JEROME - Life and Linear Time

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Faith is blind.




Ohh, now you are admitting that there were accurate predictions of the temp outside of BBT. Good to know that you are honest at least.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the nature of those temperature predictions.

I do not expect you to have actually researched them after the fission/fusion fiasco that you now refuse to acknowledge.

Those older predictions... Some of them did come very close to getting the number correct, but they were not looking for an isotropic CMBR, they were looking for a localized temperature in space, in our neighborhood of the universe.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
He failed, you can try to change that all you want, it will not change. I am sorry that all the back-slapping went for naught when it was discovered that he failed. I understand that those that back-slapped feel the failure themselves when the truth is presented.




How can you not support the idea that BBT is also a failed idea outside of make-believe factors?
Click to expand...

ROFL...

So you still think that all of those things that Sol mentioned dealt with fission instead of fusion reactions?

You are utterly beyond help if you cannot get an encyclopedia and look up the Hydrogen bomb.
 
Gate2501 said:
You don't seem to understand the nature of those temperature predictions.

I do not expect you to have actually researched them after the fission/fusion fiasco that you now refuse to acknowledge.

Those older predictions... Some of them did come very close to getting the number correct, but they were not looking for an isotropic CMBR, they were looking for a localized temperature in space, in our neighborhood of the universe.
Click to expand...

And the relevence to BBT not accurately predicting the temp?

Are you even on the same page?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Sorry, I have not presented a thoery. I am talking about discounting the BBT which is only held up on make-believe ideas at this point.
Click to expand...


"Yes.

Universe.

We have no evidence of linear time on the universal scale, we have no evidence of a beginning of time. Think eternity backwards as well as forwards."

That sounds like a theory to me.


You believe the BBT? If so, you are going to have to beleive that 99% of the universe in unknown, unexplainable, and unmeasurable. Do you believe that?
Click to expand...


You seem to be confusing the BBT with a theory of everything. Of course there is still plenty we don't know and may never know, to say that invalidates the BBT is a non sequiter.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Big Bang advocates often claim that the discovery of the CMB is conclusive proof of their theory, history shows that there is a long line of predictions, previous to those made by big bang theorists; none of which needed an expanding universe; and most predicted the value with far greater accuracy. The CMB temperature has no preference for one theory or the other, and so can not be used as conclusive proof of any particular model.

Guilluame, 1896, 6.1 Kelvin, Non expanding universe.

Eddington, 1926, 3.2 Kelvin, Non expanding universe.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Oh dear.

To quote:
In the first page of this chapter, Eddington computes an effective temperature of 3.18 K, but this has nothing to do with the 2.725 K blackbody spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).
Click to expand...
and
The near equality of the energy densities of starlight (Eddington's blue curve) and the CMB is just a coincidence.
Click to expand...

Any comments Zeuzzz?
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
He failed, you can try to change that all you want, it will not change. I am sorry that all the back-slapping went for naught when it was discovered that he failed. I understand that those that back-slapped feel the failure themselves when the truth is presented.




How can you not support the idea that BBT is also a failed idea outside of make-believe factors?
Click to expand...
I'm terribly sorry Jerome, I didn't realise you had "THE TRUTH". Hey all you sciencey guys, you can stop doing your sciencey stuff now. Jerome has "THE TRUTH". Don't worry though, Home Depot is hiring.
 
Ok Jerome.

Time for a little fun, because the CMB bit is completely wooshing over your head.

You have now repeated called out another poster as "failing" because he said that Hydrogen bombs produce a fusion reaction. You claim that they are fission weapons, not fusion.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0824719.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/h-bomb.htm

http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/phy03/sci/phys/matter/fusionbomb/index.html

There is my evidence.

Read it.

Learn.

If you do think that all of these sources are incorrect, then please do tell:

What is going on when a Hydrogen Bomb detonates?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are presenting once again that you have little knowledge of your strongly held beliefs.
Click to expand...

Seriously Jerome, you are making a fool of yourself. It is transparently obvious to everyone that you are simply unable to present alternative theories because you are only pretending to know what you are writing about.
 
Civilized Worm said:
"Yes.

Universe.

We have no evidence of linear time on the universal scale, we have no evidence of a beginning of time. Think eternity backwards as well as forwards."

That sounds like a theory to me.
Click to expand...
It's not. Jerome, in over 200 responses on this topic, has never really come out and stated what he beleives, except that he believes that time and space are eternal in all directions. He has presented no supporting evidence for this, but he has taken great glee in trying to demolish anything anyone else has said (with epic fail in the case of fusion).

So I am forced to conclude that Jerome actually doesn't have any beliefs, let alone understanding, about what science can tell us about the origins of the universe. He's a serial denier, and that's all. He gets his jollies out of contradicting people, and there is nothing more to it than that.
 
Hindmost said:
this is going to stir the black hole...

It takes a fission weapon to ignite a fusion bomb...experiments have been done to make pure fusion weapon using lasers and other techniques but no real application yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb

but not in the sun.

glenn
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you notice back on page 4, on the very first post I made after Jerome went nutter on Sol about the fission/fusion, I said :


Gate2501 said:
You have failed to research even the most simple of his examples, the Hydrogen Bomb.

A fission trigger may be used, but the hydrogen bomb ends in a fusion reaction.

When you call fail on someone without even researching the material...

Epic Fail happens.
Click to expand...

So this has already been pointed out to good old JdG.
 
Gate2501 said:
Yeah, if you notice back on page 4, on the very first post I made after Jerome went nutter on Sol about the fission/fusion, I said :




So this has already been pointed out to good old JdG.
Click to expand...

d'oh...missed it...I MADE A MISTAKE.

maybe it will be catching.

glenn
 
Hindmost said:
It takes a fission weapon to ignite a fusion bomb...experiments have been done to make pure fusion weapon using lasers and other techniques but no real application yet.
Click to expand...

True, but actually we have other ways to generate fusion (using tokamaks for example). If you really wanted to you could probably ignite an uncontrolled fusion reaction that way.

I wouldn't recommend trying it, though.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
He failed, you can try to change that all you want, it will not change.
Click to expand...

Failed at what?? At you not understanding the difference between fusion and fission?


ETA:

Jerome, you continue to try and label people as "dogmatic, Holding to a faith, blind devotion to science." While you may think that this is a clever posting tactic, it really only exposes the shallowness of your argument. I hope that you will realize your error and learn/grow from it.
 
Last edited:
Jerome,

While I owe you thanks for making me look up things you threw out there that I had never studied, I am now simply sad. I did get frustrated earlier when it seemed you were unable to learn. I like to think that people can learn if only they get the right information. But the fission/fusion thing, while funny at the surface now simply screams intellectual dishonesty. It makes me sad to give up on someone. Wollery, et al have made factual mistakes. When pointed out, they admitted them.
Would that you had the same honesty and maturity.

CT
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Pages of personal insults and no rational defense of BBT.
Click to expand...
Okey dokey ...

Perhaps the problem is that no one (other than yourself) understands what you mean, when you write "rational defense of BBT"?

It's abundantly clear that you have your own, personal, view of what "BBT" means, and what "rational" means, and what "defense" means.

However, I suggest that it's almost as clear that almost no one who's posted in this thread agrees with your personal, private meanings of these key terms (assuming that they even know what these meaning are, which I very much doubt).

Maybe you could save a great many more pages by providing for us, all readers of this thread, with what you, JEROME DA GNOME, mean when you use the terms "BBT", "rational", and "defense"?

And while you're at it, how about answering my earlier questions, about "evidence" and "fusion"?
 
Last edited:
Jerome:
In summary, 1 poster accidently states that BBT predicted the precise temperature of the CMB. But there were various predictions of the temperature of the background temperature of the universe. You leap on this and say that BBT is wrong because it did not predict the exact temperature of the CMB. The original poster has said that they were wrong and BBT predicted the CMB but that there were various estimates of the CMB temperature.
This is support for BBT and any other theories that predicted a CMB.

So what is your issue?
 
Yes. I'd be interested to know what Jerome would consider a "rational defence". I've seen lots of evidence for the big bang theory posted to this thread - supported with links to journals and reputable sources. So I have this additional question.

Jerome - what kind of evidence would you consider to be sufficient enough to convince you? I understand that our mere say-so isn't enough. Peer-reviewed articles are apparently not enough either.

If the only way to convince you is to physically take you back in time so that you can watch it happen, then please say that. If you're that convinced that only direct observation of the event would convince you, then I and others can stop bothering you. Because in that case nothing would be sufficient and our efforts are futile.

Please Jerome - what would you like us to do?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Pages of personal insults and no rational defense of BBT.
Click to expand...
Pages of posts and still no ability to admit a mistake.

Pages of hand-waving and still claiming (implication of statement, even if you somehow claim you have made no claim) that the majority of scientists are irrational or lying.

Pages of misrepresenting mathematics and Phil's statements on BBT, and still no willingingness to back them up.

And now you are stuck in a rut, claiming that you are being insulted and refusing to answer the simplest of questions.

:(

CT
 
arthwollipot said:
If the only way to convince you is to physically take you back in time so that you can watch it happen
Click to expand...

Mmmm....I wouldn't recommend that procedure...

Besides the fact there there would be no space to sit in to watch it, I wouldn't imagine that the environmental conditions would be very compatible with human life.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.
Click to expand...

JEROME DA GNOME said:
He failed, you can try to change that all you want, it will not change.
Click to expand...

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I still don't understand. Your only justification presented on this point is that he confused fission with fusion, of which ample evidence has been presented that he did not.

How, then, did he fail? What is your reasoning?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom