Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by maddog

I went back an reread my posts and I feel I am innocent of any violation of the rules of Hypography.

Statements such as:

Originally Posted by maddog

You mislead by being completely ignorant about the Laws of physics. I don't think intentionally, just stupidly !

are considered offensive. A general rule of thumb is to attack the post, not the poster. In other words, it's ok to say "I think your idea is stupid" (though that's still rude) but it's not ok to say "I think you are stupid".

As Modest said, if you have a problem with a poster, please report it and let us handle it.

Thanks!

[modest]

Originally Posted by maddog

I went back an reread my posts and I feel I am innocent of any violation of the rules of Hypography.

Just headin' off any potential trouble.

You are justifiably frustrated. Freeztar's advice above is good.

Originally Posted by maddog

I would be fine if he just qualified it even as just being a conjecture or an opinion on his part.

This is a really good idea. Pluto, it would really help if you said something along the lines of "I think jets might originate inside compact objects", rather than saying they definitely do originate at the center of the black hole and these papers... prove it.

I think that would really make for better discussion all-around.

~modest

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by modest

No problem—like I said, an honest mistake, and I think the Journal made the mistake, not you.

~modest

The online Journal made no mistake. As it turns out, the person in question is the 'Chairman of Media' of that journal (as I understand: I did a little follow-up research on the source). He writes anything he wants and puts it online.

It was my mistake not to have checked it out before typing in the link.



CC

[modest]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

The online Journal made no mistake. As it turns out, the person in question is the 'Chairman of Media' of that journal (as I understand: I did a little follow-up research on the source). He writes anything he wants and puts it online.

That makes sense

I tell ya, you can't trust much anymore Here in the states newspaper reporters are dropping like flies because people are reading everything online. I hate to think the same is happening with scientific journals, and honest journalists who report science news, but I bet it is.

~modest

[maddog]

Originally Posted by freeztar

are considered offensive. A general rule of thumb is to attack the post, not the poster. In other words, it's ok to say "I think your idea is stupid" (though that's still rude) but it's not ok to say "I think you are stupid".

I do understand the difference. I was only in my statement saying the repeatedly making statements as though they are true ignoring the laws of physics (especially without backup) is an implication of stupidity.

I will endeavor to be more clear. I do not wish to violate any rules of discussion nor do I wish to make aspersions on anyone.

I do presume that logic be used in the discussions. Maybe if we locked this thread, it has Really been beat to Death !!

I appreciate you efforts and glad that we have moderators. This place would be a free-for-all otherwise.

maddog

[maddog]

I just saw an article about Naked Singularities in the current Scientific American. From what I remember these versions of Black Holes were thought "Taboo" or not possible. In the condition that Pluto was alluding to -- where the "inside" can become "outside" or the "inside" leaking out would then be viable.

I think this is worthy of a new thread so I will read the article start a new thread on Naked Singularities there. I consider this thread dead.

Sayonara.



maddog

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by maddog

I went back...
I feel...
I am innocent...
I have not...
I brought back...
I am only...
I have no problem...
I do have a problem...
I have a problem...
I have gone...
I see where...
I have shone...
I am not going...
If I do...
I am completely...
I would be fine...
I do understand...
I was only in my...
I will endeavor...
I do not wish...
I wish...
I do presume...
I appreciate you...
I just saw...
I remember...
I think this...
I will read...
I consider this...

Sayonara.
maddog

"I still look at myself and want to improve."
(David Beckham)



CC

[maddog]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

How quaint, o' little maddog poetry...

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by maddog

How quaint, o' little maddog poetry...

"Yes; quaint and curious war is! You shoot a fellow down you'd treat if met where any bar is, or help to half-a-crown."
(Thomas Hardy)



"Medieval justice was a quaint thing."
(Frederick Pollock)





CC

[maddog]

Originally Posted by maddog

I just saw an article about Naked Singularities in the current Scientific American. From what I remember these versions of Black Holes were thought "Taboo" or not possible. In the condition that Pluto was alluding to -- where the "inside" can become "outside" or the "inside" leaking out would then be viable.

I think this is worthy of a new thread so I will read the article start a new thread on Naked Singularities there. I consider this thread dead.

Sayonara.



maddog

Not just yet. After reading part of the SciAm article I thought I would at least make a modest retraction. According to the article many scientists are now considering the possibility of Naked Singularities as viable. This goes against what I so adamantly said earlier about nothing getting from inside out. So I now retract that statement as stated (or modify to have a new exception of a Naked Singularity).

I personally don't see how these can form, though I will withhold judgment until I have fully read the article and done a little searching. Then I will make the thread on it.



maddog