Enoch2021
-
Posts
3,396 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Enoch2021
-
-
13 hours ago, VulcanLogician said:
Out of respect for your black hole thread...
What on Earth??
For the life of me, I can't understand why you're still posting.
You think you can recover and/or 'Whistle Past the Graveyard' by your Six Million Dollar Man Style Crash & Burn in your last post?
If anyone (that can 'fog a mirror') takes just a cursory look at your Trainwreck, they'll need to be Resuscitated from Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher Syndrome.
I mean, this is tantamount to the Chairman of PETA showing up for work the next day after he was Video-Taped LIVE Clubbing Baby Seals with a Nail-Spiked 44" Louisville Slugger !!!
QuoteDo you accept my challenge?
This is tantamount to General Custer exclaiming to Sitting Bull: "Do you accept my challenge?" on Jun 27, 1876.
Read this Carefully: IT'S O V E R !! mmm K?
My Word
-
On 1/14/2018 at 9:55 PM, VulcanLogician said:
Nice job picking an arbitrary definition of science and then claiming your arbitrary definition indicates a misunderstanding on my part.
Define "arbitrary"...?
What was my "arbitrary" definition, SPECIFICALLY...?
QuoteHere's another arbitrary definition from wikipedia: "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]"
1. You post a 'wiki' definition?? Are you a 'wiki'/google scientist??
2. Why is Citing 'wiki' tantamount to Citing from Public Blogs?
QuoteHo! Ho! According to this arbitrary definition
1. So you admit to posting an "Arbitrary" definition. smh
2. Moreover, do arbitrary definitions of "Science" exist?? And if they did, wouldn't that make "Science"... arbitrary, professor??
Quotescience is an "enterprise." An enterprise certainly falls under the category of "entity."
Well "Entities" have dimensions (Length/Width/Height) and in today's society have: Addresses, Email's, and Ph #'s.
So, Please post the (Length/Width/Height) and Address, Email, and Ph# of your "Enterprise" (SCIENCE)...? (You'd have better chances Resurrecting Alexander the Great's Horse!!)
QuoteAnd while I'm coasting on the merits of my arbitrary definition, I might as well point out that the article goes on to name astronomy as a science.
1. "Coasting" doesn't quite capture what you're attempting here.
2. Well since they SAY it (Ipse Dixit Fallacy); Therefore: it must be TRUE. Right?
3. astronomy isn't Science:
The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method.
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...? OR
Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds."The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.htmlUh Ohh...
"Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htmCrocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy.
By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.
QuoteThis is a strawman fashioned out of the dryest straw imaginable.
Yes and Pocahontas was a MI6 Mermaid and the mastermind behind the sinking of the Lusitania.
QuoteNobody postulates a "whirling spinning ball" without noting laws of motion, forces of gravitation etc that make it possible for celestial objects to behave in such a fashion.
1. Clearly you don't know what a Straw Man is...
Straw Man (Fallacy)- when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.htmlNot noting the "alleged" rationale behind your "Whirling Spinning Ball"... isn't a Straw Man Fallacy.
2. Show how the "Laws of Motion" Validate your "Whirling Spinning Ball" Religion...?
a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?3. "forces of gravitation"??
Which 'gravity'... Einsteinian or Newtonian ??
a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?
d. Scientifically Validate 'gravity'...? (i.e., Format it with a.b.c.d. above. Thanks!)QuoteBy leaving out scientific theories which explain how the "whirling spinning ball" model works
1. You have NO CLUE what a Scientific Theory is. Watch, Define a Scientific Theory...?
2. I merely need to state your "POSITION" (Whirling 'Spinning Ball' Religion) it is "YOUR" job to provide SUPPORTING Evidence for "YOUR" Position, not me. smh
SO...
3. Post EACH Scientific Theory SUPPORTING "your" Whirling Spinning-Ball Religion...?
For EACH Scientific Theory...
a. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...?
b. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...?
c. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...?4. 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science...
Please show "models" in The Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...?
"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY."
https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science" ...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being *'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!*
REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!!
Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments --
( Hypothesis TESTS ).
A "model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UNTESTABLE !!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!QuoteAs I said, I don't wish to debate the flat earth model.
Yes, because you'd get your Hat Handed to You.
Flat Earth isn't a "Model" (aka: Pseudo-Science).
QuoteI will, however, debate you on whether astronomy is a science or not
Oh I can't wait.
Quoteand I will do so accepting (for purposes of this argument) your assertion that a "science" is not an enterprise, but a methodology.
It's not "MY" Assertion
, Science is it's Method...
"Science is nothing more than a METHOD OF INQUIRY."
Crichton, Michael; Testimony before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (28 September 2005)The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method.
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".
The sine qua non of Hypotheses are "Independent Variables".The Final Arbiter of TRUTH in 'Science' is EXPERIMENT !!Lewars, EG: Computational Chemistry -- Introduction to the theory and application of Molecular and Quantum Mechanics; Third Edition 2016, p. 5."The only way things change in Physics is EXPERIMENTS. ...Everything is based on EXPERIMENT, that's the only way we change our mind."Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Wave Theory of Light. ( .22 second mark)
"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.
“EXPERIMENT is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is POETRY, IMAGINATION.”
Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics), Quoted in; Atkins P.W.,: Molecular Quantum Mechanics; Oxford University Press, 1983
"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
"The Scientific Method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.htmlScientific Evidence: The TESTING of a hypothesis or theory that is objective and in a controlled environment.
http://thelawdictionary.org/scientific-evidence/Get the Picture??
QuoteYou can't just proclaim that your definition is the correct one and say that I'm wrong because "you have the real definitions." To this end, I've accepted your definition as a show of good faith.)
QuoteThe only part of your definition I reject is the part about "manipulating" the observed objects. I don't think that manipulation per se is required as part of the scientific method. Wikipedia (my go to source for arbitrary definitions)...
LOL, Thanks Again!!! ...
The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method.
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".
The sine qua non of Hypotheses are "Independent Variables".EXPERIMENT: from Penn State University:
"There should be three categories of variables in EVERY EXPERIMENT:
Dependent, Independent, and Controlled."
http://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/var.htmWell then, what are: "Independent Variables" ...
"In an EXPERIMENT, the "INDEPENDENT VARIABLE" is the variable that is VARIED OR MANIPULATED by the researcher, and the dependent variable is the response that is measured.
An "INDEPENDENT VARIABLE" variable is the presumed CAUSE, whereas the dependent variable is the presumed EFFECT.
The IV is the antecedent, whereas the DV is the consequent."
http://www2.uncp.edu/home/collierw/ivdv.htmIndependent Variable -- is what is VARIED during the Experiment; it is what the investigator thinks will affect the dependent variable."
https://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/var.htmIndependent (MANIPULATED) Variable - variable CHANGED BY THE SCIENTIST; what the investigator is TESTING.
http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdf"The two main variables in an EXPERIMENT are the "INDEPENDENT" and dependent variable.
An INDEPENDENT is the variable that is CHANGED or controlled in a SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT to test the effects on the DEPENDENT VARIABLE.
https://www.thoughtco.com/i-ndpendent-and-dependent-variables-differences-606115An INDEPENDENT VARIABLE is the variable that is VARIED or MANIPULATED during an EXPERIMENT to affect change in the dependent variable.
National Science Teachers Association
https://www.ecybermission.com/files/helpdocs/Constructing a Hypothesis.pdfIn Summary...
You'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.
Quoteif I demonstrate that astronomy uses the scientific method as described above, will this count as a sufficient refutation of your position that astronomy is not a science?
It'd be easier demonstrating an Orangutan as a Facultative Anaerobe Woodpecker.
Thanks for the Laughs
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, VulcanLogician said:
I suppose a "garden variety" YEC might be one who accepts the heliocentric model and spherical earth
Have you read the critique on "Acceptance"? (Obviously Rhetorical)
Quoteplausibility of evolution
Yes, much like the 'Plausibility' of Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes.
QuoteOut of curiosity, I've looked into the flat earth model, and found its skepticism too rigorous.
That's why we can't wait to read your posts...your meticulous attention to excruciating detail of Empirical Evidence, OCD Like.
QuoteThat's not to say it's a waste of time to challenge the globe earth model.
Apparently you also skipped the PUMMELING of 'models'
in a Scientific Context or just decided to roll with the same Trainwreck Narrative and hope for the best.
QuoteScience cannot thrive unless its assumptions are challenged.
"Science" isn't an ENTITY or a result, It's a Method; The Scientific Method. "Science doesn't: "THRIVE", say, jump, run, swim, point to, or do the hokey pokey. To do such things takes, Sentience, Prescience, and Intelligence...to be ALIVE. Science isn't ALIVE; Ergo...Reification Fallacy.
QuoteIt's just not a conversation I'm interested in.
Yes, you said that before. Here's my same response: "Wise Move".
regards
-
16 hours ago, MorningGlory said:
I can get that many different responses asking for descriptions of Galveston Bay.
False Equivalence Fallacy.
The only way to make it "Equivalent" to the astroNOTS Trainwreck is to have some people describe Galveston Bay WITH WATER and others saying NO WATER
for goodness sakes.
smh
-
4 hours ago, VulcanLogician said:
Sorry, I thought he was a garden variety YEC. Thanks for the heads up.
What's a "Garden Variety"
Young Earth Creationist, pray tell...?
regards
-
4 hours ago, one.opinion said:
VulcanLogician, Enoch2021 will post a LOT of material that he uses to "KNOW" the earth is flat, doesn't move, is covered by a solid dome that contains the sun, moon, and starts, and probably a few other things that you might find bizarre. It may be a bit of a shock, but probably best that you be forewarned by me before you experience the shock of a flat earth post when it inevitably comes.
Feeble attempt at Poisoning The Well (Fallacy).
What's truly shocking and bizarre is your 'belief' in a Whirling Spinning-Ball hurling through a Fairytale Vacuum of Space at 1,907,600 mph in several different directions simultaneously without a Planck Length Sliver of Proof.
regards
-
6 hours ago, VulcanLogician said:
I'm late to the party here, but it's hardly plausible that black holes are fairy tales.
Really? Well go back to the beginning and refute my arguments.
QuoteThey were predicted long before they were observed.
Ahh, that's not a "Scientific Prediction".
Ya see, "Scientific Predictions" are the result of Independent Variables affecting Dependent Variables in Scientific Hypotheses.
Scientific Hypothesis - a special kind of PREDICTION that forecasts how the "Independent Variable" will affect the Dependent Variable.
http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdfBefore you have Scientific Hypotheses (Step 3 of The Scientific Method), you kinda gotta have OBSERVING Phenomena (Step 1 of The Scientific Method).
What you're talking about are: Jeanne Dixon, Edgar Cayce, Jimmy The Greek, Nostradamus, and Carnival Tent "Predictions".
ps. Nobody has Observed 'black holes'..."Still".
QuoteWhile it's true that whatever celestial phenomena that are being called "black holes" may turn out to be something else, it is reasonable to assume that they are what they appear to be.
So it's reasonable to assume a Fairytale even though the Fairytale may turn out to be a Fairytale?
QuoteFairy tales are made up stories. Like Hansel and Gretel. No one says that Hansel and Gretel were real historical figures, do they? No.
Correct, it's a Fairytale. The Same "Method" was used to Conjure "black holes"...Imagination.
QuoteAstronomers have made observations of phenomena in the night sky which suggests that they have a tangible existence.
Observing Phenomena is merely the First Step in The Scientific Method; So your appeal needs some work.
QuoteBTW, astronomy is science.
Yes and dark matter is created from nothing by luminescent gerbils.
Astronomy isn't Science:
The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method.
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...? OR
Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds."The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.htmlUh Ohh...
"Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htmCrocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy.
By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.
QuoteGalileo used astronomical observations to prove the heliocentric model.
1. Begging The Question (Fallacy). Scientifically Validate...
a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?2. 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science...
Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...?
"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY."
https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science" ...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!
REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!!
Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments (Hypothesis TESTS).
A "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!
QuotePlease tell me that you accept that the earth revolves around the sun.
We don't "ACCEPT" claims in Science, we Hypothesis TEST. "Accepting" is for: Propaganda States, Political science, 2nd Grade Story Time, and Religions.
Scientifically Validate that the Earth revolves around the Sun...
a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?QuoteEdit: NM. No need to respond there, buddy. I'll just be on my way.
Wise Move; However, it's a 'little late' for that buddy.
regards
-
2 hours ago, MorningGlory said:
You obviously don't understand how NASA puts photos together.
Oh I surely know how they put them together...they conjure them then add a healthy dash of PhotoShop.
QuoteOtherwise the Earth and moon would be lost in all those stars.
At least the astroNOTS "Eyewitness Testimonies" are CONSISTENT...
Question: What does the sky look like from Space??
Neil Armstrong: "The sky is DEEP BLACK as viewed from the moon as it is from cis-lunar space--the space between the Earth and the Moon."
Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14): "You have to realize that in Space without the intervening atmosphere, the heavens are 10 TIMES AS BRIGHT, Stars 10 TIMES LUMINOUS."
No problems here
Chris Hadfield ISS Commander (Interview from the ISS): "The sky is ALMOST WHITE with the light of the universe with the uncountable number of stars. You CAN'T SEE THE CONSTELLATIONS because the sky is just SO ALIVE WITH STARS."Chris Hadfield (Post ISS Mission): "What you see is an immensely DEEP BLACKNESS it's like a BLACK with texture. It's a PALPABLE BLACKNESS. Not just a BLACKNESS but a POWERFUL BLACKNESS with BLACK VELVET-NESS but textured but without any shininess, forever."
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is Blushing.
James Reilly (Astronaut): "Billions and Billions of Stars and YOU CAN SEE THEM ; in fact, they're so numerous it's VERY DIFFICULT TO PICK OUT THE CONSTELLATIONS that you and I see here on the ground. Some of the stars have color we don't see on the ground. You see these Pastel Colors: light yellows, light pinks, light oranges, even light red ones and light blue, There's ALL KINDS OF COLORS. I live in Colorado and when you get up in Colorado on a clear night up in the mountains where there's no light you can see all these Stars, well MULTIPLY THAT BY 1000 that's what it's like in Space."
Tim Peake (Interview from the ISS): "The most unexpected thing was uhmm, the BLACKNESS of Space."
Mike Massimino and Don Pettit (NASA Astronauts, Dual Interview):
Mike: "You can see the stars."
Don: "Oh Yea".
Mike: "Pretty much all the time you can see the stars."
Don: Yea, Yea. It's NOT A BLACK VOID. There's more than stars you can see planets, you can see moons. You can see zodiacal lights.
Mike: Wo. The lights of the zodiac.In summary, this fiasco rivals Laurel and Hardy.
oy vey
-
12 hours ago, Sanctum said:
Um...
It doesn't have text?
Well, where's the Source File...?
More importantly, isn't there something (in the BILLIONS) Conspicuously ABSENT in the Photo?
These...
regards
-
On 1/10/2018 at 7:32 PM, HAZARD said:
O'h no, their both rrrrrrrrround? what will the flat Earth believers do now?
Flat Earth "Knowers". We'll just
until we get the Source File.
Till then (before it goes Viral)...
Isle of Man Photo:
YouTube: Flat Earth QED - Obviously & Observably Flat.
Isle of Man Photo from Saint Bees UK (Time: 38:00 - 39:20) 'another' Spinning-Ball "KILL SHOT". Any land that appears in the Southernmost Frame (Left) MUST BE Ireland (hills, south of Dublin).
The hills south of Dublin are... 145 Miles Away.So based on LIDAR (Laser Imaging, Detection, and Ranging) Mapping:
Observer Height, Saint Bees: 52 Feet.
Target Distance: 145 Miles.
Target Hidden: 2.36 MILES !!!Based on Ordnance Survey Mapping:
Observer Height, Saint Bees: 131 Feet (40 Meters).
Target Distance: 145 Miles.
Target Hidden: 2.16 MILES !!!Take your pick.
The End.(Special Thanks to Chris Monk who 'modelled' the the pic and overlays in Blender.)
regards
-
1
-
-
On 1/10/2018 at 5:48 PM, Sanctum said:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=91494
This is a better link. It's a beautiful image, really puts things in perspective.
Can you please post the Source File. The one without the TEXT.
regards
-
On 1/11/2018 at 3:20 PM, MorningGlory said:
This is not a court of law and we are not attornies.
Hence the word "Tantamount".
It's called an "Analogy", and it's "Right On Point".
QuoteThe above makes no sense.
Really?? Now, you have to SUPPORT your charge...
So post the Syllogism then INVALIDATE it...? If not, then your charge has as much veracity as your 'black hole' appeal.
QuoteWould you like to comment on the TOPIC of this thread
I did, multiple times. There's only so many ways I can Illustrate that 'black holes' are Fairytales.
QuoteTruth is what it is; you DO post the same things over and over again.
Your appeal here is tantamount to a Defense Attorney appealing to the Jury by saying, "The Prosecutor just keeps on repeating the same things over and over again: Fingerprints on The Murder Weapon, DNA of the perpetrator (my client) underneath the victims fingernails, CCT capturing my client in the very act of murder...but, since the Prosecutor hasn't revealed anything NEW; Therefore, my client is INNOCENT !!!"
Try posting different arguments and you'll get different answers.
regards
-
19 hours ago, MorningGlory said:
You just post the same stuff over and over again.
Your appeal here is tantamount to a Defense Attorney appealing to the Jury by saying, "The Prosecutor just keeps on repeating the same things over and over again: Finger Prints on The Murder Weapon, DNA of the perpetrator (my client) underneath the victims fingernails, CCT capturing my client in the very act of murder...but, since the Prosecutor hasn't revealed anything NEW; Therefore, my client is INNOCENT !!!"
regards and Thanks Again
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, da_man1974 said:
Do you have proof of this?
Nope, That's The "POINT". It matches the veracity of this claim...
"the fact remains that when people answer his "numbered questions", he refuses the answers unless they agree with his own!"
Does he have any PROOF of this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??
Understand?
regards
-
17 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:
He can demand all the live long day
Yes I will. I will continually demand SUPPORT for "Just-So" Stories that are PARROTED from 'wiki'.
Quotethe fact remains that when people answer his "numbered questions", he refuses the answers unless they agree with his own!
Yes and Pocahontas was a MI6 Mermaid and the mastermind behind the sinking of the Lusitania.
Show ONE Case (Just "ONE") in SUPPORT of your Conjured Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare' Assertion Fallacy here...?
QuoteNo matter what anyone says, he simply repeats the same
Yes, because The Scientific Method...doesn't CHANGE.
QuoteThat's not being rational, reasonable or logical, and why I really don't bother much replying to him directly anymore.
So it's: Irrational, Unreasonable, and Illogical to request SUPPORT for PARROTED wiki' Fairytales, eh?
You don't bother replying much because you've gotten your Hat Handed to You every single time you have replied.
QuoteMy post was for those who would consider the evidence carefully
Your post was for those that wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on their heads, spun around, and whistled dixie.
Quoteand see that it points not only to an all-powerful Creator God, but a very creative and artistic one as well.
So since you can't SUPPORT your 'wiki' PARROTED Fairytales your reduced to assigning their Existence to God??
QuoteHow humbling for man to see that he isn't "the center of the universe"!
Man is at the CENTER of the 'Universe', it's called GEOCENTRISM. And God even told you, that it's: Flat/Non Spinning/Domed/Geocentric.
But you 'believe' it's HELIOCENTRIC (aka: Sun Worshipping) in lieu of God's WORD then assigning 'wiki' PARROTED Fairytales to HIM.
QuoteAnd how beautiful to consider the care and precision the lord had in His design of the Solar System.
Like I said, "Solar System" (aka: Sun Worshipping). What on EARTH !!! Can you show ONE Scripture than REMOTELY IMPLIES a "Solar System"...?
regards
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:
He doesn't.
"Who" doesn't "What"...?
QuoteMeantime, there is a huge glaring hole in the assertion that the earth is flat: the color of the sun.
Really? "WHO" made that Assertion specifically?
QuoteThe "flat earth" model states
1. Straw Man Fallacy: There is No Flat Earth "Model".
2. Even if there was, it's only a "Concept"; Inanimate Concepts don't "State" anything because they're Inanimate. Ergo...Reification Fallacy.
Quotethat the sun is "32 miles wide and 3000 miles above the surface of the earth". This would put the sun well under the size of Jupiter, which is 86,881.4 miles wide.
Begging The Question (Fallacy): Scientifically Validate the Size of the Sun and Jupiter...?
QuoteJupiter is classified as a "failed star", as it did not achieve ignition even though it contained the same elements as the sun. This is due to the fact that Jupiter simply does not have the mass to achieve the nuclear fusion that the sun did, thus lacking the internal temperature and pressure needed to do so. Nuclear fusion must have a minimum pressure and temperature in order to begin the fusion of atoms (i.e. hydrogen into helium and so forth), without which, you do not have a star.
That's a Nice Story ("Just So" type).
So you're saying the Sun is a Nuclear Fusion Reactor, eh? Well then...
'Allegedly', the sun has an Inner Core Temperature of 15 Million Kelvin. The outer surface of the Sun (PhotoSphere) is ~ 5800 Kelvin. On its way to and through the Chromosphere, the temp slowly rises THEN... GOES PARABOLIC from 10,000K to 500,000K when nearing the Corona; THEN:
1 Million K - 10 Million K !!I suppose the fairytale Pseudo-Science Priests collectively missed the Lectures on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; Heat really does flow UP 'parabolic' HILLS! lol
This is tantamount to standing near a Wood Stove then moving back 500 meters because it's too hot...then you
Spontaneously Combust !!!!!
Please Reconcile...?
Biblically speaking, are Stars Suns??
QuoteBut according to the "flat earth model", the sun is a star and shines, even though it could not possess anywhere near the mass that Jupiter did under that "model".
1. Again, there is no Flat Earth "Model"; Ergo...Straw Man Fallacy (x2).
2. Non Sequitur Fallacy. Your Premise ("Just So" Story) that the Sun is a essentially a Nuclear Fusion Reactor has been FALSIFIED (SEE: above); Ergo... your conclusion is Nonsensical and Invalid.
3. Begging The Question (Fallacy). You're putting the cart before the horse (without a Cart or a Horse). Scientifically Validate Jupiter's Mass...
a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...???????
QuoteFurther, at just 32 miles wide, it also could not contain the needed fuel reserves to burn as long as it has. The sun is a "G-type main-sequence star (Spectral type: G-V)". This type of star, called a "Main Sequence Star", usually has about 0.84 to 1.15 solar masses and surface temperature of between 5,300 and 6,000 K as the parameters for the series.
More "Just So" Stories:
Scientifically Validate EACH: Stars are Suns, "Main Sequence Stars", Solar Masses, 0.84 to 1.15 solar masses, Surface Temps...
a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?QuoteThis is proven by its' color
Begging The Question (Fallacy): Scientifically Validate (SEE: Steps Above).
It's becoming quite apparent that you're having a difficult time discerning the difference between "Science" and "Just-So" Stories. It's all in 'The Method':
"Science"-- Method: The Scientific Method.
Fairytale "Just-So" Stories--Method: Imagination.
Follow? Now go back and Scientifically Validate ALL of your "Just-So" Stories and start OVER. K?
QuoteAnother concern with a "flat earth" model: The gravity...
1. Another Straw Man Fallacy: "Model".
2. 'gravity'
?? Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??
a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?
d. Scientifically Validate 'gravity'...?QuoteAnd while I expect Enoch2021 to attempt to rip this apart, he simply cannot.
I 'simply', just did
QuoteNo matter how much "evidence" he tries to post, he cannot argue with established facts in 1. astronomy, 2. physics, 3. chemistry and science as a whole.
1. astronomy isn't "Science".
2. Post a "Physics Proof" that the Earth is Flat (or a "Spinning-Ball")...
a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?3. Post a "Chemistry Proof"
that the Earth is Flat (or a "Spinning-Ball")...
a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?In summary:
Every Single Conclusion (Directly/Indirectly) you've arrived at here in your 'treatise', rests on your Fallacious (Scientifically Falsified) Premise of the Sun being a "Nuclear Fusion Reactor"
. Ergo...each conclusion is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy).
regards
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, da_man1974 said:
So this is elephant hurling. Got it.
Ahh NO. Your 'link' was an Elephant Hurling Fallacy.
QuoteThe fallacy of elephant hurling, arises when the debater start to amassing huge quotes, accumulating a large amount of evidence supposedly supporting his position, to give the impression of weighty evidence, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support his argument. The debater has the undeclared assumption that accumulating a great deal of evidence out of context would make his ideas seem true.
Yes. Here it is Officially...
Elephant Hurling (Fallacy): a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that the evidence does indeed support the argument.
http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Elephant_hurlingExactly what you did.
regards
-
Just now, da_man1974 said:
Did you read it?
Yes, many times in the past.
QuoteCan you refute those proofs?
Yes, right after you Refute MY PROOFS that you requested.
You don't ask WHY...then when provided PROOFS, DIVERT (Red Herring Fallacy) with an Elephant Hurling Fallacy asking other questions that you've merely parroted. K?
regards
-
44 minutes ago, da_man1974 said:
What on Earth is this?
How does your Elephant Hurling Fallacy here refute any of the Proofs I posted?
regards
-
Just now, da_man1974 said:
How do you know they are lying?
Flat:
1. "The salar de Uyuni in the Bolivian Andes is the largest salt flat on Earth, exhibiting LESS THAN 1 M OF VERTICAL RELIEF over an area of 9000 km2" ..."Longer wavelengths in the DEM [Digital Elevation Model] correlate well with mapped gravity, suggesting a connection between broad-scale salar topography and the geoid similar to that seen over the oceans."
Borsa A. A., et al: Topography of the salar de Uyuni, Bolivia from kinematic GPS; Geophysical Journal International Volume 172, Issue 1, p. 31-40 http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/172/1/31.full
This is a Geometrical Flat Plane.
You can have a myriad of Topographical Features on a Sphere: Mountains, Ridges, Saddles, Spurs, Depressions, ect ect; Ya know what you CAN'T HAVE (??) ...
"A Geometrical Flat Plane"
And this one is over *"9000 km2"!!!!*
Therefore, how can you Blindly Adhere to a Sphere that has one of it's Foundational Tenets "Vertical Drop" and yet at the SAME TIME have a FLAT PLANE with less than *1 METER VERTICAL DROP* over 9000 km2, pray tell??
** The Entire Globe Charade is actually OVER right here.
2. Sea Sparrow (NATO):
"Bistatic, semiactive seekers in the nose of a missile receive a reflected signal from a target that is being “illuminated” with an RF signal transmitted from a fire control radar on a stand-off platform (e.g., aircraft, ship). Such systems REQUIRE that the platform maintain LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) to the target until it is engaged by the missile. Ship-based standard missile (SM) and NATO Seasparrow AAW missiles are examples of such a semiactive mode." http://m.eet.com/media/1111959/819_radar3.pdfRange is MORE THAN 35 Miles ( http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/ ).The target is "Illuminated" with a 2° Pencil Beam (RF) which has to be maintained "Painted" on the target until detonation. At a more than generous 80 Feet Elevation above Sea LEVEL (Tracking Radar Height), the target should be hidden behind 385 Feet of Curvature.Please explain how you can have Line of Site (LOS) 35 Miles Away on a "Spinning-Ball" by showing how an 2° RF Pencil Beam can penetrate 385 Feet (117 METERS) of Target Hidden Height through a WALL OF WATER 24 MILES in Length...?? (ps. 35 miles is "Low Balling": (The 'Official' Max Effective Range is Classified ---- i.e. it's MUCH MUCH greater than 35 Miles!).So Either ...
A. The NATO Sea Sparrow Exists, OR...
B. The Spinning-Ball Religion Exists.
BOTH can't be TRUE !!! Savvy?
3. Flight: Since the Earth is, as we're TOLD, a Sphere 25,000 miles in circumference... radius 3959 miles, then Pilots traveling @ a typical cruising speed of 500 mph --- to simply maintain altitude, would constantly have to adjust their altitude downwards, (to Compensate for the Curvature) and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!!
500 miles2 x 8 inches/12 inches = 166,666 Feet of curvature ---Total Drop needed in one hour to Maintain Altitude.
166,666 feet/60 minutes = 2777 feet per minute altitude descent to Maintain Altitude.
A flippin Roller Coaster would be placid serenity(!!) in comparison. The nose of the plane on a typical flight would never get above horizontal, save for takeoff.
4. Not "Spinning":
For the Coriolis Effect to Exist, you MUST HAVE (i.e., the "Necessary Conditions"): 1. Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) --- The Earth and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial)-- The Atmosphere ...and anything in it)...
"CC.12 The Coriolis Effect:
When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [Atmosphere] and WATER masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to
ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY.
Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an apparent deflection called the “Coriolis effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth."
Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html
In other words, anything not "Tethered" to the Earth is 'Freely Moving'.
2. The Object in question not Physically Attached to the Rotating Coordinate System appears to deflect (i.e., Moves Independently of the Rotating Coordinate System) from the vantage point anywhere on the rotating coordinate system -- aka: the 'Coriolis Effect'.
So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*)
Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph.
So in my example:
1. Two differing Frames of Reference: (Earth and Atmosphere -- and everything in it) 2. The Plane in the Atmosphere is "Freely Moving" (not attached) to the Rotating Coordinate System and is flying in a straight path. In other words, Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction each (The Coriolis Effect and the Charlotte Flight at 1.5 hours) are either: Both TRUE or Both FALSE.
The Flight is most assuredly FALSE!!
In conclusion, the Earth is *NOT* "Spinning"; ERGO..."The Ball" goes by way of the DoDo Bird or you're a Stationary Ball Geo-Centrist. Voila.
The only way the above can be refuted is if you're of the position that the Atmosphere 'spins' with the Earth. So then:
1. Please explain how the Coriolis Effect can EXIST when the NECESSARY CONDITIONS for it to EXIST are Two Differing Coordinate Systems (Reference Frames) -- One Rotating --"Earth" and One Non-Rotating-- the "Atmosphere" and everything in it...?
2. Show the Experiment where 'Gases'/Gas rotate in Lock-Step with a Rotating Solid Body just 5 cm above the surface, then provide the mechanism....?
3. Please explain "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds...?
(Bonus Question: How you can have different wind speeds and directions simultaneously at differing elevations of the atmosphere while the atmosphere is collectively 'spinning' East, in Unison...?)
btw, These are Contradictory Statements:
1. The Atmosphere 'spins' in Lock-Step with the Earth.
2. The Existence of "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds.
Which do you think is FALSE?
MOREOVER, following the 'yarn'... Every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere traveling horizontally from the equator to the center of rotationMUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds; and every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere rising in elevation from each respective horizontal Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere MUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds (In fact, the higher the elevation... the faster they'll need to travel to keep up !!); and all of this rolling along at differing speeds... in Unison, EAST??
This is so far beyond Preposterous Ludicrousness Absurdity, 'evolution' (whatever that is??) and Multiverses... are BLUSHING!!
AND, does anyone know how far up this 'Increasing Speed' Rope-A-Dope Fairytale Spinning Atmosphere ENDS?? I'd like to see that...it'll give a Whole New Meaning to Guillotine "WIND SHEAR"!! Goodness Gracious People.
ps. Are the Gas Molecules attached to each other by: Velcro?? Glue?? Pixie Dust?? Other?? And where is the energy coming from for the continuous "Shot in the Arm" injections needed to keep each successive Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere higher elevation brethren in tow?
Alice in Wonderland is more tenable than the "Spinning-Ball" religion.
5. Vacuum of Space:
1. How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When...
"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER".
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html
Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"...WITHOUT THE TIRE !!!
2. How can you have a Vacuum (Outer-Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) WITHOUT a Physical Barrier in the same system simultaneously, without Bludgeoning to a Bloody Pulp... the Laws of Entropy (2LOT) ??
a. In other words, How are you still Breathing and adhering to the fairytale 'Narrative'... BOTH, at the same time??
b. Then, Define the Law of Non-Contradiction...?
c. Then, please list each fairytale associated with "Outer-Space" that gets taken out back to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned Senseless as a result of the fairytale "Vacuum of Space" VAPORIZING....?
3. Have you ever heard: "Nature Abhors a Vacuum", by chance? Why is that...?
If you can't provide Coherent/Substantive Falsifications of the 5 PROOFS above then your Globe Earth Position is UNTENABLE. And the "astroNOTS" are lying.
It's just that simple.
Capisce?
QuoteYou know when you point the finger at someone else you have 3 fingers pointing back at you.
Memes aren't coherent arguments or positions.
regards
-
1 minute ago, MorningGlory said:
It is a series of photographs that are merged by the software to form a better image. You are seriously living in an alternate universe if you don't believe ANYTHING that contradicts your flat earth theory, Enoch. I prefer to live in the real one.
If you believe that this...
... is a Photograph
Which is beyond "Mind Numbing"...then you "Cherry-On-Top" it with an Ad Hom, then there's really not much left to say.
regards
-
4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:
Incorrect, you "BELIEVE" it.
1. This is out of context: My answer was to the question: "Do you believe the universe had a beginning."
2. I don't "BELIEVE" it, I "KNOW" it. (SEE: the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)
QuoteNothing short of direct proof of the edge of the non-spinning, stationary disk, or the walls of the firmament will allow you to "KNOW" it.
I've already given you the answers to these questions:
QuoteOn the other hand, there are hundreds of people that have been in spacecraft and orbited the roughly spherical earth.
They're demonstrable liars; and they have ZERO Evidence for their 'Spinning-Ball' Religion.
regards
-
7 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:
Yes.
Ahhh this...
is NOT a Photograph.
QuoteDid you read the article?
Yes.
QuotePhotographs are enhanced to bring extremely distant objects into focus.
As mentioned, the above Cartoon is NOT a Photograph. Simple
regards
-
32 minutes ago, Mike Mclees said:
Do you believe that the universe had a beginning.
For the 3rd Time: Yes. And I "KNOW" it, I don't need to believe it.
QuoteThe planets and stars we see now and God created them.
Is this a question?
Are Stars, Suns?
Quotewhat was there before he created them.
What was "Where"?
QuoteWas it empty space void of all objects?
Again: There was no "Space"..."Space" is something.
regards
Distant black hole holds surprises about the early universe
in Science and Faith
Posted
Yes let's Ignore him, Mainly Due To: Sojourner 414 Pummeling
Factually Incorrect:
For you to be able to ascertain the "Time" component, you *MUST KNOW* the..."One-Way" Speed of Light.
“It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.”
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), pp. 22–23.
Regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“That light requires THE SAME TIME to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality NEITHER A SUPPOSITION NOR A HYPOTHESIS about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of *MY OWN FREEWILL* in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.”
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23.
Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.
Unless you can explicitly identify "A Knower" @ the source of this Light (Photons)....who also "observed" it's entire 'path', AND the "observer" who first identified it here on Earth and RECORDED it (Date and Time stamped) THEN, you're gonna have to provide....
1. Factually Incorrect: Begging The Question Fallacy (SEE: "Speed of Light" above).
2. Even granting... for the sake of argument, your Erroneous Speed of Light, you MUST VALIDATE the Distance to the Sun.
Go ahead...? (Please Rigorously Define ALL Terms)
Hogwash!! Falsified Above.
Hogwash!! Falsified Above.
Who Cares, astronomy isn't "Science" !! ...
The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method.
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".
Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...? OR
Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?
"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.
"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
Uh Ohh...
"Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm
Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy.
By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.
Simply put: FAIRYTALE. (SEE: Falsification Above)
Simply put: FAIRYTALE.
Black Holes don't EXIST!!
1. Scientifically Validate Black Holes...
a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?
2. Black Holes were conjured from the "DeBunked" Mytho-matheMagics of Einstein's Field Equations...
'Black Holes were first discovered as purely mathematical solutions of Einstein's field equations. This solution, the Schwarzschild black hole, is a nonlinear solution of the Einstein equations of general Relativity. It contains no matter, and exists forever in an asymptotically flat space-time."
Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy, pg 55
"It contains no matter"
oh my, come again? "and exists forever"... in the Imagination.
Translation: Fairytale
Can you show us one?
If you can't show one, can you please at least show ONE Solution to ANY of Einstein's "DeBunked" Mytho-matheMagical Field Equations for 2 or more masses?
I'll save you some time... It Doesn't Exist !
Listen to this Contradictory Nonsense folks...
LOL. So the Black Hole (
) takes in gas and releases the energy as EMR (Light); BUT... Light cannot escape Black Holes !!! 
But Alas, Just when we thought the astrophysicists couldn't be any Dumber, they go ahead and do something like this and TOTALLY REDEEM THEMSELVES...
So the escaping energy (From INSIDE the Black Hole) is generated OUTSIDE the Black Hole, eh?
Makes Perfect Sense!
Stay Tuned Next Week, The World Premier: Reconciling Married Bachelors.
ps. gravitational stresses ??
Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??
a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?
d. Scientifically Validate 'gravity'...? i.e., ...
1. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
2. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
3. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
4. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?
ps2: (Minor Detail) Black Hole Universes and Big Bang Universes (4 Different Types LOL) are Mutually Exclusive:
Black Holes: No k-curvature.
Big Bangs: k-curvature.
Black Holes: Spatially Infinite.
Big Bangs: Spatially Finite (k=1), or Infinite (k=-1, or k=0).
Black Holes: Eternal (No Age).
).
Big Bangs: 13.8 Billion Years Old (this week
Black Holes: Not Expanding.
Big Bangs: Expanding.
Black Holes: Asymptotically Flat.
Big Bangs: Not Asymptotically Anything.
Black Holes: Contains Only 1 Mass.
Big Bangs: Contains Many Masses.
Please Explain Star Formation in the Context of: the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Boyle's Gas Law, and Jeans Mass...?
pssst ...
STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt:
"Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them."
Sun And Stars, p.111
It's "difficult" theoretically and "theoretical evidence argues STRONGLY against it" --because it takes 2LOT/Boyle's Gas Law/and Jeans Mass to the Woodshed and Bludgeons Them Senseless!! Scientifically, for the postulate to be true: is logically tantamount to cutting off your legs to prevent athlete's foot.
"The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together gravitationally to become a protostar is not known. In quantitative work, it has simply been assumed that the number of atoms per cm3 has somehow increased about a thousand-fold over that in a dense nebula. The two principal factors inhibiting the formation of a protostar are that the gas has a tendency to disperse [ ERRR...The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) !!! ] before the density becomes high enough for self-gravitation [ Which 'gravity' einSHtienian or newtonian, love??] to be effective, and that any initial angular momentum would cause excessively rapid rotation as the material contracts. Some mechanism [ That DIRECTLY VIOLATES 2LOT and Boyle's Gas Law!!! ] must therefore be provided for gathering the material into a sufficiently small volume that self-gravitation [ that doesn't exist ] may become effective, and... the angular momentum must in some way be removed."
Novotny, E: Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), Oxford University Press, pp. 279-280.
"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."
Geoffrey Burbidge; Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory. Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002
"There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains in space gas clouds can condense."
Hoyle, F., Wickramasinghe, C: "Where Microbes Boldly Went," in New Scientist (1981), pp. 412-413.
Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, says:
“The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.”
Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.
Yea, THE TRUTH is Abraham --- WILLFUL IGNORANCE (!!), you don't understand it ...because it's Directly Violates The Laws of Quantum Mechanics, Boyle's Gas Law, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics !!!!
So you've chosen to 'Whistle past the Graveyard' and float a feigned Argument to Ignorance (Fallacy) --- with an 'Implied' Argument to the Future (Fallacy), wrapped around its incoherent ankles to keep your Mind Numbing "Just So" Story Fairytales ALIVE !!!
And the 64,000 Dollar Question:
Are Stars, SUNS ??
If so, Book/Chapter/Verse Please...?
We won't know HOW it was made... in this life, but we know WHO made it.
regards