• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pixie of key fantasizes about science - item 102

Pixie of key said:
"In addition, the astronomers found that massive galaxies were more plentiful than had been thought. Galaxies that were previously hidden make up half of the total number of massive galaxies present when the Universe was between 1.1 and 1.5 billion years old. These new results, however, contradict current models of how galaxies evolved in the early Universe, which do not predict any monster galaxies at these early times.

To complicate things further, if massive galaxies are unexpectedly dustier in the early Universe than astronomers predict then even UltraVISTA wouldn't be able to detect them. If this is indeed the case, the currently-held picture of how galaxies formed in the early Universe may also require a complete overhaul."


http://m.phys.org/news/2015-11-vista-earliest-giant-galaxies.html
Click to expand...
Of course ignorance of science and English leads to you to lie about a "new theory for everything", Pixie of key, as expected from a Finnish physics crackpot with no known mathematical ability, little knowledge of physics shown, lots of hand waving and some primitive videos.
This article is about the formation of galaxies in the early universe.
 
Pixie of key fantasizes about science - item 103

Pixie of key said:
http://m.phys.org/news/2015-11-power...ack-holes.html

"CfA astronomer Ramesh Narayan and his colleague have discovered an alternative explanation for the driving mechanism of the jets. Instead of rotation-powered, magnetically dominated jets, they find that non-spinning black holes can also drive powerful jets by means of the intense radiation emitted by hot gas. The gravity of the black hole attracts the radiation, which becomes concentrated enough that its pressure can drive the jet's particles at speeds up to about half the speed of light, at least under appropriate disk geometries.

Their result provides an alternative explanation for some puzzling astrophysical observations. Ultraluminous X-ray sources around the sky are thought to arise around black holes of about ten solar-masses in size, but the models can't explain the energetics of all of the observations unless the X-ray emission is emitted in narrow beams rather than isotropically. In the new alternative scenario, in which radiation drives the jets, the source naturally emits particles in narrow beams."
Click to expand...
You read the article wrong. This is a mechanism to produce jets from non-spinning black holes.
What explanation does a Finnish physics crackpot with no known mathematical ability, little knowledge of physics shown, lots of hand waving and some primitive videos have for the driving mechanism of jets from black holes? Could it be EternalGibberish, EternalFantasy or EternalIgnorance, Pixie of key :p?
 
abaddon said:
You continue to cite phys.org as though it in some way supports you despite the fact that it proves you wrong at every turn.

Is it a language problem or what?
Click to expand...


I think he believes that his non specific ideas explain whatever new and non-entirely explained phenomenon or observation.
Pixie of key's 'explanation' basically amounts to: Gods did it.
 
Last edited:
Daylightstar said:
I think he believes that his non specific ideas explain whatever new and non-entirely explained phenomenon or observation.
Pixie of key's 'explanation' basically amounts to: Gods did it.
Click to expand...

No no no!

Movement is eternal!

We dont need gods!

Just movement / pushing force!

It is eternal recycling!

33
rakkautta
:)
 
Pixie of key said:
No no no!

Movement is eternal!

We dont need gods!

Just movement / pushing force!

It is eternal recycling!

33
rakkautta
:)
Click to expand...

Aren't gods eternal? Would gods not recycle?

That's just the thing Pixie of key if you want to try to explain everything with "Just movement / pushing force!" then you are ascribing it god like or magical properties. As we know the stress and strain on materials are different depending on if the applied forces are pushing it (compressing) or pulling (extending) it, again try the rope experiment I suggested and let us know what you find. If you do, again, you will find that certain materials and configurations of materials (like ropes and chains) work great at pulling things but poorly at pushing them. That we can and many times have to make material and configuration selections based on the forces involved (pushing or pulling) demonstrates that the difference between the two is not simply a matter of convention but actually an aspect of the dynamics of the materials to which those forces are applied.
 
The Man said:
Ah, but who pushes the minions to do that pushing, riddle me that?!?!?
...
Click to expand...
It's the Gravity, it's always the Gravity.

The Man said:
...
Do you really think minions would recycle if they weren't just pushed into it?
...
Click to expand...
It depends on the strength of the Gravity field, I am open minded about this.

The Man said:
...
Face it, in the Pixey of the key universe it's pushing all the way down.
Click to expand...
But the lower pushing has at one time got to go below the higher pushing.
There's only one way one pushing can go below another pushing, and that is ..... Gravity.

So you see, even the 'Pixie Universe' requires Gravity.
 
Obviously it is pixies that are driving the minions. Unicorns drive the pixies. Griffins drive the unicorns. Then it is turtles all the way down :D!
 
Just remember.

The lower pushing then moving in oppsite direction from other pushing and smashing each other creatinged vortex pushing towards itself so creatink baby universe which pushing and smashing.

Baby universe very naughty.

Baby universe expanding and expanding and getting big universe and smashing into other huges universe which also was pushinged into getiing huges universe from baby universe.
Huges universe smash yours nucleus of atoms wich expanding more and more and getting bigger all a time who hit / smash particle from huges universe what coming that way from lower pushing.

Two huges universes who smash into each other same way whats smash centre and make one huges energyconcentration and born inside to go outside like flowers which make all the quarks expanding and coming more and more density denser getting turtles.

And so is universe working.
 
New finding may explain heat loss in fusion reactors

http://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-loss-fusion-reactors.html

""I'm extremely surprised" by the new results, White says. She adds that it took a thorough examination of the detailed results of computer simulations, along with matching experimental observations, to show that the counterintuitive result was real."



This dudes have totally wrong model for atoms!

Maybe is a time tell for this dudes how that eternal universe really working!

http://onesimpleprinciple.com/l2
 
"The expectation by physicists for more than a decade had been that turbulence associated with ions (atoms with an electric charge) was so much larger than turbulence caused by electrons—nearly two orders of magnitude smaller—that the latter would be completely smeared out by the much larger eddies. And even if the smaller eddies survived the larger-scale disruptions, the conventional thinking went, these electron-scale whirls would be so much smaller that their effects would be negligible.

The new findings show that this conventional wisdom was wrong on both counts. The two scales of turbulence do indeed coexist, the researchers found, and they interact with each other so strongly that it's impossible to understand their effects without including both kinds in any simulations."

"But the results were clear, and startling. Far from being eliminated by the larger-scale turbulence, the tiny eddies produced by electrons continue to be clearly visible in the results, stretched out into long ribbons that wind around the donut-shaped vacuum chamber that characterizes a tokamak fusion reactor. Despite the temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius inside the plasma, these ribbon-like eddies persist for long enough to influence how heat gets dissipated from the swirling mass—a determining factor in how much fusion can actually take place inside the reactor."

Nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling expanding movement / energy / pushing force with each other and that expanding movement / energy, what expanding nucleus of atoms recycling, have a nature of expanding photons, electrons and myons, if outside coming "good" density expanding movement / energy and interactive enough strong way with that expanding movement / energy which pushing away from expanding nuclei of atom.

Edited by Agatha: 


Love
33
:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those aren't your words, PofK. You should quote them properly, with attribution and links.
 
Pixie of key said:
New finding may explain heat loss in fusion reactors

http://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-loss-fusion-reactors.html

""I'm extremely surprised" by the new results, White says. She adds that it took a thorough examination of the detailed results of computer simulations, along with matching experimental observations, to show that the counterintuitive result was real."



This dudes have totally wrong model for atoms!

Maybe is a time tell for this dudes how that eternal universe really working!

http://onesimpleprinciple.com/l2
Click to expand...


I've reviewed your citation and award it 0.8 TimeCubes. Add more color for an additional 0.1 increase in current score.
 
Pixie of key said:
Nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling expanding movement / energy / pushing force with each other and that expanding movement / energy, what expanding nucleus of atoms recycling, have a nature of expanding photons, electrons and myons, if outside coming "good" density expanding movement / energy and interactive enough strong way with that expanding movement / energy which pushing away from expanding nuclei of atom.

Love
33
:)
Click to expand...

The article and quotations you cited make no such assertions. You might as well just cite reports of traffic accidents for all the relevance the random articles and quotations you do cite have to your assertions.

Have you done the rope experiment yet? If so what did you find?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom