The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

Cuddles said:
Oh, really? Singularitarian, can you confirm that you are in fact currently studying for a (Scottish) Higher National Diploma, equivalent to A-level in the rest of the UK, in physics? And yet you spend half your time arguing with and insulting many professional physicists, and others with physics degrees and/or PhDs? You certainly wouldn't be the first, but it's always interesting to see the old adage about those with the least knowledge being the least likely to realise it in action.
Click to expand...

No, i did my A-levels on physics a long time ago. The education gathered from doing physics for an HND is much more advanced.

And eh, i've been asking where these PhD's are, because if they do run the show, i'm scared of their capacity to have an intellectual debate. Besides, my education is not really important. What is is that i provide scientific statements and remain as truthful as i can be about them.
 
realpaladin said:
So let me try this again.

But first, what school teaches you that the Greeks are a race instead of a culture?

Your abstract reasoning is lacking. Because I asked you why, today, we still should look unto science as we do unto religion.

You respond with some history, but fail to finish it.

I say that it would be my argument, but you fail to see my logical conclusion;

"But because Science is a methodology rather than a belief, it could break free from it's religious roots and, at first co-exist, and finally refute it's religious roots.

Had it been a mere belief system, it would have stayed where it was."

Capiche kiddo?
Click to expand...

I never said we look at religion the way we look at science, you made that bit up. I said science was once based firmly in the roots of religion. I never said we where to look at both as the same.
 
Singularitarian said:
Look bub, eat your own words or take mine as a man; take you pick.

You say my wordsare salad: The most increadible thing here is that you have not provided any contrary evidence to my claims. Put your money where your mouth is, and lets have a scientfic discussion, if you can. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

You have to have claims that make sense in the real, wonderful, world of physics. Either you are writing this in another language and running it through an on-line translator OR it is meaningles from the beginning. I am not saying all the words are meaningless, just the arrangement of them. That is why the quite reasonable claim of word-salad was made against your op. (And in the other post you made.) You are to physics here as Patrick is to economics here.
 
You still haven't said why you disagree with the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?

I am having a terrible time reading your responses. Many words are simply incorrect, others appear to be in random order. You've done nothing but assert your own intelligence, without respect for the learned members of this forum, and make vague assertions regarding some fairly well established physics.

There are some individuals on this forum who are very accomplished physicists, and will really amaze you with the breadth of their knowledge.
 
As an example in my quote of you above: 'Look (bub, buddy), I'll make you eat your own words so take it like a man.' could be what you mean. 'Look(name) you should eat your own words and take it like a man' could also be what you mean - but in neither case is "take you (your) pick" correct or appropriate. The sentence as written is functionally meaningless. And "or" is pointless since no selection is given.
 
wackyvorlon said:
You still haven't said why you disagree with the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?

I am having a terrible time reading your responses. Many words are simply incorrect, others appear to be in random order. You've done nothing but assert your own intelligence, without respect for the learned members of this forum, and make vague assertions regarding some fairly well established physics.

There are some individuals on this forum who are very accomplished physicists, and will really amaze you with the breadth of their knowledge.
Click to expand...

It appears that knowledge of the equation F=ma will do quite admirably for astounding our new acquaintance.:)
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
You have to have claims that make sense in the real, wonderful, world of physics. Either you are writing this in another language and running it through an on-line translator OR it is meaningles from the beginning. I am not saying all the words are meaningless, just the arrangement of them. That is why the quite reasonable claim of word-salad was made against your op. (And in the other post you made.) You are to physics here as Patrick is to economics here.
Click to expand...


Of course i use the correct terminology... what... do you think i just pulled them out of hat and hoped the best? I have references in the work for gods sake.
 
wackyvorlon said:
You still haven't said why you disagree with the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?

I am having a terrible time reading your responses. Many words are simply incorrect, others appear to be in random order. You've done nothing but assert your own intelligence, without respect for the learned members of this forum, and make vague assertions regarding some fairly well established physics.

There are some individuals on this forum who are very accomplished physicists, and will really amaze you with the breadth of their knowledge.
Click to expand...

It's not that the universe cannot expand faster then light, it's just that until vacuum mathematics where formulated on this, faster than light systems had never been propely adapted into cosmology before, especially with Einsteins relativity which is universally-misunderstood.

And i don't want an academic battle. I see arm-wavey responses and raised voices but no evidence to support them, whilst on the other hand, i have.
 
fuelair said:
You have to have claims that make sense in the real, wonderful, world of physics. Either you are writing this in another language and running it through an on-line translator OR it is meaningles from the beginning. I am not saying all the words are meaningless, just the arrangement of them. That is why the quite reasonable claim of word-salad was made against your op. (And in the other post you made.) You are to physics here as Patrick is to economics here.
Click to expand...


I dunno, I kindof liked "antipartner"
 
Singularitarian said:
It's not that the universe cannot expand faster then light, it's just that until vacuum mathematics where formulated on this, faster than light systems had never been propely adapted into cosmology before, especially with Einsteins relativity which is universally-misunderstood.
Click to expand...

Earlier in this thread, you expressed the perspective that this FTL expansion was a problem with the big bang theory. In this post, you seem to be saying that it's not a problem? I'm confused, these posts appear contradictory.
 
The problem is retaining a theory which is consistently as simple as possible, not one that indulges in superfluous plasters to heal the wounds of the cosmological theory when it was first being developed. That is the problem.
 
wackyvorlon said:
How is it a "superfluous plaster"? I don't understand.
Click to expand...


Because of the amount of times we have had to modify the big bang theory so that it fits. Einstein once did a similar thing concerning the addition of a cosmological constant to stabilize any expanding or retracting phases of the universe, and evidently, he manipulated them and his theory turned out to be in error.
 
I'm curious: If the big bang theory is wrong, then where does the cosmic microwave background radiation come from? Under the big bang theory, as I understand it, this is ordinary black body radiation. That explanation doesn't seem to survive in a universe without a big bang.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom