Now your full of it. there are no experts on singularities.
Again, you know so little of what you are talking that you cannot make sense. It depnds what you mean by "singularity". The singularity of the Big Bang cosmological solutions of General Relativity exists as an artifact of the model, and we know a great deal about it. In reality, there is almost certainly no singularity. What is not understood is what replaces the singularity. To even begin to understand the issue you need to understand what is being replaced.
Jus to be clear, this is aimed at the wider audience for their understanding and not at you, tesla. For you are a moron
Right. i GET what you are. Now examine my evidence. or show me a vacuum without edges and containment.
*points upwards* There you go.
Apply the data to your research. or start new research if it doesn't fit. If you wont, someone or myself will eventually. you gain nothing if your research is only speculative and neither will i. The math will fit the observation if its true.
Yes of course, tesla, you have figured out (with any significant study, I might add) something that the brightest minds of physicists and cosmologists (with years upon years of study in the relevant subjects) haven't. It's a mirracle no one else sees this...
since your so smart and all knowing how about my flying car now.
OK.
Your flying car will not be. This is not because of the technology, which does exist, but because of society.
We have enough problems with idiots behind the wheel of cars firmly planted upon the surface. Imagine the havoc of letting those fools loose in the air!
quote: As Huntard already suggested, look up and go about 30,000 km. You really don't have to go that far but I figure the exercise will do you some good.
you cannot see the edge in space. its too far. doesnt mean it isnt there.
quote: The evidence (not proof, mind you, this is not religion) is in the math.
Math does not mean anything without evidence to support it. the math is lying to you. it doesnt know about the edge.
Thats fine. Go tell everyone i am an idiot. but if im right, even if it takes five or six years, i'll prove it. either way im not going to accept some string bean theory pulled off of an assumtion so speculative its purly a guess.
You need evidence just like i do.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
It was a documentary on channel 8. they stacked alot of books on the advocate for ID who had made a comment that nothing was written about blah blah forget what but it was something about irreducible complexity. which i think is a bad argument because ID would end at the first energy, not at the first "spark" of life.
So i guess someone slipped a camera somewhere. its been years ago. its kinda irrelevant tho. the Dover trial was a failure.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
quote: Again, you know so little of what you are talking that you cannot make sense. It depends what you mean by "singularity". The singularity of the Big Bang cosmological solutions of General Relativity exists as an artifact of the model, and we know a great deal about it. In reality, there is almost certainly no singularity. What is not understood is what replaces the singularity. To even begin to understand the issue you need to understand what is being replaced.
Your stretching. All the math is going to be too tentative to be reliable without an observation to back it up. i replied to this message once.
Your replacing one theory in favor of what? another theory with little base? educate me.
"almost certainly" is as good as "we are gonna make another guess because the math doesn't make sense to us"
I get that though. that's good. but T=0 is still inevitable and it still shows a singularity. fudge factors are not resolutions.
What DOES the math tell you if you input an edge to the universe and an area of energy outside that edge? where then does all the energy go when it closes in on T=0?
This is the question, and its derived from the observation of the true dynamics of a vacuum. such as:
Take a tank twice the size of a water tower, shaped like the universe as we can define it.
Fill it half full with say..Boron. Now induce a vacuum until the boron is just shy of boiling.
With enough mass, the top should have zero surface weight, and the bottom of the tank would still hold weight. This dynamic of the vacuum is only possible because the edges of the tank support the vacuum and hold the surface of the boron.
This is the only way i can rationalize a vacuum in space. Its a pertinent question because its large scale and not small scale vacuum. Just like evidence of expansion was not clear until we observed universes.
So I'm not pushing my evidence its clear, I'm pushing that it should not be ignored, yet rather, explored.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
It was a documentary on channel 8. they stacked alot of books on the advocate for ID who had made a comment that nothing was written about blah blah forget what but it was something about irreducible complexity.
That was Behe, testifying at the Dover trial. The documentary was a recreation, as Dover was not taped. And Behe, after making that comment about no evidence had to watch as the books were stacked higher and higher showing just how incomplete his research was.
So i guess someone slipped a camera somewhere. its been years ago. its kinda irrelevant tho. the Dover trial was a failure.
The Dover trial was a success. It determined ID is religion, and prevented a school board from peddling it in the public schools. (Can't get much better than that!)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
quote: The Dover trial was a success. It determined ID is religion
LOL Well we know how science goes. New information comes in all the time. Time will tell.
ID is not only religion, it is the exact opposite of science.
It starts with a conclusion and seeks out only evidence that supports that conclusion, ignoring, denying, or misrepresenting any evidence to the contrary.
And it operates counter to the scientific method.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
you cannot see the edge in space. its too far. doesnt mean it isnt there.
And there are a lot of things that lack any evidence whatsoever, and are contrary to the evidence we do have, that I cannot see. That certainly does not mean they are there just to fulfill an emotional need.
Math does not mean anything without evidence to support it. the math is lying to you. it doesnt know about the edge.
Since you do not know what the math says, or better yet, why the math is structured as it is, your conclusion here is warrantless, intellectually dishonest.
You need evidence just like i do.
Got plenty of it. You just do not care to see it.
Thats fine. Go tell everyone i am an idiot. but if im right, even if it takes five or six years, i'll prove it.
Well, best of luck to you in your endeavor. Send us a post card from Stockholm.
™ Version 4.2
