ChrLzs Posted July 4, 2014 #101 Share Posted July 4, 2014 And in answer to your actual question.. try these: http://io9.com/this-...erse-1580200038 http://en.wikipedia....i/CMB_cold_spot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted July 4, 2014 Author #102 Share Posted July 4, 2014 That between the planet has a significant amount of dust we have had light. Dust the matter and the collision with radiation illuminates. However, among the planet's is dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted July 9, 2014 #103 Share Posted July 9, 2014 As a little aside - we have a long way to go before we identify/detect all the mass that is out there - here's a trivial example: ScienceMag - Hubble finds vast reservoir of gas near Milky Way ...and that, dear reader, was right outside our front door staring us in the face... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted July 11, 2014 Author #104 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Gas in the universe. Why is composed of 89% hydrogen and ~ 11% helium and other trace elements? Why are planets rich elements opposed to the star. Why colder stars are richly diverse elements of the warmer? Why does matter and bodies in the ends of star systems, galaxies and the universe moves faster (although in the first two weak gravity)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted July 11, 2014 #105 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Gas in the universe. Why is composed of 89% hydrogen and ~ 11% helium and other trace elements? Why are planets rich elements opposed to the star. Why colder stars are richly diverse elements of the warmer? Why does matter and bodies in the ends of star systems, galaxies and the universe moves faster (although in the first two weak gravity)? Why do you keep asking questions that science has already answered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted July 11, 2014 #106 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Why in God's name do you keep answering? LOL Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted July 12, 2014 Author #107 Share Posted July 12, 2014 At the beginning of this discussion I clearly said that this is a different vision of the universe and the relationship to the universe of conventional science. You want a raised voice and the constant suggestion of kaovencionalnom censor and eliminate the appearance of different visions of the existing ones. If not for the new, allow us who are different that live in their ignorance of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted July 12, 2014 #108 Share Posted July 12, 2014 (...) the constant suggestion of kaovencionalnom censor (...) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted July 12, 2014 #109 Share Posted July 12, 2014 What censorship are you talking about Weitter Duckss? You have not been censored. You have been allowed to post every word of your excruciating nonsense. What you have failed to do is support anything you say with evidence. No evidence = not accepted. That is the way science works. But worse for you is that you have demonstrated an inability to actually understand the science the principles that you claim are wrong. How claim to have a better understanding than conventional science when you don't understand the conventional science? The reason you are not being taken seriously is because you have posted nothing that deserves to be taken seriously. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted July 12, 2014 #110 Share Posted July 12, 2014 ? I googled the term "kaovencionalnom censor". Google had no idea what it means, neither do I. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted July 12, 2014 #111 Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) I got this google search hit, which is in Croatian, and I think it might be close to what he is refering to ? detailed search help Search Results: konvencionalan Terms matched: 1 conventional (l. conventionalis) which is based on the convention, which corresponds sorazumu, sorazumni, contractual, contractual; common, which holds the received habits and practices; conventional marriage marriage that took place according to caste or wealthy considerations, and not by affection; conventional lie untruth accepted by the agreement. Edited July 12, 2014 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted July 12, 2014 #112 Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) Ah the "conventional" ignoring the "new" argument. A firm favourite of those that don't understand how science actually works... especially if they have an unconventional and unsupported hypothesis to support. Weitter there is a reason why science clings to the conventional. It is because it became the conventional because it is the best model, because it is supported by the evidence. It is only rejected if a new model is BETTER supported by the evidence or new observations show the conventional model to be false. If a new model replaces the old then THAT becomes the conventional. You have not produced any evidence to suggest that the conventional model is false or that your model is better. You have produced no evidence at all. The reason your hypothesis is being rejected is because that is the correct scientific thing to do. With no evidence it MUST be rejected. Edited July 12, 2014 by Waspie_Dwarf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted July 12, 2014 #113 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I googled the term "kaovencionalnom censor". Google had no idea what it means, neither do I. Yeah I also googled it and found nothing so I asked for but I`m not sure if the answer will give an answer. No, update, I`m sure the answer will not give an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted July 12, 2014 Author #114 Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) Science is looking for new answers and seek new answers not rewritten old knowledge, on the contrary. You want science to close the already published books. For experiments to spend billions and they do not get the new value, but still goes on. It is probably clear to you and to explain why the universe is dark in this topic are closer to the truth than hitherto published. Science is constantly changing and perfecting the ultimate truth. Edited July 12, 2014 by Weitter Duckss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted July 12, 2014 #115 Share Posted July 12, 2014 ...Science is constantly changing and perfecting the ultimate truth. I'm not asking about the "ultimate truth". All I want to know is the definition of "kaovencionalnom censor". What does it mean? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted July 12, 2014 #116 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I'm not asking about the "ultimate truth". All I want to know is the definition of "kaovencionalnom censor". What does it mean? I think it means evil people like you Lilly 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted July 12, 2014 #117 Share Posted July 12, 2014 "The Self-Censorship of Conventionalism." My guess. IOW, "Them syuntists cain't thank outside the box!" Harte 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted July 12, 2014 Author #118 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I We have two rooms. In the first light in the darkness of the second. In the background of both rooms is a star. In the first room there is visible matter. In another room there is invisible matter. When matter (body, etc) enters the first room is evident as you enter the next room (a tool to observe is unimportant, it is crucial that there is) ....... II We have two rooms. In the first of the water. The second matter is invisible. In the background of of both stars. In the first room light intensity (radiation) weakens the tumbled along the way. And in another room radiation weakens the tumbled along the way. In the first room to the weak intensity of the radiation decreases the heat. In another room so weak radiation intensity becomes cooler (the dark side of Mercury -100 ° Calvin, Ortov cloud -4 ° K) Sory, that I did not used the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundew Posted July 12, 2014 #119 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I don't know what is more fascinating, the discussion of color, black, light, darkness and space, or the discussion going on between Waspie and Taniwha, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted July 12, 2014 #120 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I don't know what is more fascinating, the discussion of color, black, light, darkness and space, or the discussion going on between Waspie and Taniwha, lol. There are just corrections but there is no discussion (possible) at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted July 13, 2014 #121 Share Posted July 13, 2014 It brings to mind a Great song "Black is Black I want my baby back" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted July 13, 2014 #122 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I rechecked the sky tonight, and yes its still pretty dark looking. I wonder what percentage of the universe visible light actually occupies. Or invisible light for that matter. That might give us a clue to how much of the universe darkness actually occupies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted July 13, 2014 Author #123 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I rechecked the sky tonight, and yes its still pretty dark looking. I wonder what percentage of the universe visible light actually occupies. Or invisible light for that matter. That might give us a clue to how much of the universe darkness actually occupies. In the universe is estimated at about 4% of visible matter, the rest is dark matter. 4% of the universe is bright and the rest is black, murky. When be observed the Multiverse ratio will decline to the detriment of light. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted July 13, 2014 #124 Share Posted July 13, 2014 In the universe is estimated at about 4% of visible matter, the rest is dark matter. 4% of the universe is bright and the rest is black, murky. When be observed the Multiverse ratio will decline to the detriment of light. Dark matter can not be detected by any senses, human or machine. Where is the precedence for such a phenomenom? It is therefore unscientific to just assume that it even exists at all, apart from in the ficticious imaginings of speculation we might ponder their dynamics, but i think its possible the universe is being attracted by an exterior force rather than being repelled by an internal one. It is probable that darkness has always prevailed, that nothing was all that there was to begin with. But how is it that this formula is all that was needed for the creation of everything? This has always been my favorite mystery. Empty darkness, total nothingness must be, in my view, absolutely everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted July 13, 2014 #125 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I rechecked the sky tonight, and yes its still pretty dark looking.... That does tend to happen at night. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now