial fireball. Russian physicists R. A. Sunyaev and Ya. B. Zeldovich predicted such an effect in the early 1970’s, shortly after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
“The photons in the microwave background radiation are scattered by electrons in nearby clusters,” said Professor Shanks. “This causes important changes to the radiation by the time it reaches us.”
Although the observational evidence for the standard model of cosmology remains strong, the model does contain very uncomfortable aspects. These arise first because it is based on two pieces of “undiscovered physics” - cold dark matter and dark energy - neither of which has been detected in the laboratory. Indeed, the introduction of these two new components greatly increases the complication of the standard Big Bang inflationary model.
The problems of dark energy run particularly deep: for example, its observed density is so small that it may be quantum mechanically unstable. It also creates problems for the theories of quantum gravity, which suggest that we may live in a Universe with 10 or 11 dimensions, all of them shrunk, with the exceptions of three in space and one in time.
Many theorists would therefore like an escape route from today’s standard model of cosmology and it remains to be seen how far these observations discussed by the Durham group will go in this direction. But if correct, they suggest that the rumours that we are living in a “New Era of Precision Cosmology” may prove to be premature!
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/physics_astronomy/report-25349.html
BTW, a 7 years-old article in this field is like prehistory. You should update your sources.
Jesús:
Actually, the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect supports the SN hypothesis. To begin, the effect says that CMB energy is scattered by hot gas. This results in the observation that the gas loses energy to the CMB.
However, please consider the following facts:
1) The CMB is uniform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
2) Galaxy clusters are not uniformly distributed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_clusters
If the origin of the CMB was the BB, then we should expect the CMB not to be uniform because of the SZ effect on the many non-uniformly distributed galaxy clusters.
Since the CMB is smooth, this suggests that the radiation was not scattered by distant clusters. In other words, the CMB might have been produced more locally, i.e., in a nearby SN.
A second argument in support of the SN hypothesis is the following:
As light from far galaxies enters the space where past SNe exploded and formed matter, this light would get scattered. In other words, the interstellar matter of the past SNe will produce the shift as rain drops produce rainbows.
Finally, how prevalent in nature is inverse Compton scattering? Normally one expects to see increase in wavelength rather than decrease. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering#Inverse_Compton_scattering
Because of all the above, I have doubts about the inverse scattering explanation.
You didn't get it.
The CMB is not produce by the clusters. The SZ is produced by the clusters acting on the CMB, therefore the CMB has no galactic origin. Full stop!
"the interstellar matter of the past SNe will produce the shift as rain drops produce rainbows."
If you would study you would know that this is called "interstellar reddening" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_%28astronomy%29#Interstellar_reddening).
So nothing new under the sky.
"I have doubts about the inverse scattering explanation."
Of course!! Because you didn't understand a word of what you have read!! :D
Jesús
You said: “The CMB is not produce by the clusters. The SZ is produced by the clusters acting on the CMB, therefore the CMB has no galactic origin.”
Answer: You jumped to your conclusion without first responding to the argument that I made:
“1) The CMB is uniform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
2) Galaxy clusters are not uniformly distributed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_clusters
Since the CMB is smooth, this suggests that the radiation was not scattered by distant clusters. In other words, the CMB might have been produced more locally, i.e., in a nearby SN.”
I said: "the interstellar matter of the past SNe will produce the shift as rain drops produce rainbows." You said: “If you would study you would know that this is called "interstellar reddening" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_%28astronomy%29#Interstellar_reddening).”
Answer: You are hoisting yourself on your own petard. Interstellar reddening contradicts the SZ effect which says that wavelength shortens as it crosses matter. In other words, if CMB was indeed coming from far away then its wavelength should become longer as it crosses clusters, not shorter.
Also, Extinction affects light coming from far places. The SZ effect affects light coming from nearby places. The nearby SN dust satisfactorily explains why wavelength in the SZ effect shortens.
You said: “So nothing new under the sky.”
Answer: You still did not respond to my question which I will post again for you below:
How prevalent in nature is inverse Compton scattering? Normally one expects to see lengthening in wavelength rather than shortening.
Finally, you still did not answer the following question: Why is the CMB the result of an event that happened 13.5 billion years ago and not from an event that happened 4.5 billion years ago?
In summary: the nearby SN hypothesis satisfactorily explains the CMB and SZ effect. This hypothesis involves logic and commonly seen processes like regular scatter. The SN hypothesis is more elegant than the far-fetched BB assumptions and inverse scatter suppositions.
Jesús,
SZ is based on inverse scatter. Inverse scatter is observed on the micro scale (electrons) and not on the macro scale (galaxies). It is only reasonable not to make generalizations about macro events based on observations made on micro events. For example, if ions have positive and negative charges that does not mean that galactic clusters must also have positive and negative charges.
Faulty generalizations :
Accident (fallacy): when an exception to the generalization gets ignored.
No True Scotsman: when a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.
Cherry picking: act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position
Composition: where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole
Dicto simpliciter
Converse accident (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter): when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for
False analogy: false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)
Misleading vividness: involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem
Overwhelming exception (hasty generalization): It is a generalization which is accurate, but comes with one or more qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume
Pathetic fallacy: when an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects
Spotlight fallacy: when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media
Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Faulty_generalizations
Oh! You are an expert in this one:
"Cherry picking: act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position "
Ni Ha said: "Interstellar reddening contradicts the SZ effect which says that wavelength shortens as it crosses matter. In other words, if CMB was indeed coming from far away then its wavelength should become longer as it crosses clusters, not shorter."
I say: Are you saying that the SZ is explained currently by interstellar reddening???
Ni Ha said: "How prevalent in nature is inverse Compton scattering? Normally one expects to see lengthening in wavelength rather than shortening."
I say: As prevalent as you have the right conditions. I let you to find out which ones are these right conditions and if these apply to clusters of galaxies.
Ni Ha said: "Why is the CMB the result of an event that happened 13.5 billion years ago and not from an event that happened 4.5 billion years ago?"
I say: "I give you a nice wealth of references explaining the origin of the CMB. If you didn't understand them is your problem not mine."
Ni Ha said: "the nearby SN hypothesis satisfactorily explains the CMB and SZ effect. This hypothesis involves logic and commonly seen processes like regular scatter. The SN hypothesis is more elegant than the far-fetched BB assumptions and inverse scatter suppositions."
I say: "It is a pity that it lacks any physical ground. Real Physics, I mean, that one that uses Maths for discussions and not 'the art of argumentation'. The one uses in Real Science and not in the 'art of argumentation' that is easy to use in places like this."
Ni Ha said: "SZ is based on inverse scatter. Inverse scatter is observed on the micro scale (electrons) and not on the macro scale (galaxies). It is only reasonable not to make generalizations about macro events based on observations made on micro events. For example, if ions have positive and negative charges that does not mean that galactic clusters must also have positive and negative charges."
Jesus say: This piece of "argumentation art" deserves to be framed and hanged in the museum of "argumentation art" :D
Look, it is better that you continue cherry-picking in the Wikipedia because when you produce something by yourself is really hilarious :D :D
Jesús,
I said: "Interstellar reddening contradicts the SZ effect which says that wavelength shortens as it crosses matter. In other words, if CMB was indeed coming from far away then its wavelength should become longer as it crosses clusters, not shorter."
You said: “Are you saying that the SZ is explained currently by interstellar reddening???”
Answer: I am saying that reason dictates that observations made on events happening nearby on the micro scale must not be generalized to events happening far away on the macro scale.
I am also saying that the CMB and SZ effect could be elegantly explained by the nearby SN hypothesis rather than the far-fetched BB theory.
I said: "How prevalent in nature is inverse Compton scattering? Normally one expects to see lengthening in wavelength rather than shortening." You said: “As prevalent as you have the right conditions. I let you to find out which ones are these right conditions and if these apply to clusters of galaxies.”
Answer: You avoid answering because you do not have an answer. It is only reasonable that you give your proof or otherwise just say that you don’t know.
I asked: "Why is the CMB the result of an event that happened 13.5 billion years ago and not from an event that happened 4.5 billion years ago?" You said: "I give you a nice wealth of references explaining the origin of the CMB. If you didn't understand them is your problem not mine."
Answer: You just give words and not proofs. If you have so many references, why don’t you use them to supply the evidence that proves that what you say is more correct than what I say?
Let me add another question for you: Why can we detect the signature of the 13.5 By event but can’t detect the signature of the 4.5 By ago event? You can use any of the above references to answer this question.
I said: "the nearby SN hypothesis satisfactorily explains the CMB and SZ effect. This hypothesis involves logic and commonly seen processes like regular scatter. The SN hypothesis is more elegant than the far-fetched BB assumptions and inverse scatter suppositions." You said: "It is a pity that it lacks any physical ground. Real Physics, I mean, that one that uses Maths for discussions and not 'the art of argumentation'. The one uses in Real Science and not in the 'art of argumentation' that is easy to use in places like this."
Answer: I repeat: math is the easiest part since it comes after the logic is established. Here is a link to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_In,_Garbage_Out
I said: "SZ is based on inverse scatter. Inverse scatter is observed on the micro scale (electrons) and not on the macro scale (galaxies). It is only reasonable not to make generalizations about macro events based on observations made on micro events. For example, if ions have positive and negative charges that does not mean that galactic clusters must also have positive and negative charges." You said: “This piece of "argumentation art" deserves to be framed and hanged in the museum of "argumentation art" :D Look, it is better that you continue cherry-picking in the Wikipedia because when you produce something by yourself is really hilarious :D :D”
Answer: You said above that you have a wealth of references. Just like you say that without actually using these references to support your position, you mention Wikipedia without reading its article about ad hominem and baseless sarcasm fallacies.
I suggest that you read your references and Wikipedia articles before offering them to others.
Ni Ha said: "I am saying that reason dictates that observations made on events happening nearby on the micro scale must not be generalized to events happening far away on the macro scale.
I am also saying that the CMB and SZ effect could be elegantly explained by the nearby SN hypothesis rather than the far-fetched BB theory."
Jesus said: Of course, all of these things are like this... because you like it :D
Ni Ha said: "You avoid answering because you do not have an answer. It is only reasonable that you give your proof or otherwise just say that you don’t know."
Jesus said: "And you do it as well because you have no idea what you are talking about. It is very easy when I tell you where to look for things. But when it is for your own... things change. Of course, your argumentation skills help you to avoid these things :D
Ni Ha said: "You just give words and not proofs. If you have so many references, why don’t you use them to supply the evidence that proves that what you say is more correct than what I say?"
Jesus said: "As you like to say. Please, read the discussion from the beginning and you will find a nice link to a list of references about the CMB. "
Ni Ha said: "I repeat: math is the easiest part since it comes after the logic is established."
Jesus said: "This phrase clearly shows the degree of your ignorance and arrogance both more or less balanced!!!"
Ni Ha said: "I suggest that you read your references and Wikipedia articles before offering them to others."
Jesus said: Thanks! I will silently ignore your suggestion as usually do with mine.
I don't know if this is argumentation but for sure science is not going to go forward with this discussion.
Ni Ha said: "I am saying that reason dictates that observations made on events happening nearby on the micro scale must not be generalized to events happening far away on the macro scale. I am also saying that the CMB and SZ effect could be elegantly explained by the nearby SN hypothesis rather than the far-fetched BB theory." Jesus said: “Of course, all of these things are like this... because you like it :D”
Answer: First you could not answer the questions but now your statements show that you are getting confused.
Ni Ha said: "You avoid answering because you do not have an answer. It is only reasonable that you give your proof or otherwise just say that you don’t know." Jesus said: "And you do it as well because you have no idea what you are talking about. It is very easy when I tell you where to look for things. But when it is for your own... things change. Of course, your argumentation skills help you to avoid these things :D”
Answer: Here is another proof to your inability to respond logically to what you are told.
Ni Ha said: "You just give words and not proofs. If you have so many references, why don’t you use them to supply the evidence that proves that what you say is more correct than what I say?" Jesus said: "As you like to say. Please, read the discussion from the beginning and you will find a nice link to a list of references about the CMB. "
Answer: You must use the references that you advocate to support your position. It is neither sufficient nor reasonable to just give people lists that any person using Google could get more comprehensive results than the measly items you advocate.
Also, you still did not respond to my question below:
“Let me add another question for you: Why can we detect the signature of the 13.5 By event but can’t detect the signature of the 4.5 By ago event? You can use any of the above references to answer this question.”
I am still waiting for your answer.
Ni Ha said: "I repeat: math is the easiest part since it comes after the logic is established."
Jesus said: "This phrase clearly shows the degree of your ignorance and arrogance both more or less balanced!!!"
Answer: Again your statement shows your inability to neither respond logically nor appropriately to what others tell you.
Ni Ha said: "I suggest that you read your references and Wikipedia articles before offering them to others." Jesus said: “Thanks! I will silently ignore your suggestion as usually do with mine. I don't know if this is argumentation but for sure science is not going to go forward with this discussion.”
Answer: Again this statement shows the paucity of your responses and the dearth of wisdom in what you say. No wonder you like to live in fallacy.
Oh! Please! Forgive me because I am just a poor ignorant astronomer.
:D :D :D
PS: Most probably this is a fallacy with some funny name. I let you to enlighten us with your wisdom about fallacies ;-)
Oh! Sorry! You are such a reasonable ans wise person!
Please, enlighten us with all your knowledge so the community can enjoy your infinite wisdom.
How can a poor astronomer disproof all your theories about the universe? You, that absorb the knowledge instantaneously and have such a vision that can see immediately where all the astronomer, well the majority of them, are wrong showing the useless of their research, since it would be enough to ask you.
Oh! Please, forgive me for showing my ignorance in front of your infinite wisdom.
I promise not to bother you more with those stupid ideas that we astronomers have constructed about the universe.
(BTW, poor Philip, most probably is not going to ask anything else in ResearchGate anymore.... well, he can always ask to you directly)
Appeal to ridicule, also called appeal to mockery, the Horse Laugh,[1] or reductio ad ridiculum (Latin: "reduction to the ridiculous"), is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself. For example:
"If Einstein's theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and more massive the faster I go. That's crazy!" (This is, in fact, true, but the effect is so minuscule that a human observer will not notice the effect at speeds far less than the speed of light.)
"Evolution is ridiculous! If evolution were true, that would mean that all the apes wouldn't be here any more, since they all would have evolved into humans!" (This is not implied by the theory of evolution, thus the argument is false.)
This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.
Appeal to Ridicule is often found in the form of challenging one's credentials or maturity;
"Nobody believes in socialism after college! Grow up."
The argument is ridiculed on the basis that having a view commonly associated with youth is somehow invalid.
Although they appear very similar, this fallacy should not be confused with reductio ad absurdum, which is a valid type of logical argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
Jesús,
If you have answers, why wouldn’t you just answer the questions and respond to the arguments instead of showing everybody this ugly facet of your behavior? Please reread what you wrote but this time suppose that I am saying the words to you. How would your answer me?
Jesús,
Other questions for you while you are having fun in fallacy land:
1) If the CMB was indeed the echo of the BB, then its wavelength should elongate with time. Do we see such elongation?
2) If the BB ball indeed exploded, exactly how did it create time and space? Can we create time and space? Do you have a model for "creating time and space"?
3) Also, what events happened before the BB?
4) Also, what was the location coordinates of the BB event?
Please provide reasonable answers.
In Greek mythology, Andromeda was the daughter of Cepheus and Cassiopeia, king and queen of the kingdom Ethiopia.
Her mother Cassiopeia boasted that she was more beautiful than the Nereids, the nymph-daughters of the sea god Nereus and often seen accompanying Poseidon. To punish the Queen for her arrogance, Poseidon, brother to Zeus and god of the sea, sent a sea monster (Cetus) to ravage the coast of Ethiopia including the kingdom of the vain Queen. The desperate King consulted the Oracle of Apollo, who announced that no respite would be found until the king sacrificed his virgin daughter Andromeda to the monster. She was chained naked to a rock on the coast.
Perseus was returning from having slain the Gorgon Medusa, he found Andromeda and slew Cetus by turning him to stone. He set her free, and married her in spite of Andromeda having been previously promised to her uncle Phineus. At the wedding a quarrel took place between the rivals, and Phineus was turned to stone by the sight of the Gorgon's head (Ovid, Metamorphoses v. 1).
Andromeda followed her husband to Tiryns in Argos, and together they became the ancestors of the family of the Perseidae through the line of their son Perses. Perseus and Andromeda had seven sons: Perseides, Perses, Alcaeus, Heleus, Mestor, Sthenelus, and Electryon, and one daughter, Gorgophone. Their descendants ruled Mycenae from Electryon down to Eurystheus, after whom Atreus attained the kingdom, and would also include the great hero Heracles. According to this mythology, Perseus is the ancestor of the Persians.
After her death, Andromeda was placed by Athena amongst the constellations in the northern sky, near Perseus and Cassiopeia. The constellation had been named after her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_(mythology)
Jesús answering from the real world ... I mean from my fallacy land.
Ni Ha said: "1) If the CMB was indeed the echo of the BB, then its wavelength should elongate with time. Do we see such elongation?"
Yes we do. You should read again the Wikipedia entrance about the CMB where this is explained:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
Ni Ha said: "2) If the BB ball indeed exploded, exactly how did it create time and space? Can we create time and space? Do you have a model for "creating time and space"?"
I have no idea how this happened but it did. No, we cannot create space and time. And right now there is no convincing theory about how the BB happened. But this is as convincing as the theories that assume the eternal existence of time and space.
Ni Ha said: "3) Also, what events happened before the BB?"
Hmmm... I expected from you and reasonableness that you already knew it. If the time was created in the BB, how can you ask about "before" the BB?
Ni Ha said: "4) Also, what was the location coordinates of the BB event?"
Location where? If we talk about "our space" it was everywhere.
Ni Ha said: "By the way, I have a reasonable explanation for Andromeda’s blue shift."
I have a scientific one which I prefer.
By the way, have you ever seen Andromeda? It is the farthest object that can be seen by naked eye.
And, by the way, have you ever thought why the sky is not completely bright if the universe were infinite and eternal and were filled with infinite number of galaxies and stars?
Ni Ha said: "1) If the CMB was indeed the echo of the BB, then its wavelength should elongate with time. Do we see such elongation?" Jesús said: “Yes we do. You should read again the Wikipedia entrance about the CMB where this is explained:”
Answer: I read the article and nowhere does it say that we observe an elongation of the wavelength from the time Penzias and Wilson made the discovery. Please reread the article.
Ni Ha said: "2) If the BB ball indeed exploded, exactly how did it create time and space? Can we create time and space? Do you have a model for "creating time and space"?" Jesús said: I have no idea how this happened but it did. No, we cannot create space and time. And right now there is no convincing theory about how the BB happened. But this is as convincing as the theories that assume the eternal existence of time and space.”
Answer: Logically speaking, how do you believe that something exists when you do not have evidence that it exists? Since you already abandoned the healthy skepticism of real astronomy, I thus suggest that you take the next logical step and go live in a monastery in fallacy land.
Ni Ha said: "3) Also, what events happened before the BB?" Jesús said: “Hmmm... I expected from you and reasonableness that you already knew it. If the time was created in the BB, how can you ask about "before" the BB?”
Answer: Nobody can make time because it is a construct or a tool that the human mind created. It is illogical to say that the BB created time because the human mind created it, not the BB.
Ni Ha said: "4) Also, what was the location coordinates of the BB event?" Jesús said: “Location where? If we talk about "our space" it was everywhere.”
Answer: Really? The celestial sphere can point to any direction. Why you creationists cannot say exactly where your explosion came from? And assuming as you say that the BB came from everywhere, accordingly, creation started from everywhere and not from a point that exploded. I have never heard anything more absurd than this.
Ni Ha said: "By the way, I have a reasonable explanation for Andromeda’s blue shift."
Jesús said: “I have a scientific one which I prefer.”
Answer: let’s hear your creationist explanation. By the way, you did not explain why Andromeda is blue shifted while the BB predicts red shift.
Jesús said: “By the way, have you ever seen Andromeda? It is the farthest object that can be seen by naked eye.And, by the way, have you ever thought why the sky is not completely bright if the universe were infinite and eternal and were filled with infinite number of galaxies and stars?”
Answer: I have seen Andromeda and I know about the Olber’s paradox. Unfortunately for you, neither argument supports your fanciful and imaginary creation ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
"I read the article and nowhere does it say that we observe an elongation of the wavelength from the time Penzias and Wilson made the discovery"
You should learn to express better yourself.
"Since you already abandoned the healthy skepticism of real astronomy, I thus suggest that you take the next logical step and go live in a monastery in fallacy land."
Your sarcasm doesn't support the opposite.
"Nobody can make time because it is a construct or a tool that the human mind created. It is illogical to say that the BB created time because the human mind created it, not the BB."
So according to you before human beings existed there was no time.... and for sure for you the tree that falls in the forest make no noise... useless philosophy, no science.
"Really? The celestial sphere can point to any direction. Why you creationists cannot say exactly where your explosion came from? And assuming as you say that the BB came from everywhere, accordingly, creation started from everywhere and not from a point that exploded. I have never heard anything more absurd than this."
What leads me to the conclusion that you never hear yourself ... what explains maany things of these "discussions" :D
"By the way, you did not explain why Andromeda is blue shifted while the BB predicts red shift."
I know, why should I?
"I have seen Andromeda and I know about the Olber’s paradox. Unfortunately for you, neither argument supports your fanciful and imaginary creation ideas."
Ts,ts,... you are a bit susceptible. I haven't said the thing about seeing Andromeda to support anything. It was just a random comment.
Ni Ha said: "I read the article and nowhere does it say that we observe an elongation of the wavelength from the time Penzias and Wilson made the discovery" Jesús said: “You should learn to express better yourself.”
Answer: As usual, you don’t respond to my questions because you do not have answers. Instead, you go on tangents because you believe that I will forget the question. However, you are again wrong. Again I ask: where is the evidence proving that wavelength elongated since Penzias and Wilson made the discovery?
Ni Ha said: "Since you already abandoned the healthy skepticism of real astronomy, I thus suggest that you take the next logical step and go live in a monastery in fallacy land." Jesús said: “Your sarcasm doesn't support the opposite.”
Answer: Not only you cannot give answers, but the things that you say make no sense. Again I recommend that you join the crowd in the monastery of your choice.
Ni Ha said: "Nobody can make time because it is a construct or a tool that the human mind created. It is illogical to say that the BB created time because the human mind created it, not the BB." Jesús said: “So according to you before human beings existed there was no time.... and for sure for you the tree that falls in the forest make no noise... useless philosophy, no science.”
Answer: Please don’t talk about philosophy before breaking the imaginary chains in your allegorical cave. Once you prove that you can handle the truth I would then start discussing philosophy with you.
Ni Ha said: "Really? The celestial sphere can point to any direction. Why you creationists cannot say exactly where your explosion came from? And assuming as you say that the BB came from everywhere, accordingly, creation started from everywhere and not from a point that exploded. I have never heard anything more absurd than this." Jesús said: “What leads me to the conclusion that you never hear yourself ... what explains maany things of these "discussions" :D”
Answer: Just as you make conclusions from your fallacy land I am doing the same from the real world.
Ni Ha said: "By the way, you did not explain why Andromeda is blue shifted while the BB predicts red shift." Jesús said: “I know, why should I?”
Answer: See how smart you are when you avoid answering the question and resort to obfuscation and smoke and mirror techniques you learned in your sad fantasy land?
Ni Ha said: "I have seen Andromeda and I know about the Olber’s paradox. Unfortunately for you, neither argument supports your fanciful and imaginary creation ideas." Jesús said: “Ts,ts,... you are a bit susceptible. I haven't said the thing about seeing Andromeda to support anything. It was just a random comment. »
Answer: Thank you for admitting finally that when people ask you questions you respond by talking randomly rather than reasonably.
This is my new theory that I challenge you to prove that I am wrong:
You don't exist. I mean, you aren't a real person but just an experiment develop by a group of bored students of psychology. It is clear from your speech that you (I mean, you group of bored guys and girls) are not interested at all in solving the real current problems in Astronomy and Cosmology. So you are just here around challenging people with your random ideas and argumentation to study the behaviour of people when facing weird nonsense behaviour from a person.
Yes, this is my theory that from now on I'm going to accept as the real one until someone proves me that I am wrong.
So, please, stop cheating people!!!
I see people that you don't stop with your experiment.... sorry but having the conviction, until reasonable proofs are given, that I'm not speaking to a single person willing to talk about science this discussions has no sense anymore.
Good luck in your exams!!
"From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of particular interest. But for us, it's different. Look again at that dot. That's here, that's home, that's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation