GENIUS FORUMS

[I have carefully read these posts, Mi-ki-el, and regret to inform you that you have lost. Defeated. Over. Done. Crawl away in shame sort of thing. Exit, stage left. Ciao. See ya! Say 'goodnight'. Hasta la vista. Bye-bye. Etc. Also, you have been demoted from Enlightened Master to merely Striving Moron. It's harsh. Take it like a man. Over and out.]

mikiel wrote:In my case, I grew up with "out of body experiences" as a fairly common occurrence, and the subjective experience was the classical trance state, which is nothing like ordinary imagination or fantasy.

Could you please describe some difference between OBE and imagination or fantasy, or say even a dream? If you wish to that is.

mikiel wrote:(Did you even read all the links Iolaus provided to refute your standard textbook science? Apparently not, from your post. this is no time to be lazy about "established science!" It ain't as "established" as the standardized version in the books on which all science students are still "graded."

mikiel wrote: BTW, up front... did you read the material in the links provided by Iolaus here? Still sounds like, not, from you party line data base so far.

mikiel wrote:There is much in the links which Iolaus shared above, for instance, which flies in the face of the standard texbook science, on which Ram doggedly insists here, and from which S/he constantly condescends so inappropriately.

I had not up this point. I just spent about 2hrs going through most of it, which is primarily based on the works of Halton Arp [steady-state universe advocate] And Hannes Alfven [Plasma cosmology].

Ironically, I don't see any resemblance of their models to your vision mik. So your reference to them is just a smoke screen.
My debate was/is concerning the flaws in your "idea". You are taking a rather deviant (and even rather school yardish) tactic to now basically recant the big bang as your "vision" employs it. If those models are correct, it "flies in the face" of your presented idea as well. It's akin to you standing in the corner yelling,"[mik]Well ya? My idea doesn't work? Well neither does yours".

Not that I concede the big bang standard cosmology. Which, I need to say something to the critics of this. Why do ppl constantly criticize reforming a theory? That's science, you learn, adapt, reform. Make predictions and look for evidence through observation. Oh well, moving along...

I addressed the issues I see in what you presented. Now if you're saying the physics and principles I employed in that dissection are flawed, or superseded by these alternative models, they are equally flawed when used to try an make a model out of what you presented. Understand? You can't take a piece of this cosmological model, grab a shred of that one, muddle the water with a little of this one, and go tada! Unless you can scientifically tie them together. I really don't see how you can directly call this cosmology you present as "cutting edge" you're regressing to a Newtonian "clock-work" universe era and trying to add the big bang to it without its basic substrate. Then tossing in a little oscillation, without really even understanding any of them. Perhaps intentionally ignoring the problems arising, just basically bent on your self-promotional grand tour regardless of its obvious flaws. It's nothing "cutting edge", it's a hodgepodge.

For instance: Correct me if I'm wrong but, Steady-state has matter spontaneously being "created", and no bang, contrary to your "vision".
Plasma cosmology models do not provide predictions that can account for many observations (see miks reference to "real world observation") including Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background. COBE results pretty much quieted these advocates. Meaning, if the physics these models use "fly in the face" of the so horrifically implied "text book physics" are wrong, so is your vision.
Since your vision is the intended context of this thread, haranguing me to respond to the said alternative theories is just a diversion, since neither strengthen your presentation, it's rather unrelated.

Enough with the smoke screen...

I'm going to approach this debate with Ram in pieces, just to keep focused on higher and lower priority issues.
That "spacetime" is a myth, not an actual malleable medium... is a high priority item, central to my argument, and the big three models (open, closed, amd flat) depend on "spacetime" being distorted.
Without this myth a cosmological model is about what actual cosmic "stuff" is doing.

But first, I must address the "dark matter" issue.
For me, the actual nature of "dark matter" is a low priority issue, made large by Ram, and placing my credibility on the line.
Regardless of its "form" it accounts for the vast majority of mass and therefore gravity in the the cosmos... and allows my version of the oscillating cosmos to "work."
From Wiki:
"In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter"...
"The composition of dark matter is unknown but may include ordinary and heavy neutrinos, recently postulated elementary particles such as WIMPs and axions, astronomical bodies such as brown dwarfs and planets (collectively called MACHOs), primordial black holes and clouds of nonluminous gas. Also, matter that might exist in another universe but might affect ours via gravity would be consistent with some theories of brane cosmology. Current evidence favors models in which the primary component of dark matter is new elementary particles, collectively called nonbaryonic dark matter"

So besides "new elementary particles" (meaning still not well understood... mystery matter.... *nothing is "new"*) dark matter "may include" both still-mysterious WIMP's, axions... nonbaryonic dark matter *and* neutrinos of two types, astronomical bodies (brown dwarfs, planets,) black holes of the very small variety, and clouds of nonluminous gas and dust, the latter of which comprises the vast majority of cosmic matter.

Ram's insistence that all dark matter is in the "mystery matter" category is blatently false and misleading, just for the sake of another lame attempt to discredid me.

Admittedly the following language from the Chandra site perpetuates the confusion about "ordinary" vs "mystery" matter:

"The hot gas in this collision was slowed by a drag force, similar to air resistance. In contrast, the dark matter was not slowed by the impact, because it does not interact directly with itself or the gas except through gravity. This produced the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the data. If hot gas was the most massive component in the clusters, as proposed by alternative gravity theories, such a separation would not have been seen. Instead, dark matter is required.".... and....

" Dark matter particles interact with each other and "normal" matter only through gravity.

This distinction between "dark" and "ordinary" matter contradicts the inclusion of the types of normal matter listed above into the mix. It also makes assumptions about the cause of the "drag force" on hot gasses in the observed galactic collision, ignoring the elctromagnetic attraction aspect of plama physics as can be applied to the above observation of hot gasses.
Likewise, the assumed contrast

(That...)" the dark matter was not slowed by the impact, because it does not interact directly with itself or the gas except through gravity. This produced the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the data..."
..."except through gravity"?... But gravitational interaction is the essence of how "dark matter" supplies the "missing matter" to make the whole cosmic G-net work for the oscillating model. But the elctromagnetic interaction of possible plasmic forms of dark matter-as-hot-gas is ignored in the above (I believe) false distinction between dark and ordinary matter.

This criticism is supported by one of Iolaus' links, which addresses the question of plasma physics as applied to cosmology (which is mostly ignored by comologists.)
Anyway, most folks reading this will find it tedius. It was just necessary for clarification of the "mystery-vs-normal" dark matter controversy, which Ram has made central to this debate just as a nit-picking pseudo-debunker agains my take on the science of discovering previously undetected matter... regardless of this minor technical hair-splitting.

I'll be back shortly for a shot at clarifiying the Hawking/singularity issue, which Ram has raised as another red herring to discredit my perspective on the pseudo-science of 'infinite density of mass within a point of zero volume' (Close to verbatum on Hawking, from memory.)
Then, side issues aside, I'd really like to hear from someone here with another cosmology, not oscillating but explaining where it all "came from"... given that "something from nothing" is impossible and absurd... the magical, mythical origin of cosmos.
mikiel

From Wiki on the "Penrose-Hawking singularity Theorems":

"Hawking has Withdrawn his opinion on the the universe being a singularity before the "Big Bang" due to the inconsistencies in the universe which, if the universe were a singularity before the "Big Bang" would not be there. The universe would be in complete symmetry."

At Myspace Science Forum, many months before this recanting, I argued that Hawking's cosmic origin as a singularity was absurd on two counts: Re: his "infinite density of matter in a point of zero volume".... There can be nothing "in" a point (a mere geometric locus) and "infinite density" is patently ridiculous. Even black holes establish a finite density to volume ratio (the Schwarzschild radius) from which gravity allows no escape. (For Earth's mass, this b.h. radius would be about pea/marble sized.)
Secondly, this now-abandoned "origin" begins with all cosmic material already magically present "in the singularity" with no thought at all to where it all came from. (Same as the "creation myth"... it just magically appeared "in the beginning.)

The observed lack of semmetry which Hawking confessed belies his exploding singularity (out in all directions, semetrically) doesn't even address my two points above.
But now he has signed on with the M-theory camp, and wrote an intro to the new book by (I think) Michio Kaku, Michael Duff and Neil Turok. (Title escapes me at the moment.)

BTW, I once misquoted Hawking (at Myspace) as claiming "infinite mass (rather than infinite density) in zero volume" as descrbing a singularity.
Ram dragged that mis-statement over to this site as well, tho I already said that I "stand corrected" on that point from my Myspace history.
(Another reason that Ram's dragging shit from there to here is inappropriate.)

Time for lunch. Maybe more rebuttal later today.

mikiel

Back from lunch. I'll finish with my cleanup project here on the mess of misinformation and misdirection and "CA" with which Ram has contaminated the potential scientific dialogue here.
(I'll skip a few tedius details in the process, as they will be covered by more general principles."

R: "

You do understand there a difference between non-luminous dust and rocks, vs dark matter, which does not interact with itself or common matter except through gravity (I can't make this any clearer)

This covered in last two replies. Example of Ram's acquiescence to textbook authority according to his/her particular bias. The claim that the mysterius type of dark matter "does not interact with itself" is a superfluous claim based on no evidence at all... and the "except through gravity" clause has already been addressed. All my cosmology requires of any kind of dark matter is its gravity toward the omega point of cosmic return, in the osciullating model.
Yes, I understand the difference between the normal kind of dark matter, which you categorically deny ignoring the accepted inclusion, and the theoreticcal, not-yet-actually-observed kind.
You're condescention is totally unwarented. You are the one excluding conventional "matter not emitting or reflecting light"... based apparently on authorities you've read from the Chandra links... new to you,apparently, and accepting "mystery matter" as the real thing, excluding normal "dust and gas."
This alone is enough to terminate this conversation on the grounds of your unreasonable and unscientific bias, ande nasty attitude toward me personally.

I expalined my contended use of "is" and "will" already. I have a level of certainty through my visions which, I have repeatedly admitted, is beyond the pale of materialistic science. No apology. I take license in my certainty without claiming it is empirically validated. And theoretical cosmology does not require a body of evidence to support it before it is put forth *as a theoretical model.* And math-as-metaphysics does not qualify as evidence. So if you are "Still waiting on that real world verification"... evidence is coming in from variious sources, as above, and tho it is welcome, it is not a requirement for putting forth a new theory of cosmos. You still don't appreciate the difference.
No, I'm not "jealous the m-theory boyz are gettin all the hype." Just using them to pry open the lid on your canned thinking as per above point. My cosmos has no "imaginary universes" or unexplained dimensions dependent on math esoterica. Their's does, and yet they get enough slack to present thier brainstorm as legitimate theoretical cosmology. I was just asking (obviously in vain) for the same courtesy. Another point repeately wasted on you.
In this context your following statement takes on the melodromatic tone of hysteria:
"Science revokes that err license there mister, hand it over... Sorry to crash your hallucination with real world, but you implied a desire to debate science." In view of the above, this is totally ridiculous.

("Not to mention the scientifically inappropriate use of languaging you are using." OMG, RAm is the self-appointed police chief of appropriate use of language here. Obviously no visionary sources will be considered appropriate. Good thing you don't make my rules!)

("It also could have a tendency to "lead" an uneducated mind...")
This leads me to believe that you are one of the science police I have dealt with at myspace. Fred Moolten, for instance, with his "Hydrostatic Paradox" pinned permanently to the top of the forum was obviously a reaction to my "Question Scientific Authority" thread. Are you Fred? Are you Six Strings? nAre you one of the other dozen or so by-the-booK "scientists" who were constantly on my case there?
Are you hiding behind the Ram moniker foe some reason? If you are gong to fire at me from those conversations, at least have the honesty and decency to identity yourself.

"Escape velocity is not a "local take."
Yes, it is, as already explained. Gravity is universal. Nothing "escapes" cosmically speaking. Even heat radiated out into space is vibrating atoms of whatever, and it *will* all come back after being locally condensed and gelled with other far-flung masses in the local vicinity. The cosmic overview actuall "violates" the second law of thermodynamics (and gets away with it) via the overall G-net, and the "missing matter" *is not* actually missing.

There is my forbidden "is" and "will" agian. Just another contrast between my taking liscence as a mystic and free thinker in contrast to your rules of material science... no proof, no assertion of 'is-ness'... your insistence on "appropriate language." As for me making my own rules of communication you can stuff them both .

m:" Given the preliminary nature of this model, such math would be totally pretensious, like Ram's critical math presentations."

R:"You are really being obtuse. Your model requires more that just enough density to slow, and collapse the matter, you gotta get the radiation too... Don't you get this?? preliminary? Haven't you said the vision came to you at 5yrs old and you have pursued science your whole life? Scientists do more than daydream mik. You gotta put together working models. Work out falsifying tests, do some maths. You don't get to jump straight into glory, which seems to be your only interest. Mr Maverick of Science."

I've already discussed radiation and the cosmic "violation" of the local phenomenon which the 2nd law of T-dynamics addresses.
I said that my first memory of a cosmic vision (in trance, out of body) was at age five. You hear only what you want to hear to discredit me... over and over. I've *have*studied science intensively my whole adult life. And Iv'e I've had many cosmic visions over the years refining the first in accord with evidence I've studied which does support an oscillating model. I don't "gotta" do anything to fit your very narrow criteria of a "working model." Mine already "works" infinitely better than one without an explaination of cosmic origin... just starting at the "bang" out of nothing... or requiring imaginary/mythical membranes or " malleable spacetime fabric."

And. as to :"Work out falsifying tests, do some maths. You don't get to jump straight into glory, which seems to be your only interest. Mr Maverick of Science."...
See above on the license of theoretical cosmology to lead the way ... way ahead of confirming empirical evedence, welcome as it is whaen it comes. Math without such evidennce, again is pretentious.... pissing into the wind... numbers without actual referents in the world/cosmos.

Supernovae...
Merely an actual observation of relatively big bangs that also have leftovers falling back and jetting out as a second phase. I do not mean that "my" phased bangs and crunches involve identical dynamics... like the focused jets spewed out from the axis of a spinning neutron-star-turned-pulsar. You are very tedius with your critical nitpicking on this trivial level!

R:"
Do you know why the the remaining core doesn't reclaim all the jettisoned mass? "
Yes, I do. It had enough *escape velocity*to get away and not come back. You seem incapable of thinking in cosmological terms (the whole) and continually mis-apply "local phenomena" observations inappropriately to cosmos as a whole.

BTW, the "G-net" is the over-all gravitaion between all instances of matter in the whole cosmos.... not a visible "net." Your lack of understanding of this is profound.

This reply back-tracked to a previous post, but I am done addressing your ignorant objections. I think the above will suffice to expose your conventional myopia. An open minded and impartial reader can "extrapolate" to your subsequent lame attacks, to which I have mostly already replied anyway. If i catch one that interests me I will address it later.

Its been tedius, Ram. But in the interest of science, even the opportunity to present a new cosmology (multiple bang/crunch) maybe worthwhile after all.
mikiel
(choke on the typos if you must... no edit)

Just to tie up loose ends re Ram's off the wall attacks, i.e., It's (M/F not clarified) last post, not yet addressed.

mikiel wrote:
There is much in the links which Iolaus shared above, for instance, which flies in the face of the standard texbook science, on which Ram doggedly insists here, and from which S/he constantly condescends so inappropriately.

I had not up this point. I just spent about 2hrs going through most of it, which is primarily based on the works of Halton Arp [steady-state universe advocate] And Hannes Alfven [Plasma cosmology].

Ironically, I don't see any resemblance of their models to your vision mik. So your reference to them is just a smoke screen.

You would flunk reading comprehension in my class. (I did teach at the local community college.) I already specifically commented on that with which I agree in the links... rejecting conventional textbook science in several areas very relevant to my argument with Ram... and where I specifically disagree... the Arp-Alfven take on the bang/crunch without integtrating the "finding" of the "missing matter" and still under the influence of that magical fabric, "spacetime" as a "given" in today's science.

My debate was/is concerning the flaws in your "idea". You are taking a rather deviant (and even rather school yardish) tactic to now basically recant the big bang as your "vision" employs it. If those models are correct, it "flies in the face" of your presented idea as well. It's akin to you standing in the corner yelling,"[mik]Well ya? My idea doesn't work? Well neither does yours".

I have addressed those supposed "flaws" (from mainstream perspective, which Ram champions.) Then the usual "CA", mandatory in the replies of a confirmed shit slinger. I never said "those models (in the links in question) are correct." As again redundantly, as before repeated.:) There is not a devious bone in my body, and I know this guy better than anyone here. Radical honeaty is still clearly a big mystery to you. And where did I "recant the big bang of my vision? It is not just a single bang nor a single crunch. It is a cosmic juggling act *as I see it*, way more complex than your pedantic adherence to presently popular "authority" can comprehend.
You are not worth anymore of my time here.

Not that I concede the big bang standard cosmology. Which, I need to say something to the critics of this. Why do ppl constantly criticize reforming a theory? That's science, you learn, adapt, reform. Make predictions and look for evidence through observation....

Whaaa? My cosmology is very "reformist" yet based on a common sense Newtonian cosmos, with a few twists that have "come up" in science since his time... Yet without metaphysical myths to fill in the gaps. Your last sentence is like a paraphrase of my integration of mysticism (cosmic vision) and science (gathering as much empirical evidence as one can in support of the visions. The way I work as a mystic/scientist.

I addressed the issues I see in what you presented. Now if you're saying the physics and principles I employed in that dissection are flawed, or superseded by these alternative models, they are equally flawed when used to try an make a model out of what you presented. Understand?
No. You are talking gibberish now. Sounds desperate. I met every one of your non-trivial objections head on... and some of the trivial ones too. I exposed the "flaws." You have yet to make a valid rebuttal against my argument. *Understand?* Your condescention is hilarious under the specific circumstances, the substantial arguments I have here presented to you in a multi-post, very detailed reply.
You can't take a piece of this cosmological model, grab a shred of that one, muddle the water with a little of this one, and go tada!

More "CA" without substance. The established earmark of your "style" here.

Unless you can scientifically tie them together. I really don't see how you can directly call this cosmology you present as "cutting edge" you're regressing to a Newtonian "clock-work" universe era and trying to add the big bang to it without its basic substrate. Then tossing in a little oscillation, without really even understanding any of them. Perhaps intentionally ignoring the problems arising, just basically bent on your self-promotional grand tour regardless of its obvious flaws. It's nothing "cutting edge", it's a hodgepodge.

Yada, yada... a caricature of a silly mystic-wanna-be-scientist. If it makes you feel superior, fine. Your broad brushstrokes above are your own style of impressionism... mikiel through Ram's screen of prejudice and nasty attitude, carried over from another website. I'm suprized youv'e not yet gotten the axe here , considering your first warning and persistence in the same "trolling mode." But the admin hates me too. Yes, this *IS* a hate site!

For instance: Correct me if I'm wrong but, Steady-state has matter spontaneously being "created", and no bang, contrary to your "vision".

There is no "steady state" about my cosmology. You have not been hearing me. It is an eternally dynamic exploding/imploding two phased cyclical cosmos. "Spontaneosly created matter" is as absurd as it gets, and I've said this dozens of times... no "something out of nothing.")
Plasma cosmology models do not provide predictions that can account for many observations (see miks reference to "real world observation") including Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background. COBE results pretty much quieted these advocates. Meaning, if the physics these models use "fly in the face" of the so horrifically implied "text book physics" are wrong, so is your vision.
Since your vision is the intended context of this thread, haranguing me to respond to the said alternative theories is just a diversion, since neither strengthen your presentation, it's rather unrelated.

Your comprehension, having read those heretical links, is agian getting a "F." Do you know why cosmologists tend to ignore plasma physics? Of course not. You have no idea even what the issue is here... I do, and I'm not willing to take you to plasma/cosmology school here for your remedial education.

I challenge you to start a thread and go into detail on all those objections in the paragraph above... with a focus on how my vision is wrong as debunked by all the specific points you will make in all areas you just mentioned. Or its a snow job with hot air blowing over it... soon to become a flood requiring big thick dry textbooks to stand on... as the last ditch effort to 'understand' (and stay dry.)

Enough with the smoke screen...

Enough of your obvious bullshit.
This conversation is over.
mikiel

Mikiel, you are in absolute denial... As I said, no real pursuit of science, it's all about you. And fairly obvious... Like I said, it's like arguing with a retard... You can't win with a retard as the can't apply logic correctly... Several of your rebuttals are so off the wall I don't even know how to read it with a straight face... You still have to have enough mass to recapture the radiation. You don't understand the application of TD you are trying to use. The reason no mass/energy is ever created or destroyed is cuz the sys is closed. Have nothing to with shape. You are again confusing principles. Having a closed space time curvature, is not the same definition TD applies it. TD doesn't give a rats ass about relativity. Whe I ask, how will you catch the radiation, you just start this record player, "no matter is lost, td says so" Mik, the sys has to be closed (no, not spacetime curvature) so nothing is leaked or transferred. You just don't get it.
My argument is not contingent of the amount of dark matter in the universe. To the scientific community, dark matter is not just non-luminous matter. Which what you are insisting it is, you're on your own. BTW BB Nucleosynthesis predicts there can be no more than 10% regular matter in the universe anyhow, and why, from the get go, I said, which way you wanna go here? We include dark matter or not... You were incapable of a straight answer, not my fault :P

You are the one continually referring to your myspace days, haha... Just more hippocritic bullshit. You can bring it up? and I can't rebuttal in regards to the specific statement? And no, not just a CA, if you can't honestly see that, you're hopeless... I'm not going to oblige you with detailed explanations that you don't comprehend anyhow.

If you are talking in the interest of science, you cannot change the rules halfway thru saying, oh, this is the mystics, statement, this is the scientists statement... But, hey, ya know, you don't have to play by my rules, or the rules of any community, or even logic. Just as you denounced...
Just keep on keepin on. You will never be recognized by the scientific community...

The only point I can see in anything you presented is the Hawking controversy, did he recant the singularities existence or not? I had never heard he had, the information I've come across mentions nothing but the retraction of information loss. Wiki, cites small withdrawel.. fiine, I can accept that...

BTW, both of the authors, Halton Arp and Hannes Alfven were very respected in the scientific community of their time. I believe both Nobel prizes. Their models failed, and that is all. The ppl always complaining the scientific community is biased against them are cuz, they.... Just can't cut the mustard... poor cry baby.

Your cosmology is a joke mik, and likely, everyone knows it.... I dare you to take this to a cosmologically oriented science board. Since you believe my objections are false. Basically right now, it's you interpretation against mine. Lets see some experts opinions. Anyone that can interject here?

Maybe we could go register with space.com? Or there an astrophysicist in the house? What ya say? I'm sure you will decline. We both know why...

BTW, I know of one physicist over there that loves, alternate theories, rips those boyz to shreds in some cases, Kmarina... You should talk with him/her about your vision.

It's 100% pure bullshit...

But, sure we can continue here, but, this would be alot easier with an expert mediator... Right now, as I said, it's my interpretation against yours. And going no where...

The whole above post is based on Ram's usual tedius character assassination (C.A.) I stand on the several posts in *specific rebuttal" earlier today.
One could start by asking, "denial of what, specifically." But it would be just more waste of time. Ram is incapable of specific scientific debate, much less integration of visionary mysticism into theoretical cosmology.
It (the neutral-sex poster) has missed most of my central points so far and keeps asking questions I've already answered. I called 'it' on poor reading comprehension, but I am now changing my mind. At the risk of sounding like the "rude boy" which I have cast aside, I think Ram is just plain stupid.
I ask the forum, is my debate with Ram here "all about me" or have I presented a bunch of specific science in support of my arguments, and 'it' dodged all of them, hiding behind "CA"? An objective and well informed free-thinking scientist would be a perfect arbiter here... if only there were such a scientific wise one (as distinct from the usual wise-asses) in these parts.

Oh well. There is still the challenge to Ram to create a thread to detail all the science in the key words dropped in the paragraph I so challenged.
I think its time for "Ramayana" to put up or shut up.
But, if 'it' is actually as stupid as I've begun to suspect, there is no way it would go so far out on a limb as to initiate a thread on Science According to "RAmayana."

In the epic Hindu story, Rama lays siege to Ceylon and wins back Sita. I don't know how our new shit slinger identifiies with this epic, but the seige part rings true. Trouble is I am not the emporer of Ceylon and I am not keeping his beloved Sita in captivity. But, "his" drama is obviously of epic proportions in "his" own mind, saving science from mystical heretics and all so as they don't mislead the poor folk trying to pass tests and become ligitimate and credentialed scientists.... cosmologists even!

Thing is, this place, tho actually a hate cult against women, endorsing "logic" without a clue to tanscendental consciousness or its fulfillment in enlightenment... is actually billed as a Genius Forum in which free thinking is welcome and honored. Tho I've not found this to be the actual case, I'm still acting as if it were true, as I haven't found my new game on the net yet.

Comments? On the above, or... make my day... actually on the thread topic!
mikiel

Mik, as I said, without an expert mediator versed in cosmological science, I don't think it can be settled. You are not going to accept any rebuttal I offer, and I'm certain for the reasons I've explained your idea doesn't work. Doesn't work within Relativity, it doesn't work within Newtonian laws. Doesn't work if we include dark matter, or not, what ever interpretation or definition you wanna apply.

Really there is nothing to work with at this point anyhow. It's a blank sheet of paper according to you. No working model, no math, now you even reject the comparison you interjected with SN explosions. Except they both can eject matter more than once, not much to work with there. You didn't address the cosmic horizon problem, didn't address the speed of gravity vs light problem, (prolly more, am tired right now) and are very confused about thermodynamics. You pick apart my posts skipping scientific issues you don't wish to address.(I ignore the personal rhetoric too, no worries) Don't even know if you have a trigger for the cosmic ball of fudge if it did contract. You insist on using your own confusing non-scientific nomenclature.There is no way to debate this way.

Not to mention rejecting Relativity, but that a whole nother game, I didn't press the issue here. Since I don't see it working under Newton's laws either.

Look, I know you think I'm a stupid "by the book" troll. Oh well man, I think you're an egotistical Lunatic... I doubt anyone cares on a personal level.

I stand beside the many objections to your idea that I presented. I do not feel there is ANY, any reason at all, to credit this idea with much plausibility.

There's just nothing there to work with, and no real reason to believe it. Just because mik had an alleged vision, doesn't work for me. And really mik that's all you are offering... Just because...

Note to admin:
I just found a clue in the above post that convinces me, to a high degree of certainty, of what I have suspected from "the beginning," that "Ramayana" is the same person from Myspace who was absolutely obsessed with discrediting me in the name of protecting "legitimate science" from mystic visionaries, as he was certain that there is no common ground between science and mysticism. He dogged me persistently there for most of 18 months with nasty personal attacks after most of my posts.

How he found me here to continue the obsessive tirade, I don't know, but this is an example of the worst case scenario, a troller obsessed with following a poster wherever he goes to bring him down.
His moniker at Myspace, I am nearly certain, is/was "Six Strings."
I even did a thread there, "An Expose' of Six Strings' Lies" in case you care to check out the depth of his obsession with me. ... before you ban him from the GF as the troller he is.
mikiel

Ramayana wrote:
Post subject: Re: Cosmology and "Kosmos" Reply with quote
Note to admin:
I just found a clue in the above post that convinces me, to a high degree of certainty, of what I have suspected from "the beginning," that "Ramayana" is the same person from Myspace who was absolutely obsessed with discrediting me in the name of protecting "legitimate science" from mystic visionaries, as he was certain that there is no common ground between science and mysticism. He dogged me persistently there for most of 18 months with nasty personal attacks after most of my posts.

How he found me here to continue the obsessive tirade, I don't know, but this is an example of the worst case scenario, a troller obsessed with following a poster wherever he goes to bring him down.
His moniker at Myspace, I am nearly certain, is/was "Six Strings."
I even did a thread there, "An Expose' of Six Strings' Lies" in case you care to check out the depth of his obsession with me. ... before you ban him from the GF as the troller he is.
mikiel

Wow, you are really out there now mik... BTW the thread you're speaking of, was a hate thread far beyond acceptable TOS. It was deleted. It is gone. As soon as a moderator returned to the board.
In the time the board was unmoderated and it remained, it served nothing but an expose of your resentment towards science for its unwillingness to except "just because" as a plausible model. There were no real lies, just more smoke screen.

You made a lot of enemies mik, insulting nearly every person ever addressing you. Think harder....

This is, however, rather irrelevant concerning the lack of plausibility to the idea you are presenting. Rather an attempt to silence the opposition. Same thing you attempted on myspace, but, since there was no mod at the science board at myspace you could lash out a lot more with the insults, when that didn't work to silence the opposition, finally we got this, [mik] "My IQ is 170, I CANNOT BE WRONG!" I have no self respect! The new mod had no tolerance for your BS. Your hate thread was deleted. I think some others of yours too. You got banned...

Since you brought it up, again...

Btw, aren't myspace users allowed at GF? Aren't you a myspace crossover? I have more or less been addressing the topic, just don't agree with you... So?? I stated from the beginning I knew your history there.
Are you a dictator unable to handle opposition? You really are a big cry baby...

That I know you from myspace is irrelevant, I haven't broken any rules, at least not anymore than yourself. Have I heckled your every thread or topic? Even on myspace, did any of us science regulars follow you to the religion forum? Or anywhere us? There is no obsession, (just your ego) just unwillingness to allow bad science be viewed as anything other than just that...

So, anytime you are up for that challange.. Ya know, with some cosmological gurus... I know, you know, you can't cut the mustard with the big boyz, not even with most amateurs.... and why you hide out in the undergrounds.. haha

Prove it, I dare ya...

This is the part, where (at least last time he got knocked down a rung on the latter) that he says, he doesn't have to prove anything. Which of course true, unless you are alleging that you know the cosmological sciences and presenting an idea you feel works, and heres why the rest of you are wrong. In that case, you, you do need to prove it.

He'll say his is speaking a lecture at a college later this week, again completely unsubstantiated as his alleged IQ. Or pretty much any credential he typically offers as a defense, rather then being able to walk the walk, he'll just talk the talk...

See the skipped very relevant issues, not that it really matters, since he won't accept any rebuttal, everyone is stupid or dense or brainwashed who opposes the "idea"...

Take up the challenge.. Unless of course the goal is to just promote the idea rather than actually know is it's plausible or "works"... Oh wait, lemme guess, your college professor friend, (that of course you cannot disclose) told you it was a break through! Haha, that would be the typical trend with you...

In either case, it's rather enough of the dirty laundry don't you think?

mikiel, Internet 101: Don't feed the trolls.

mikiel wrote: You would flunk reading comprehension in my class. (I did teach at the local community college.)

Sure ya did...

mikiel wrote: I already specifically commented on that with which I agree in the links... rejecting conventional textbook science in several areas very relevant to my argument with Ram... and where I specifically disagree... the Arp-Alfven take on the bang/crunch without integtrating the "finding" of the "missing matter" and still under the influence of that magical fabric, "spacetime" as a "given" in today's science.

The first part has nothing to do with the plausibilty of your idea, or anyones for that matter. It not a scientific rebuttal, it's a rant on why so and so doesn't like the politics regarding science. Of which I don't agree. Or feel that is why your model doesn't work. The physics are broken and I don;t think anyone is withholding information that would make it plausible. Even under the two alternative failed models physics...

In regards to spacetime...A given? How is it a given. You are such a bold face lair. What YOU are asking for us to take your idea as a "given" My gosh what a bunch of shit. To be taken as a given would mean it has never or continuously and rigorously tested. Everyday, and in everyway imaginable... Your statement is bullshit, period. It's the best fit, and passed every test. Not a given by any means. You are con-artist in every sense of the word.

mikiel wrote: I have addressed those supposed "flaws" (from mainstream perspective, which Ram champions.) Then the usual "CA", mandatory in the replies of a confirmed shit slinger.

Nope, a few, with just more flaws and ignored a few more also...

mikiel wrote: I never said "those models (in the links in question) are correct." As again redundantly, as before repeated.:)

Err, then why are you asking me to comment on them, you are impossible. You cannot even stay on topic for 5 f'n minutes. What is their relevance? They disagree with BB cosmology? You need me to comment this why again? It helps your case how? Again, you moron, we are talking about if YOUR idea is plausible. Even is BB is out the god damn window doesn't matter in regards to yours. The debates I presented do not use Relativity, and I left DM up to you, but your such an idiot you couldn't even answer the question "use it, or not?" without "spinning" it... The norm...

mikiel wrote:There is not a devious bone in my body, and I know this guy better than anyone here. Radical honeaty is still clearly a big mystery to you.

Oh please... You must just truly be an idiot an really believe the bullshit you sling. Likely why the convo/debate will be meaningless without a mediator...

mikiel wrote:And where did I "recant the big bang of my vision? It is not just a single bang nor a single crunch. It is a cosmic juggling act *as I see it*, way more complex than your pedantic adherence to presently popular "authority" can comprehend.
You are not worth anymore of my time here.

Erm, both model you keep going on about do not use argue validity of the big bang.

mikiel wrote: Whaaa? My cosmology is very "reformist" yet based on a common sense Newtonian cosmos, with a few twists that have "come up" in science since his time... Yet without metaphysical myths to fill in the gaps. Your last sentence is like a paraphrase of my integration of mysticism (cosmic vision) and science (gathering as much empirical evidence as one can in support of the visions. The way I work as a mystic/scientist.

Hate to burst you bubble. I didn't get that from you. (ego again) That has been scientific method before both of our great grandfathers were even born. Perhaps you thought you came up with that? haha

Ramayana wrote:I addressed the issues I see in what you presented. Now if you're saying the physics and principles I employed in that dissection are flawed, or superseded by these alternative models, they are equally flawed when used to try an make a model out of what you presented. Understand?

mikiel wrote:No. You are talking gibberish now. Sounds desperate. I met every one of your non-trivial objections head on... and some of the trivial ones too. I exposed the "flaws." You have yet to make a valid rebuttal against my argument. *Understand?* Your condescention is hilarious under the specific circumstances, the substantial arguments I have here presented to you in a multi-post, very detailed reply.

Your rebuttal has been as flawed as the basic premise i argued to begin with. There is nothing ignorant about these objections at all. Saying doesn't make it so. The problem is, You just can't explain it. It works, somehow, because my vision says so... Ok, sure, right... Trivial objections? How it is gonna work? and why it can't be observed are trivial objections??

Please forgive me for questioning you... [obvious sarcasm]

It's not gibberish. You contend the physics of the big bang are flawed, citing these other alternative models for reference to why. These other models physics don't work with yours either....

Ramayana wrote:You can't take a piece of this cosmological model, grab a shred of that one, muddle the water with a little of this one, and go tada!

mikiel wrote:More "CA" without substance. The established earmark of your "style" here.

LOL! No substance?? My gosh, the whole below statement above and below. This is exactly what you are doing....

Ramayana wrote: Unless you can scientifically tie them together. I really don't see how you can directly call this cosmology you present as "cutting edge" you're regressing to a Newtonian "clock-work" universe era and trying to add the big bang to it without its basic substrate. Then tossing in a little oscillation, without really even understanding any of them. Perhaps intentionally ignoring the problems arising, just basically bent on your self-promotional grand tour regardless of its obvious flaws. It's nothing "cutting edge", it's a hodgepodge.

mikiel wrote:Yada, yada... a caricature of a silly mystic-wanna-be-scientist. If it makes you feel superior, fine. Your broad brushstrokes above are your own style of impressionism... mikiel through Ram's screen of prejudice and nasty attitude, carried over from another website. I'm suprized youv'e not yet gotten the axe here , considering your first warning and persistence in the same "trolling mode." But the admin hates me too. Yes, this *IS* a hate site!

What the hell are you talking about? You have some defective mentality that makes you desire to play a victim? What does this staement have ANYTHING to do with mysticism? Is that what it really is? My point is, you have to tie all these different ideas together. That is discrimination? You also have been shot down with this "idea" before, and likely before that too. Yet continue to present it as some kinna break through. It's nothing. There nothing to is... Just because, I had a vision doesn't work.

Ramayana wrote: For instance: Correct me if I'm wrong but, Steady-state has matter spontaneously being "created", and no bang, contrary to your "vision".

mikiel wrote:There is no "steady state" about my cosmology. You have not been hearing me. It is an eternally dynamic exploding/imploding two phased cyclical cosmos. "Spontaneosly created matter" is as absurd as it gets, and I've said this dozens of times... no "something out of nothing.")

You are the one that pestered me into commenting on this model as if it had some relevance... Amazing...

Ramayana wrote:Plasma cosmology models do not provide predictions that can account for many observations (see miks reference to "real world observation") including Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background. COBE results pretty much quieted these advocates. Meaning, if the physics these models use "fly in the face" of the so horrifically implied "text book physics" are wrong, so is your vision.
Since your vision is the intended context of this thread, haranguing me to respond to the said alternative theories is just a diversion, since neither strengthen your presentation, it's rather unrelated.

mikiel wrote:Your comprehension, having read those heretical links, is agian getting a "F." Do you know why cosmologists tend to ignore plasma physics? Of course not. You have no idea even what the issue is here... I do, and I'm not willing to take you to plasma/cosmology school here for your remedial education.

I just cited three reasons right in that very statement. We already know your comprehension is weak. But please, read the above statement again.

mikiel wrote: I challenge you to start a thread and go into detail on all those objections in the paragraph above... with a focus on how my vision is wrong as debunked by all the specific points you will make in all areas you just mentioned. Or its a snow job with hot air blowing over it... soon to become a flood requiring big thick dry textbooks to stand on... as the last ditch effort to 'understand' (and stay dry.)

Why would I start another thread? We are discussing your idea. I'm debating your idea...

mikiel wrote: This conversation is over.
mikiel

Oh? Giving up?

You keep refering to this or that (steady-state cosmos, plasma cosmos, supernova) but tie none of it together. [mik] "Oh well, I never said the dynamics are exactly the same"

What exactly are the dynamics? If it's like a super nova, but not really the same dynamics, what exactly are the dynamics? What is creating this cosmic horizon if relativity is absent. Why can's we detect it if gravity and light speed are propagated at the same speed? (again gotta remember the lack of a space-time substrate, granted without question for the sake of the argument) There is still your insistence on using thermo dynamic principles in your idea without demonstrating how you're gonna close the system... What is the trigger for this cosmic fudge? These are not trivial, these are not ignorant questions.

The only thing you established so far is to clear the confusion of why you call dark matter just that, when scientists say it something else. And not even my argument, I just wanted to know if we were to include it in the modeling...

Oh ya, and that SH did withdraw from the singularity issue...

The later irrelevant still, to your idea...

One issue, one thing related to your idea, mik, is all you have significantly addressed.... The rest is personal agendas, politics, fluff, diversions and smoke....

Mikiel: heat radiated out into space is vibrating atoms of whatever

Nope, not atoms, photons...

The short lesson: Photons are electro-magnetic energy, atoms are matter...

Heat radiation is electro-mag energy...

Unless you are contending that too.. sheesh...

The science-approach is duty-bound to discover and expose the errors in 'mystical' thinking. If not, we'd have creationsits holing up in areas they should not. Mysticism is subjective, introspective, and psychological. Its truths are of another order and they serve a different purpose.

"How he found me here to continue the obsessive tirade, I don't know..."

Well, just a few posts back you revealed your name, and since your location is known, all you have to do is drop it into Google and see what pops up. I would imagine that you yourself provided the clues for him to find you here. Also, all this is to your liking because it puts you at the center of things, the desired center stage for a narcissist. I've seen the same traits a number of times and the rule is bad attention is still better than no attention...

All of this...it's all your show.

Alex Jacob wrote:The science-approach is duty-bound to discover and expose the errors in 'mystical' thinking. If not, we'd have creationsits holing up in areas they should not. Mysticism is subjective, introspective, and psychological. Its truths are of another order and they serve a different purpose.

"How he found me here to continue the obsessive tirade, I don't know..."

Well, just a few posts back you revealed your name, and since your location is known, all you have to do is drop it into Google and see what pops up. I would imagine that you yourself provided the clues for him to find you here. Also, all this is to your liking because it puts you at the center of things, the desired center stage for a narcissist. I've seen the same traits a number of times and the rule is bad attention is still better than no attention...

All of this...it's all your show.

Actually, I didn't do anything of the sort. A women at myspace was dropping links to this site.. Likely the same way mik found his way here...
As you may see, I registered some time ago Nov, '07, and just sat on the fence for awhile... *shrug*

I do agree with the duty of science :)

Can you help to guide him back, or wherever?

;-)

Too bad, he's banned... haha

I am however, trying to get him to take it up with some professional physicists and astrologists since he will not accept my rebuttal, and dismisses the gaping holes as trivial and ignorant.

It seems likely he will not accept anyones. Perhaps, I shouldn't encourage the migration, geez, if it got out his petulance over there was my fault!

This is a re-issue of the invitation to dialogue on the stated thread subject.
I have determined, beyond doubt, that "Ramayana" *is* my old Nemesis from Myspace, "Six Strings" who constantly and obsessivelly hounded me from his first replies there. He demanded "proof" where I was presenting a *theoretical cosmology* (he still doesn't know the difference) and stated as his basic prejudice that "mysticism and science don't mix"... also... that the oscillating cosmos model "does not work... end of story." ... also that spacetime as malleable medium is "established" by mainstream science.

Anyone willing to read his tedius challenges in this thread, and my necessarily tedius replies will see that he has lost the debate on all counts, but he is too dumb to know it. My in-depth rebuttals to his challenges just on 6/23 alone are clear evidence that he picks at details, most of which I then clarify (like the nature of both "normal" and "still mysterious" dark matter, the former of which he denies exists)... without a clue to the "big picture" of cosmos I am here presenting.

Anyway, I'd like to re-start discussion on the above big picture here.
First, if the cosmos does *not* both expand and then contract in a contiuous cycle, where did all the "stuff" of cosmos come from in the first place? (And anyone who believes it came from a "point of infinite density and zero volume" is living in a fantasy world without a lick of common sense.)

Then... if space is *not* emptiness and time is some kind of "real stuff" (the absurdity of which I have covered many times), what exactly is this "spacetime fabric" which supposedly gives cosmos shape?
If, on the other hand, the two primary objections to the oscillating model of "real stuff" exploding and imploding can be "solved" by "finding the missing matter" and applying the universal law of gravitation (with *no* distance limit... Nothing is *ever lost* in the cosmic sense).... then... "my model", including the phased "juggling act" of two or more "launches" and two or more "shells of cosmos" beyond the one from the familiar "bang"... all eventually "coming back" for another bang/launch... will work. (Whew!... a major run-on... stream of consciousness, doncha know.

If there are no takers on all the above, I'll just let it go. Not into another year or more of the kind of crap the obsessive/compulsive one continually dishes out here. (Yes, he hides beyond his new name, Ramayana here, cuz he made a complete ass of himself over and over in shit-slinging sessions with me at Myspace.) Enough already.
mikiel

mikiel wrote:This is a re-issue of the invitation to dialogue on the stated thread subject.
I have determined, beyond doubt, that "Ramayana" *is* my old Nemesis from Myspace, "Six Strings" who constantly and obsessivelly hounded me from his first replies there. He demanded "proof" where I was presenting a *theoretical cosmology* (he still doesn't know the difference) and stated as his basic prejudice that "mysticism and science don't mix"... also... that the oscillating cosmos model "does not work... end of story." ... also that spacetime as malleable medium is "established" by mainstream science.

Anyone willing to read his tedius challenges in this thread, and my necessarily tedius replies will see that he has lost the debate on all counts, but he is too dumb to know it. My in-depth rebuttals to his challenges just on 6/23 alone are clear evidence that he picks at details, most of which I then clarify (like the nature of both "normal" and "still mysterious" dark matter, the former of which he denies exists)... without a clue to the "big picture" of cosmos I am here presenting.

Anyway, I'd like to re-start discussion on the above big picture here.
First, if the cosmos does *not* both expand and then contract in a contiuous cycle, where did all the "stuff" of cosmos come from in the first place? (And anyone who believes it came from a "point of infinite density and zero volume" is living in a fantasy world without a lick of common sense.)

Then... if space is *not* emptiness and time is some kind of "real stuff" (the absurdity of which I have covered many times), what exactly is this "spacetime fabric" which supposedly gives cosmos shape?
If, on the other hand, the two primary objections to the oscillating model of "real stuff" exploding and imploding can be "solved" by "finding the missing matter" and applying the universal law of gravitation (with *no* distance limit... Nothing is *ever lost* in the cosmic sense).... then... "my model", including the phased "juggling act" of two or more "launches" and two or more "shells of cosmos" beyond the one from the familiar "bang"... all eventually "coming back" for another bang/launch... will work. (Whew!... a major run-on... stream of consciousness, doncha know.

If there are no takers on all the above, I'll just let it go. Not into another year or more of the kind of crap the obsessive/compulsive one continually dishes out here. (Yes, he hides beyond his new name, Ramayana here, cuz he made a complete ass of himself over and over in shit-slinging sessions with me at Myspace.) Enough already.
mikiel

LOL, you're funny mik. I for one, am just trying to get a logical scientific explanation. Did you not state science must have real world verification? When applying that very statement to your idea, you then start singing a different tune... You're playing a hypocritical game of political smoke screening.

The plausibility of your idea does not hinge on where "it" came from in regards to big bang cosmology. More smoke. Still yelling and taunting from the corner eh mik?

I don't deny there is matter unseen. Never ever said such a thing. What scientists call dark matter and what you call dark matter are not the same thing. I called you out on the contraindication of terminology you are using, that the link you pointed to claims proof of this mysterious non-interacting type(except gravity). Which would be illogical to your rather irrelevant argument that dark matter is was pure fantasy. That Chandra was finding this "real" matter (your words), whereas that is not the interpretation of the Chandra boyz. Except to anyone but yourself apparently. Considering the question was in regards to include dark matter or not in the projected omega figures this was irrelevant.

You are referring to simply non-luminous matter, cold lumps of dust and rock. If I shined a light on it, it would reveal itself. Why it had to take 3 days and an essay to say so, is beyond me, this is why scientists use specific language.. Apparently your rebellious nature must muddle even the common language to be used. You are just playing games again. There is probably plenty of non-luminous matter in the universe. Enough to reach omega? Seems unlikely since the expansion is accelerating...

Your ploy here now to put things in my mouth, which I never said. Or insinuate you have answered the very relevant an critical aspects of the idea you are presenting is utter non-sense... Do you need me to state the problems again?

So to clarify, I'm not interested on your take on dark matter, just as to whether to include it on the omega figures... The relevance of steady-state cosmology and plasma cosmology can only be based your ability to tie them into yours physically, and then of course you will have address their downfalls. If that is your contention.
Your reference to them having relevance is only delusionary or a diversion unless you can tie the physics into yours. Other than claiming to refute a big bang happened in terms big bang cosmology states, they have no semblance or relevance to your idea. We are, as per the thread title discussing your idea and the plausibility of this idea vs observation and known physical laws and principles. I'm letting ya slide on the spacetime/relativity issue since claiming its false doesn't help your argument... We can play Newton's rules. It only betters the case against your idea....Can you stay on topic? Ready set go!

Just cut to the chase, how, in scientific terms, can this idea of yours work when observation does not support and in several instances contradict the physics your idea requires? Would you like me to make a detailed, numbered list that you can address one by one? Do I really need to break it down to yes or no questions for you?

Didn't you write?

Mikiel: Finally, if you have one small argument against my cosmology from ":real science" lets have it. (You might want to check out Iolaus' links on the Big Bang and my replies in my cosmology thread before you go too far out on a limb and "expose yourself."

Heh, all bark and no bite eh?

PS, Six Strings had plenty of support in debunking your idea...

While I'm at it...

Since mik doesn't wish to have an officially peered review. (makes ya wonder huh? See my challenge to take this up with some cosmos gurus at space.com/uplink)

Anyone unbiased here have a fair understanding of cosmological physics that can grade our papers?

Your last reply above (mikiel), is a mere attempt at court room grandstanding, as to imply and impose victory without any evidence what so ever...

The only victory is truth...

To claim victory without proof or even evidence contradictory of any of the relevant ponderances should, and unless I am delusional, speaks for itself...

Are the questions I raised and have gone un-addressed relevant? Does "just because" warrant a scientific cause or merit?

That is not science, that is not an explanation, that is not real...

When it comes to the some 30ms before the big bang, standard cosmology says, "we don't know", not....We are wrong... The nay-sayers have in fact been systematically silenced through scientific observation and evidence, Including plasma-cosmology, however irrelevant to miks cause...

Mik can't admit either... Mik does not pursue truth, he is pursuing his self and egomania. That which undermines everything he claims to be, and why, he hates such opposition tenaciously... So much so as to claim a false victory over modern science, logic, and observational evidence without so much a shred of evidence contrary... So much so, that he insults every person in opposition with his "just because" cosmology, insults them with biased slurs and unwitted assumptions until he gets banned...
No "proof" required, just something from mik! Math, model and observation... Nothing has been forthcoming... "Just because" does not meet the criteria... This is substantiated by miks refusal to submit to peer review.

Let there be light, hahaha

I am still wondering if anyone here besides my Nemesis of nearly 18 months, come here from Myspace to continue the obsessive harrassment cares to address the overview presented in my last post.
But in case anyone still doubts his malicious motives which distort what I've presented (or his ignore-ance of my replies and rebuttals) I will go one more round for "good measure', a point at a time.
Ram/Six Strings wrote:

LOL, you're funny mik. I for one, am just trying to get a logical scientific explanation. Did you not state science must have real world verification? When applying that very statement to your idea, you then start singing a different tune... You're playing a hypocritical game of political smoke screening.

I have, several times, distinguished between theoretical science, which can include brainstorming, mystical visions, imaginary dimensions & membrane/universes... and empirical validation, the follow-up branch of science which supplies actual information in support (or not) of all the above theory/vision. (His obsessuion has consistently been that all mystical vision as such "theoretical sources" *must be* attacked (visciously, as is his consistent style) and "debunked" by mainstream popular contemporary consensus.

Again, all the empirical info I have shared here is in support of "my cosmology" with no claim of proving it.

SS:

The plausibility of your idea does not hinge on where "it" came from in regards to big bang cosmology. More smoke. Still yelling and taunting from the corner eh mik?

Last two sentences the usual "CA" (Character assassination.)
The scientific challenge I continually present is for anyone to present a cosmology which explains where it all came from if not a previous half cycle, the imnplosion half of the "Bang/Crunch" model.
No answer from anyone, let alone this "scientifically chalenged" moron with a personal vengence.

SS:

I don't deny there is matter unseen. Never ever said such a thing. What scientists call dark matter and what you call dark matter are not the same thing. I called you out on the contraindication of terminology you are using, that the link you pointed to claims proof of this mysterious non-interacting type(except gravity). Which would be illogical to your rather irrelevant argument that dark matter is was pure fantasy. That Chandra was finding this "real" matter (your words), whereas that is not the interpretation of the Chandra boyz. Except to anyone but yourself apparently. Considering the question was in regards to include dark matter or not in the projected omega figures this was irrelevant.

SS continues to totally ignore my answer to his "dark matter" challenge, as I wrote:

For me, the actual nature of "dark matter" is a low priority issue, made large by Ram, and placing my credibility on the line.
Regardless of its "form" it accounts for the vast majority of mass and therefore gravity in the the cosmos... and allows my version of the oscillating cosmos to "work."
From Wiki:
"In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter"...
"The composition of dark matter is unknown but may include ordinary and heavy neutrinos, recently postulated elementary particles such as WIMPs and axions, astronomical bodies such as brown dwarfs and planets (collectively called MACHOs), primordial black holes and clouds of nonluminous gas. Also, matter that might exist in another universe but might affect ours via gravity would be consistent with some theories of brane cosmology. Current evidence favors models in which the primary component of dark matter is new elementary particles, collectively called nonbaryonic dark matter"

So besides "new elementary particles" (meaning still not well understood... mystery matter.... *nothing is "new"*) dark matter "may include" both still-mysterious WIMP's, axions... nonbaryonic dark matter *and* neutrinos of two types, astronomical bodies (brown dwarfs, planets,) black holes of the very small variety, and clouds of nonluminous gas and dust, the latter of which comprises the vast majority of cosmic matter.
Ram's insistence that all dark matter is in the "mystery matter" category is blatently false and misleading, just for the sake of another lame attempt to discredid me.

(an interruption... I'll post and come back so as to not lose the above)
m
He goes on.... and on...

You are referring to simply non-luminous matter, cold lumps of dust and rock. If I shined a light on it, it would reveal itself. Why it had to take 3 days and an essay to say so, is beyond me, this is why scientists use specific language.. Apparently your rebellious nature must muddle even the common language to be used. You are just playing games again. There is probably plenty of non-luminous matter in the universe. Enough to reach omega? Seems unlikely since the expansion is accelerating...

I have put the above Wiki quote and my commentary above in bold for emphasis, as an aid to his sever lack of... intelligence, comprehension, attention to detail... all subservient to his hostility toward me as a corrupter of standard 'scientific' doctrine.

As to his latter comments, in bold above: "Probably plenty of non-luminous matter in the universe"..??... but "unlikely... enough to reach omega"...??
Pardon my brutal logic, but, if there is still an unknown amount of normal non-luminous (therefore literally 'dark') matter in the universe, not even counting (which I don't) the "mystery dark matter" of still unknown nature... if it exists at all... ironicaly what SS calls legitimate "dark matter"... then how can anyone with an open mind and true spirit of scientific enquiry decide, on *no evidence whatsoever* (trying to "proove the negative) that there there is "unlikely enough" to turn it all around ... for the implosive half-cycle? This is the epitome of both arrogange and stupidity... not even related to science.

... "Since the expansion is accellerating"...
#1: Is it for sure, as questioned above in this thread? (those links again... which ss says he read) And *if * it is indeed stilll accellerating in outward expansion, is anyone here intelligent enough to see the possibility of a further-out shell or cosmic-sphere, launched previously to the more familiar (if still theoretical) big bang pulling our known cosmos outward? Certainly not in the pedantic mind of SS.

SS wrote:

So to clarify, I'm not interested on your take on dark matter, just as to whether to include it on the omega figures... The relevance of steady-state cosmology and plasma cosmology can only be based your ability to tie them into yours physically, and then of course you will have address their downfalls. If that is your contention.
Your reference to them having relevance is only delusionary or a diversion unless you can tie the physics into yours. Other than claiming to refute a big bang happened in terms big bang cosmology states, they have no semblance or relevance to your idea. We are, as per the thread title discussing your idea and the plausibility of this idea vs observation and known physical laws and principles. I'm letting ya slide on the spacetime/relativity issue since claiming its false doesn't help your argument... We can play Newton's rules. It only betters the case against your idea....Can you stay on topic? Ready set go!

So it is way too early to drag out the pretentious percentages and math formulae given the unknown but ever increasing amounts of previously missing but now *found* dark matter (of one real kind, simply non-luminous and one hypothetical type.)
Again, I do not subscribe to a "steady state cosmology" unless the dynamic Bang/crunch is said to continue as a perpetual cycle... steady in that sense... no beginning or end. My reference to plasma cosmology was simply in agreement with Arp et.al that cosmologists generally shun plasma physics, even tho it can explain some things that ignoriing plasma can not. ( For one...the plasma trails in galaxie collisions traveling faster than solid matter, for one... rather than positing mystery dark matter as an ingredient in the gravity equations. For another, a possible plasma shell between the core of a supernova-like cosmic "Bang" and the launched matterials which are now our observable cosmos. Also plasma at galactic centers as complicating the gravitational picture around their supermassive black holes.
SS:

Just cut to the chase, how, in scientific terms, can this idea of yours work when observation does not support and in several instances contradict the physics your idea requires? Would you like me to make a detailed, numbered list that you can address one by one? Do I really need to break it down to yes or no questions for you?

Isn't the above what this whole extremely tedius exchange is about? Haven't you already engaged in tedius objections which I have already answered, several times in some cases. Observations don't support my cosmology? Vast amounts of unseen matter, not yet observed...
No, thanks on the numbered list of even more tedius objects based on the same level of pedantic ignorance of the detail I have already repeatedly presented.

You can't even handle the basics here. What, if anything is "spacetime" and where did all the materials of the cosmos come from if not "out of nothing" or a previous implosion half-cycle.

Really, until you address these basics of my cosmology, the kinds of detail in your objections are totally trivial... AND they have already been answered anyway, tho you are to stupid to understand my explanations.

Again, this is all in the interest of clarification for any interested in the the thread topic. There is no way I could care less what you think... if it can even legitimately be called "thinking." You let "popular science" do your "thinking" for you, and I am not interested.... REALLY... in further conversation with you.

mikiel