Hiya BAC!
I am glad you are back to the fray, once I have DSl access i will respond to as many of your posts as I can, I hope you will be more gracious than the last time.
Please take the time to address where specifics are mentioned. I spent a great deal of time on your last set of posts and actually read a lot and looked at a lot.
You were rather rude and ignored the vast majority of anything that i posted that did not fit your model.
I hope to engage in discussion again.
A good case can be made that so does electromagnetism. In fact, a Nobel prize winning physicist in the area of plasma made that case. Especially if there's lots of time.
See here you are again, 'a physcists made the case', presnt the case then, not your spamming of the forum with your preprepared mateial.
What is the case and how is it made, What is the data.
Oh, I know go through your fourteen posts.
Okay, but try to respond this time when I do.
Dark matter is a gnome. It was invented to explain the rotation curves of galaxies. But experts in plasma physics and electromagnetism have proven that you don't need dark matter to explain those rotation curves. You just have to include electromagnetism in the model of galaxies ... which mainstream astrophysicists simply refuse to do. And after more than 30 years, one would think there would be at least some experimental evidence here on earth that dark matter actually exists. But there isn't. Mainstream researchers are no closer to knowing what dark matter is than they were 30 years ago.
Duh, I suppose we can discuss neutrinos and Gell-mann again when it comes to gnomes in the garden.
there are plenty.
Perhaps because it doesn't exist.
perhaps it doesn't (duh), but your assertion that the EM forces acount for the ffects were unsubstantiated last time, but please elaborate again.
Specific responses to specific questions and points.
This not true. Hubble said that he didn't know if the universe was expanding or not. He said "If the redshifts are a Doppler shift ... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time." (E. Hubble, Roy. Astron. Soc. M. N., 17, 506, 1937)
Do you really want to fight over the sue of the word theorise, whatever.
This is not true either, as anyone who reads Parts 8 and 9 of my posts will see. They do offer explanations for the redshift which have not been ruled out by observations or experiments here on earth. Tell me David, why do you assume all the matter in the universe was created in the Big Bang when there is another solution to Einstein's General Relativity that says otherwise?
I will see what you have this time, you are the one who rules stuff out of hand, please don't place your really bad attitude upon me, just further proof that you didn't read much of what i wrote.
Further rudeness, so soon?
I suppose you are waving your arms already to excuse the fact that you didn't actually read what I post.
pathetic.
I posted links to peer reviewed articles by Dr Anthony Peralt and others on this topic. Read those sources and you'll find the theory is explained well and proven with large scale computer calculations on validated computer codes at LANL. "handwaving" is not at all a fair description of the material I have offered on this matter in the past or in this thread. On the contrary, your unsupported dismissal of Peralt's work and your defense of dark matter (which is what?) as the cause of the rotation curve flatness is what I'd call a bad case of "hand waving".
It would be funny if you actaully read what i post.
But that is your problem, i open minded, but please continue to play the trool.
Prove yourself a better person this time.
You just don't care to repond to what i actually post.
hey dude, get off your wagan, i did not make an 'unsupported dismissal', you are just throw straw.
Do you actuallu know how to talk without all the pathetic porr ass debate tactics/
Jeesh dude, i take the time to read what you post, extend me the same courtesy.
Not true. Many if not most of the objects that Arp has looked at over time are not the result of a collision ... although the source galaxies may be disrupted due to internal energy release. I've posted a fair representation of the data in Post #1.
Many of the Arp objects and the more spectacular ones are the result of gravitational collision, but if you feel I mischaracterised it i am sorry for that.
Already with the whining.
i will try again but your poor manners are so hard to work around.
try something other than Dick Chaney and Karl Rove as role models , please.
