The universe

[ShadowSot]

Cosmology is a pretty rapid field, is there anything more recent than 88 or 79?

Edited August 21, 2015 by ShadowSot

[ChrLzs]

why do you reply on a post that you have no knowledge of?

Actually, he seems to have a much better grounded knowledge than you do. And it's a free public forum - why do you want to shut down people who dispute your posts (or even those who simply ask you to back up your speculations) from replying?

Also who are you to say who is informed and who is not?

That's pretty easy - those who are informed will quote cites and sources and references, and even offer some maths/formulae! The vast majority of cosmology is based on facts and figures and measurements and mathematical calculations and formulas. There is a HUGE body of knowledge out there. Verifiable knowledge. And the 'accepted' or 'mainstream' theories are those which match observations and measurements, and that agree with the maths (eg things like relativity and relativistic effects, quantum theory, dimensional theory, and so on).

Do you know me or how much I've researched? {ad hominem removed}

We can only judge that by what you post (and what you refuse to answer). On the first page you were asked to offer some cites and references, and to tell us what data/observations supported your ideas. We are still waiting, here on page 7. Interestingly in your second post you said:

I read a few articles and compressed them into one theory

but you sorta forgot to tell us which articles they were...

Then, you told us:

Almost all theories don't have it rite

But hang on, you said you had only read a few...? Again, you were reticent to actually state which ones were so wrong.

(I think I see a pattern forming...)

Then (and we all knew this was coming, you stated:

I read any and every article on almost every subject

Wow, sounds impressive, but clearly contradicts what you said earlier...And again, you sorta forgot to cite the best of those articles... Yep, the pigeonhole is now almost full of pigeon..

It looked promising when you said this:

It better explains the observations we have already made.

But rather than point out WHICH observations it supposedly better explains, you again danced away...

And then, finally, when it appeared that you were elaborating on your opinions here:

Famed English physicist Stephen Hawking theorized that something different happens ...

.. in fact you had copied and pasted from an article WITHOUT telling us you were doing so ... and the link in that post was incorrect - was that deliberate, so we couldn't see you hadn't been using your own words? HERE is the corrected link - http://www.nature.co...a_black_hole_is - there, the text you posted can be found, word for word:

Famed English physicist Stephen Hawking theorized that something different happens ...

If you hadn't supplied a broken link, I could almost have believed it was an honest mistake...

You are wrong on everything you reply with.

That's quite hilarious - AGAIN you haven't specifically referred to anything he got wrong, nor gone through the detail showing it to be wrong. Are you arms tired from all this handwaving?

At the moment, there is nothing to debate or discuss as you keep avoiding any elaboration whatsoever.. So can I just summarise by repeating Imginarynumber's very concise and to-the-point question from here:

Can you elaborate on what all those holes in big bang theory are and why your hypothesis corrects them

In your own words please. And try to remember that REAL scientists LOVE having their hypotheses attacked vigorously, and they don't get upset when they are wrong. They also make sure they understand the existing body of knowledge, and ensure that their hypothesis is:

1. At least the equal and preferably better than the existing theory when it comes to explaining what is observed.

2. Testable - in other words, if it's just a set of statements that cannot be checked or proved/disproved, then it's pretty much useless.

To Robinrenee..

I haven't responded to your theory because I believe that the big bang and black holes just don't make sense.

I can very much relate to this - I can remember being frustrated, even angry, when I first started reading and trying to understand relativity... Angry that I couldn't apply normal simple logic to stuff.. And then the more I thought about it and the more I read.. I began to realise that there simply are 'impossibilities' that are just unavoidable. The most unavoidable one is the biggest question of all - how can the Universe possibly have (or not have) an end?? It just makes zero sense - if it does end, then what is beyond that ending, or do we fold back into another part? If it doesn't, then why are there so many signs that it is slowly winding down, and how the heck did it come to be? In other words, why are we (and everything) here?

At some point you just have to accept that whatever the answer is (if there indeed is an answer, let alone one that we can comprehend..), it almost certainly isn't going to come from basic logic, basic maths/physics/geometry.. We have already proven over and over that much of those basics and simple logic, breaks down as we approach certain limits - the most obvious example being relativity as it applies to the speed of light. It is not just theory, but 100% proven that all kinds of weird sh stuff happens when you start trying to go that fast... Stuff that just *isn't* logical. But it is true..

And as for infiniteness - I *hate* infinity as a concept and I think it's fair to say that none of us will ever experience or see an infinity.. but you sorta have to accept it..

Edited August 21, 2015 by ChrLzs

[Lilly]

This is the Science Forum, the area in UM where discussion is supposed to be 'scientific' in nature. Rampant speculation and "what ifs" will only get one so far (and in this case not very far).

ChrLzs just posted this extremely important piece of information:

And try to remember that REAL scientists LOVE having their hypotheses attacked vigorously, and they don't get upset when they are wrong. They also make sure they understand the existing body of knowledge, and ensure that their hypothesis is:

1. At least the equal and preferably better than the existing theory when it comes to explaining what is observed.

2. Testable - in other words, if it's just a set of statements that cannot be checked or proved/disproved, then it's pretty much useless.

I stressed that a comprehension of basic scientific terminology and principles is necessary before entering into the 'deep water' of scientific discussion (wasn't taken too well). So we find ourselves several pages later still floundering (no surprise to me). Now, physics and cosmology are pretty heady areas to enter into completely unprepared. I suggest that FTWind, and anyone else who desires to really understand in depth the scientific study on the origin and nature of the universe, first get a good basic understanding of the scientific method. Next, move on to study basic physics, only then attempt to tackle Einstein and the more complex issues/ideas involved in this subject area.

Basically, if one wants to be 'taken seriously' one has to 'seriously know' something...there's just no way around it.

[FTWind]

ok what I am hearing is that I am uninformed and I have no clue of what I speak. That I am close minded and do not listen to others opinions.

You guys have no clue on who I'm am or what I've researched.

So let's do this again. WithWithout tearing me down ask questions. Do not just sit there ans ask me to cite something because there is way to much and I am on a mobile device.

Also I do not need to know the equations that Go into physics because scientist don't even know if they apply and I also doubt anyone of you know anything about physics in space. I do know however , almost every thing there is to know about outerspace it is my passion and for you guys to say that I don't have the basic knowledge of it is irritating.

Edited August 21, 2015 by FTWind

[Lilly]

ok what I am hearing is that I am uninformed and I have no clue of what I speak.

Yes, this is indeed what I'm seeing.

That I am close minded and do not listen to others opinions.

I didn't even get into any opinions...I was dismissed just asking that you to look into what constitutes the scientific method and proper terminology when discussing science topics.

You guys have no clue on who I'm am or what I've researched.

So let's do this again. WithWithout tearing me down ask questions. Do not just sit there ans ask me to cite something because there is way to much and I am on a mobile device.

How can anyone do "scientific research" without an understanding of basic science? How can you possibly answer questions about physics and cosmology without any rudimentary background information? Basically: How can anyone run before they can even walk?

Take a step back and think (really think) about what I (and several others) are telling you.

[FTWind]

Yes, this is indeed what I'm seeing.

I didn't even get into any opinions...I was dismissed just asking that you to look into what constitutes the scientific method and proper terminology when discussing science topics.

How can anyone do "scientific research" without an understanding of basic science? How can you possibly answer questions about physics and cosmology without any rudimentary background information? Basically: How can anyone run before they can even walk?

Take a step back and think (really think) about what I (and several others) are telling you.

you guys don't know what I do and don't know. At best your going off my ill typed post which dose not go into detail, for which I am sorry.

That does not not make me uniformed on basic science or comology, which I'm well educated in both. No one has asked me to explain a part of my theory just told me i didnt know what I was speaking about. I KNOW PREETY MUCH EVERYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO SPACE besides the equations.

[ChrLzs]

ok what I am hearing is that I am uninformed and I have no clue of what I speak.

To be fair that is not exactly what we said. I get the impression you do have a reasonable clue, but when you make comments like the one about all the existing theories being wrong... If you want to be taken seriously, drop that attitude and also back up your words - WHAT theory/theories and WHAT exactly do they get wrong, and WHY is your hypothesis better...?

That I am close minded and do not listen to others opinions.

Again - your words... Prove that to be wrong by doing what you need to do..

You guys have no clue on who I'm am or what I've researched. So let's do this again. ....Without tearing me down ask questions.

OK, You started this by saying that lots of stuff out there was wrong, and that your theory was better. Please, starting from the best and most important, give us a single example of such 'wrongness' and how your theory is better.

Also I do not need to know the equations that Go into physics because scientist don't even know if they apply

Wow. That really tells me you haven't done your homework. Again, give your best example of this. I'll start - do you dispute relativity? Do you know how many verified experiments have been done to check if relativistic effects (like time dilation..) are real? Hint - a LOT... and those effects are real...

And I can't resist offering a little spam.. May I suggest you get on over to eBay, Amazon or your preferred supplier, and get yourself a copy of COSMOS by Neil deGrasse Tyson - the full series on DVD/Bluray. Watch it and LISTEN, and also feel free to verify all the stuff that shows that them physicists do know a thing or two. The history and current state of Cosmology is nothing like the picture you are painting of blindfolded scientists wandering about aimlessly and just making stuff up..

Edited August 21, 2015 by ChrLzs

[Lilly]

you guys don't know what I do and don't know.

I have no idea what you "do" know. However, I most certainly know that you know very little about science.

... I KNOW PREETY MUCH EVERYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO SPACE besides the equations.

No, you really don't know "PREETY MUCH EVERYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO SPACE". In order to have that level of knowledge you have to know the basics. Frankly, this discussion is going nowhere fast IMO.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Lilly
left out a word

[ChrLzs]

...I KNOW PREETY MUCH EVERYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO SPACE....

Previous opinions (and my added suspicion) now fully verified. Given that 'modest' proclamation I shall now bid you 'Adieu'.

[FTWind]

I have no idea what you "do" know. However, I most certainly know that you know very little about science.

No, you really don't know "PREETY MUCH EVERYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO SPACE". In order to have that level of knowledge you have to know the basics. Frankly, this discussion is going nowhere fast IMO.

you keep on talking about basics , how do you know that I don't have this knowledge?

[FTWind]

To be fair that is not exactly what we said. I get the impression you do have a reasonable clue, but when you make comments like the one about all the existing theories being wrong... If you want to be taken seriously, drop that attitude and also back up your words - WHAT theory/theories and WHAT exactly do they get wrong, and WHY is your hypothesis better...?

Again - your words... Prove that to be wrong by doing what you need to do..

OK, You started this by saying that lots of stuff out there was wrong, and that your theory was better. Please, starting from the best and most important, give us a single example of such 'wrongness' and how your theory is better.

Wow. That really tells me you haven't done your homework. Again, give your best example of this. I'll start - do you dispute relativity? Do you know how many verified experiments have been done to check if relativistic effects (like time dilation..) are real? Hint - a LOT... and those effects are real...

And I can't resist offering a little spam.. May I suggest you get on over to eBay, Amazon or your preferred supplier, and get yourself a copy of COSMOS by Neil deGrasse Tyson - the full series on DVD/Bluray. Watch it and LISTEN, and also feel free to verify all the stuff that shows that them physicists do know a thing or two. The history and current state of Cosmology is nothing like the picture you are painting of blindfolded scientists wandering about aimlessly and just making stuff up..

Thank you for this post and asking me to explain pascifc points.I am now working on my reply. Please be patient for I am on a mobile device and it is a little tedious to write long post Edited August 21, 2015 by FTWind

[FTWind]

Thank you

Edited August 21, 2015 by FTWind

[FTWind]

Previous opinions (and my added suspicion) now fully verified. Given that 'modest' proclamation I shall now bid you 'Adieu'.

yeah my bad, I know pretty much everything that there is to know.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

yeah my bad, I know pretty much everything that there is to know.

113 posts ago you asked people to do this:

to inform me on which parts are not plausible and which are credible.

There are many people on this site with a VERY good understanding of science. Some of those people have taken time to try and do exactly that, explaining to you why you, and therefore your hypothesis, are not scientifically credible. These have not been personal attacks but facts.

You, however, have responded with personal attacks against those that have tried to inform you. You have also made rather foolish and obviously false boasts like the I quoted at the start of this post.

This is a discussion forum. If you expect to just make up some speculative idea about the universe and not be challenged on it then you have the wrong idea about how forums (or discussions) work.

This forum is not a science forum, it does not require that you provide evidence for your claims, however it does require that you be polite and courteous in your dealings with others. Just because you don't have to give answers that does not mean others can not ask them, nor are they prevented from drawing and expressing their opinions based on your failure to answer.

Despite your claim that you wish to be informed you have resisted any effort to actually learn something.

Given that this topic has achieved nothing I think it is time to put an end to it.

Closed.