The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

Singularitarian said:
Nope, nope, nope...and... errr.... nope.

1) Not enough time to correspond to the amount of space required in observation measurement of the receedin gaalxies about 45 billionlight years away.
Click to expand...
I'm not 100% sure I'm reading you right - are you trying to point out that light cannot travel 45 billion light years in the 14 billion years since the Big Bang?
 
Singularitarian said:
One question from a poster at a time, please. Let me asnwer the questions so far, before any more imliment my brain to cease functioning. Any more, and there might be a chance of catatonic depletion.
Click to expand...

Now this sounds like a challenge.
 
Sorry but...[*]

ingoa said:
Ground state of what? Before hadronisation it does not make sense to speak of a ground state. Even after that it is not clear to what "state" you refer.



Not enough time before time starts ticking? Sounds not convincing.


So what. As said before there is nothing in SRT and GRT which disallows that.


All the time. Take a look at vacuum polarization.


This like saying that evolution does not explain the nucleosynthesis. Has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

[*] - i will come back to this tomorrow. To much to explain for tonight.
 
Singularitarian said:
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...

A: Fire hydrant opacity window!
B: Um... that makes no sense.
A: Come on, provide some evidence that I'm wrong!
 
No the latter was hypothetical from my own vewpoint, not the other way around. I provided scientific history to show the inconsistencies, i did not justify its validity afterwards, as you are insideously implying.
 
Almo said:
A: Fire hydrant opacity window!
B: Um... that makes no sense.
A: Come on, provide some evidence that I'm wrong!
Click to expand...

We coul play this game all day, unfortunately, i do not have the patience or time to do so the now. However, i will link sources tomorrow. If you do not read them and have an intelligent descussion, then i will cut it quickly.

Good night everyone.
 
Could we stop the with the difficult words. Just, a tip. It would make this thread sooooo much better.

thnx
 
Singularitarian said:
If it didn't it would have to have chosen an excited state, where there will be a point eventually where the universe will quantum leap into a new state, and a catastrophic reduction of energy will unfold.
Click to expand...

You're talking as though your only mental image is of a hydrogen atom. "It gets excited and then it has to decay." Wrong. Excited states do not generically "decay" back to the original ground state. They certainly don't have to decay catastrophically. And in a closed system like the Universe that's completely the wrong way to think about it.

Hope you're having fun thinking about this stuff, but you need to be very hesitant to conclude that any idea you have is smarter than the ones that other people have had. That conclusion can only come, if at all, after understanding other people's ideas quite deeply, and comparing your idea to theirs on appropriate terms. Leaping to that conclusion is what makes one a crackpot.
 
Cainkane1 said:
In this theory there is no room for the big hairy cosmic thunderer called god and that suits me just fine.
Click to expand...

Er, does that mean you prefer a trio of big hairy cosmic thunderers with mythical expansion properties called "dead inflation god", "dark energy god" and "dark matter god"?

What's the difference between your trilogy of mythical gods and any other gods other than the fact you added some math to make them seem real?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Er, does that mean you prefer a trio of big hairy cosmic thunderers with mythical expansion properties called "dead inflation god", "dark energy god" and "dark matter god"?

What's the difference between your trilogy of mythical gods and any other gods other than the fact you added some math to make them seem real?
Click to expand...


Oooh, did some big ugly math scare you when you were a little boy, Michael?

:dl:​
 
Singularitarian said:
I am not the person from the second link.
Click to expand...
Okay. Just curious. In case you're wondering why I asked, I just noticed some interesting similarities in the personal information claimed on The Student Room and SciForums:

* Born within 30 days of each other (Same age and astrological sign)
* Both live in Scotland
* Both have Semantic Pragmatic Disorder
* Both gay
* Both have played in an orchestra and specifically mentioned "Flight of the Bumble Bee"
* Both going for an HND in physics
* Both wrote, "Now imagine we created two Tachyons from the same source: possibly from the decay of tritium" - Google doesn't show that sentence being on any other sites.

What's even more interesting is that person on SciForums used the phrase "these speedy maximal-velocity of energetic." Google reports that phrase as being used in one other place, the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today forum. That account was also banned.

And the person on BAUTForums wrote an essay that contains an identical paragraph posted on PhysForums.com (shown below). Those are the only two places I found such a paragraph.
"Matter warped space, and time told matter how to move. And it can be said that time warped matter, and that matter told space how to act. This is because of Einstein’s equivalence principle, which covers a massive scope in his mathematically-genius work."

Like I said, I was just curious.
 
Cuddles said:
Actually, the JREF addressed his post very specifically - it's a bunch of nonsensical word salad engaging in the usual cargo-cult science of throwing around words that have been seen but not understood in the slightest.



No.



But since they aren't, it isn't.



Yes, before we developed real science people just thought about stuff and got most of it very, very wrong. Now that we have science, we are actually able to test theories instead of just engaging in mental masturbation. If you wish to indulge in that, I suggest you do in the Religion and Philosophy forum created specifically for that purpose, where there are plenty of people who will be able to point out exactly how you're wrong in new and interesting ways.
Click to expand...

Oh, by the way, i would love to learn this fantastic power you seem to have developed. You are able to observe the big bang... increadible, because other wise, if it where not for you, the idea would have been totally conceptual :rolleyes:
 
UncaYimmy said:
Okay. Just curious. In case you're wondering why I asked, I just noticed some interesting similarities in the personal information claimed on The Student Room and SciForums:

* Born within 30 days of each other (Same age and astrological sign)
* Both live in Scotland
* Both have Semantic Pragmatic Disorder
* Both gay
* Both have played in an orchestra and specifically mentioned "Flight of the Bumble Bee"
* Both going for an HND in physics
* Both wrote, "Now imagine we created two Tachyons from the same source: possibly from the decay of tritium" - Google doesn't show that sentence being on any other sites.

What's even more interesting is that person on SciForums used the phrase "these speedy maximal-velocity of energetic." Google reports that phrase as being used in one other place, the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today forum. That account was also banned.

And the person on BAUTForums wrote an essay that contains an identical paragraph posted on PhysForums.com (shown below). Those are the only two places I found such a paragraph.
"Matter warped space, and time told matter how to move. And it can be said that time warped matter, and that matter told space how to act. This is because of Einstein’s equivalence principle, which covers a massive scope in his mathematically-genius work."

Like I said, I was just curious.
Click to expand...


Why, it does sound increadible indeed... what was it Sherlock Holms once said...?

''If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must remain the truth.''
 
Um. Physics being beyond me due to my lack of education in this area... I have a question.

Is all that stuff about "alternative/parallel universes" and whatnot really considered to be "scientific"? Or is the writer of the OP confusing science and fantasy (as many laypersons tend to do)?
 
Eos of the Eons said:
Um. Physics being beyond me due to my lack of education in this area... I have a question.

Is all that stuff about "alternative/parallel universes" and whatnot really considered to be "scientific"? Or is the writer of the OP confusing science and fantasy (as many laypersons tend to do)?
Click to expand...
I can assure you, parallel universes is the second most popuated theory just under the Copenhagen Interpretation. It's all theory, and equally non-fantasy.

P.S - I am not a layman by the way.
 
None of the interpretations of QM are considered physicaly real at this point. Simply because there currently exists no evidence to preclude any, or to proclaim one better than the others.

What they do is express the same mathematical foundation.

Real physicists don't treat them as real as Singularitarian would seem to be suggesting.
 
Molinaro said:
None of the interpretations of QM are considered physicaly real at this point. Simply because there currently exists no evidence to preclude any, or to proclaim one better than the others.

What they do is express the same mathematical foundation.

Real physicists don't treat them as real as Singularitarian would seem to be suggesting.
Click to expand...
Not true.

Universall-accepted theories have such a status because they are actually existent with evidence supporting them. This makes the big bang, themost consistent theory so far concerning the standard model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom