The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

Singularitarian said:
Except the statistical positives of inconstencies arising in the wikipedia are much more probable and never mind frequent than that of a group of scientists working on a paper for the scientific world to refer to.
Click to expand...

Singularitarian, here you are complaining that Wikipedia is not reliable enough for you. Yet in this other post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4923233#post4923233 you "addressed" a criticism by citing the Google search results summary of a never-cited paper by a Young-Earth Creationist from a short-lived crackpot journal.

In case I am not being clear: the things you are actually citing are much, much, much less reliable than the thing you are refusing to cite.

Perhaps what you mean is not, "Wikipedia has many errors", but rather "Wikipedia does not agree with me as often as I want it to"?
 
Last edited:
Singularitarian said:
Ok, okay, whatever you say. I obviously don't respond.

I hope i don't need to highlight how much of an oxymoronic statement that was you made.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do not respond to requests to define the words and phrases you use, unless it is to move the topic somewhere else, or insult the poster's intelligence.

[ETA: responding to a request to define 'synonymous contribution' by using 'contributed synonymously' doesn't really count. We can all conjugate here]
 
Last edited:
Singularitarian said:
There is only one bullet, and since the conditions of the universe are not seemingly
willing to change desprately for a very long time, the big bang will go on forever, like some Greek Mythology of Religion, where the real God, is best as
described as being ''Dues Absconditus...'' - -- - a God hidden from man - -- - as much as the final theory will be.
Click to expand...

If I may, I would like to respectfully suggest you refresh your latin. I believe the word you wanted was dies, not dues.
 
Singularitarian said:
Please list some of them. If i can write a long essay then surely you can find the time to highlight what these buzzwords are.
Click to expand...

They've already been pointed out pages back. You could hide behind a weak grasp of English, but I think most here believe you have a weak grasp of the science.
 
Interesting. Because, i am not made aware of any but one example shown. Maybe some other members will be audacious enough to flatter their points more clearer. Or of course, someone could just make a list of the ''flawed'' definitions or ill-terms.
 
Back to the topic:

Last time we looked, Sing was getting ready, in light of this thread, to retract all of his ad-hominems---right?---and perhaps was going to apologize for having completely mixed up the CMB with zero point energy and with dark energy.
 
No, i said there was similarities between the ZPF and the DE with the CMB, so there will be no apologies from me, for i see no mistake in this.
 
Singularitarian said:
No, i said there was similarities between the ZPF and the DE with the CMB, so there will be no apologies from me, for i see no mistake in this.
Click to expand...

... and that those similarities included the CMB coming from the zero-point fluctuations, being 10^122 off from naive QFT predictions, having negative pressure, and being constant in time. And you said the CMB was represented by [latex] \Lambda[/latex]. And you said that the vacuum fundamentally has a temperature of 2.7K. (see quotes below.)

These are all "mistakes" unambigiously. I would say that these mistakes add up to "confusing the CMB with dark energy", as you seem to have read a handful of facts about each of these things and you have them all mixed up.

Singularitarian said:
It could be explained by saying the CMB is the same as the Zero-Point Energy Field. We have also found similarities between dark energy and the zero-point field, and both of them equally have similarities with the background temperatures.
Click to expand...

Singularitarian said:
yes of course, so this also applies to the other posters above with arguments i am wrong.

the CMB is an almost uniform energy density in the universe existing as electromagnetic potential energy. The Cosmological Constant is also an all-permeating electromagnetic density of energy, so there is similarity 1. The Dark Energy has been tied to the mysterious zero-point energy field (for personal reference, visit PhD Doctor Wolf's website and ask him via a personal message of this success) - the linking of dark energy and the zero-point field is universally considered the same as the Cosmological Constant, and so, the electromagnetic similarities are vast, and maybe the same.
Click to expand...

Singularitarian said:
The definitions of the zero-point field, the homogeneous enegy filling-space is synonymous with the CMB-temperatures because it has these characteristics too. However as i said, scientists have managed to link the zero-point energy to another massive energy-playing role in the universe which takes up about 74%of all the energy, and that is the dark energy.

And there is a lot of the CMB which will be in a virtual potential state, this can only be expected from a quantum mechanical model.

By the way, you cannot be so firm believing energy does not appear in the vacuum upon expansion. Vacuum expansion according to big bang and even Fred Hoyles Steady State says that with expansion new energy is released into the vacuum. The zero-point energy goes against one of the most impotant thermodynamical laws where everything is conserved, and that you cannot create matter or energy, but the ZPF can, and does all the time.
Click to expand...

Singularitarian said:
Here is the proof linking dark energy with the ZPF,

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
Click to expand...

Singularitarian said:
I enjoy an educated discussion, but not one that misses the relevent points. Take into consideration, have given the conditions which link similarities between all three components; the ZPF, the CMB and DE - these three components are homogeneous, made of a negative energy density, covers every corner of the imaginary space-line and time-line, making them a potential sea of energy. Each one of these three examples give a predicted energy far too inconsistent with the predicted energy required to the standard model of an error displacement of [latex]10^{122}[/latex] magntitudes.

What renormalizes this massive energy difference? Why is there more energy resident in the vacuum (which involves Einsteins Comsological *energy-density Constant [latex]\Lambda[/latex], than what should be allowed? These magnitudes to current theory suggest something renormalizes them.

If this is true, then it is possible the homogeneous CMB temperatures of electromagnetic energy in the real and potential form (being infinite in density) could renormalize the negative energy as to give a total energy condition within the vacuum.
Click to expand...


Singularitarian said:
Well the CMB isn't even at a constant density so that's kind of pointless mentioning, and it's blatantly not vacuum energy anyway - the photons of it are as real as you and I and not in the slightest bit virtual.
Click to expand...

You do not appear to understand what you are talking about.


2) - The CMB according to the non-classical mathematical derivation is constant, that is why we represent it by the constant Lambda, which was that symbol i gave you [latex]\Lambda[/latex].
Click to expand...

Singularitarian said:
Maybe you missed the part of the infinite density? The universe is constantly expanding, and the CMB does not seem to be diluting due to the process, which means it is quite constant on cosmological standards.
Click to expand...

Singularitarian said:
The zero-point field is electromagnetic in nature, and believe it or not, every particle that has arisen from the vacuum i.e. the blackbody emission spectrum of photons all came from the zero-point electromagnetic sea of energy. That's my point, and that the end of that.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, the CMB actually does make up a lot of the homogeneous energy of the cosmological value, whether you like or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom