The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

[lionking]

Obvious?

I am dealing with the uneducated, if i truely am uneducated in your eyes as to make such claims. I've had enough for one night, as to another day!

Keep posting though. It's good to see your arrogance so comprehensively demolished.

 

[Singularitarian]

Oh**** -- that's right, i meant to go, i completely forgot about that... oops.

 

[ben m]

Read these then which publish a total photon universe theory... you surely did not think i would have said this without reason..?

Similar Theories: Heraclitus, Kelvin, Ziegler, Schrödinger and ... A theory of everything and a mathematical formulation of a philosophy ... Luxon theory by Daniel M. Kirchmann. Luxon theory ...
www.unitytheory.info/similar_theories.html - Cached - Similar -

And that was just one of many elated articles which appeared from one simple google.

Notice I did not say "there are no Ghits for 'luxon theory'". I said there are no scientific articles about it.

I also said, you may recall, that google search summaries are not reliable sources of learning or information. The theory you found one of a large class of amateur theories with no scientific basis. Moreover, the page you cited is actually the page of a different crackpot theory which merely mentions that there exists a page for a 'luxon theory'---to which it provides a dead link. The 'theory' itself has been deleted from the German free-personal-homepage server where it once lived.

 

[ben m]

i see no error in finding that the appearance of every bit of energy in the universe to have initially come from the vacuum which actually means that they needed to have come from the zero-point fequencies of the universe.

You have no idea whether the Universe "originally came from the vacuum". A few pages ago you were espousing the Ekpyrotic theory which is exactly the opposite.

Indeed, everything came from the ZPF.

Funny you should say that---when I suggested that the CMB photons have the same physics as the photons from my discharge lamp, you invented some difference. Do you want to reevaluate that statement?

In any case: what you are doing is defining "came from the ZPF" as "came from the Big Bang which I think was due to the ZPF"; this is a pointless bit of solipsism, but it's too content-free to argue about. However, you seem to think that this has retroactively fixed all of your misunderstandings about the CMB. Sorry, still wrong.

True or false: in standard cosmology---the same system in which we've measured [latex]\Lambda[/latex]---the Universe was full of hot, dense hydrogen plasma at around z=1000.

 

[Singularitarian]

You have no idea whether the Universe "originally came from the vacuum". A few pages ago you were espousing the Ekpyrotic theory which is exactly the opposite.



Funny you should say that---when I suggested that the CMB photons have the same physics as the photons from my discharge lamp, you invented some difference. Do you want to reevaluate that statement?

In any case: what you are doing is defining "came from the ZPF" as "came from the Big Bang which I think was due to the ZPF"; this is a pointless bit of solipsism, but it's too content-free to argue about. However, you seem to think that this has retroactively fixed all of your misunderstandings about the CMB. Sorry, still wrong.

True or false: in standard cosmology---the same system in which we've measured [latex]\Lambda[/latex]---the Universe was full of hot, dense hydrogen plasma at around z=1000.

What does z=1000 mean... I cannot be sure.

 

[edd]

What does z=1000 mean... I cannot be sure.

Redshift of 1000.

I don't have the mental strength to comment on the fact that explaining this is necessary.

 

[Ziggurat]

Redshift of 1000.

I don't have the mental strength to comment on the fact that explaining this is necessary.

I'm also quite amused that he didn't know this, but I'd bet he still doesn't understand its meaning in the current context even with your explanation. So this clarification is for you, Singularitarian: z is indeed the redshift, but it also corresponds to an age. z=1000 means very old, roughly 400,000 years after the big bang.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Redshift of 1000.

I don't have the mental strength to comment on the fact that explaining this is necessary.

Many pages back I explained that as an amateur, I can't claim certainty in what I'm talking about with regards to my little intellectual hobbies. Anyone think our boy is just like me but too proud...or what-have-you... to admit it?

Anyone think he's as far along in his education as he claims?

 

[Singularitarian]

Yeh, I haven't studied generally any area of cosmological redshift, though i do know scientifically what it is.
I am not ashamed to admit this, i don't see why anyone should.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeh, I haven't studied generally any area of cosmological redshift, though i do know scientifically what it is.
I am not ashamed to admit this, i don't see why anyone should.

Redshift isn't some obscure branch of cosmology, it's at the very heart of it all. And while there's no shame in not knowing this, you have made a fool out of yourself by attacking people who obviously know much more than you, on issues which you are clearly wrong about. The fact that you don't know such basic facts about cosmology just emphasizes this foolishness on your part. Someone who just didn't know, but came here seeking to learn from those who did, would receive a far different response than you have. I suspect you blame us for the hostile responses you have received, but you really only have yourself to blame.

 

[sol invictus]

Yeh, I haven't studied generally any area of cosmological redshift, though i do know scientifically what it is.
I am not ashamed to admit this, i don't see why anyone should.

You're not ashamed to admit that.

The topic of this thread, created by you, is "The Most Foolish Theory in Physics". The first sentence of the first post is "I am absolutely sure that (even with the alternative theories flying around) that big bang is one of the most erreneous theories ever created."

And now, after 328 posts, you tell us you haven't studied the single most basic aspect of the big bang, and you aren't ashamed to admit it. You don't feel any shame in announcing that a theory you admit you know nothing about, a theory which has survived 90 years of rigorous testing by thousands of pretty smart and thorough scientists, is "foolish" and "erreneous" [sic].

Any normal person would be very ashamed in a situation like this. If you're not, you're a sociopath.

 

[ben m]

Yeh, I haven't studied generally any area of cosmological redshift, though i do know scientifically what it is.
I am not ashamed to admit this, i don't see why anyone should.

There is nothing to be ashamed of about simply not knowing cosmology, especially for a student.

There is a lot to be ashamed of about pretending to know cosmology, and bragging about your education and insulting everyone else's.

 

[edd]

Yes, I really absolutely thoroughly enjoy explaining cosmology to anyone starting from the most basic principles. But if someone comes along trying to explain the neurological structure of the hypothalamus while not knowing where in the body the brain is....

 

[Monketi Ghost]

You could find this information, Singularitarian, in a first year introductory Astronomy textbook. I know, because I did, and it clearly and simply explains the CMB and its relationship to Big Bang theory. Of course, I knew the information already, since I had collected books and studied these ideas on my own...

So here's Magnifico, who's flouting his lack of a degree in anything ... but I won't be trying to stand on the shoulders of the Cosmology giants while urinating on them.

Humility. It's what's for dinner.

 

[edd]

So here's Magnifico, who's flouting his lack of a degree in anything ... but I won't be trying to stand on the shoulders of the Cosmology giants while urinating on them.

And here's exactly why most of us with a degree don't wish to flaunt them - it undervalues the contribution here of those who have an understanding without one.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

And here's exactly why most of us with a degree don't wish to flaunt them - it undervalues the contribution here of those who have an understanding without one.

Dear me, I mistakenly wrote flout when I wanted flaunt . Even when pointing out my lameness I am lame.

I'm getting old.

 

[Singularitarian]

And here's exactly why most of us with a degree don't wish to flaunt them - it undervalues the contribution here of those who have an understanding without one.

Maybe you and doctor Hyde above can find a way to oust me then?

 

[Singularitarian]

There is nothing to be ashamed of about simply not knowing cosmology, especially for a student.

There is a lot to be ashamed of about pretending to know cosmology, and bragging about your education and insulting everyone else's.

I've never said i was a cosmologist. I am a physics student, and there is a lot of physics involved in cosmology.

It's any reason with you guys, and then you blame me for being somewhat, dillusioned, with some self-grandure, ignorance and pessimism thrown in there too.

How long will it take you guys to realize i am entitled to talk about subjects i am allowed to talk about, if it concerns physics. Most of my posts consist of this nature through and through.

 

[godless dave]

Of course you're allowed to talk about any subjects you want. But if you say something that's factually wrong, people are going to point it out. And if you make grand pronouncements about cosmology, but then reveal that you are ignorant of one of the most basic concepts in astronomy, then people are going to point out your obvious lack of qualifications.

 

[Singularitarian]

Of course you're allowed to talk about any subjects you want. But if you say something that's factually wrong, people are going to point it out. And if you make grand pronouncements about cosmology, but then reveal that you are ignorant of one of the most basic concepts in astronomy, then people are going to point out your obvious lack of qualifications.

Well, there's the thing right?

I'm a physics student, so i am within rights to talk about certain aspects of the cosmology i was presenting simply because it spoke of hard physical scientific fact i am aware of, such as the quantization of space in order to account for more time in the universe, the homogeneity of the CMB caused by the rapid expansion of the universe, which is again, pure physics down to the inflaton particle and inflaton field. These are but two among many examples i find myself with entirety, able to talk about.