But so far DT has not managed to articulate such an argument. Hopefully the last bit of physics that was presented has him thinking a bit. After all, it is about the physics, right?
I don't think it's about the physics for DT, but about the opinions of physicists. About views he doesn't like he'll say something like this:
I happen to be a big fan of Feynman, but that does not mean I think he is infallible.
Feynmann isn't infallible, therefore DT feels justified in relegating the view to suspect status. And about a view he likes he might say:
I particularly like this comment from the paper...
These are accompanied by comments about physics that seem superficial but unchallengeable to unknowledgeable people like myself, and incredibly wrongheaded to informed people like Cavediver and NoNukes. I cannot myself tell if DT's views are backed by knowledge and evidence, hopefully mostly from a lack of understanding that could be remedied by the investment of time I do not have.
I would have liked to have seen an explanation about what DesignTheorist meant in his response to Cavediver in Message 161, and if it's wrong why it's wrong, but Cavediver hasn't responded yet.
I don't have a horse in this race. It doesn't matter to me whether the universe has net zero energy of not. The "pseudotensor argument" was tangled up in the same sentence where you declared some evidence unacceptable and just went along for the ride. A better example was when you rejected Feynman because he isn't infallible, and I didn't see any evidence presented. I'm just commenting on your approach, which seems doomed to confirm your own beliefs rather than discover an accurate model of the universe.
The Feynman discussion had to do with Cano's description of Clarke's analysis of Feynman's work. I did not present any evidence because none seemed necessary to me as the result was patently absurd. I did not know where the error occurred - with Feynman, Clarke or Cano - but it obviously was incorrect.
Well, someone was incorrect, perhaps your list of possible culprits is incomplete.
There are people here who would love to dispassionately discuss physics with you, but it seems like both sides have too big a stake in being right.
The interstellar regions contain low densities of ionized particles that are relatively far apart. So while that still "counts" as plasma, saying it like "99% of the universe is plasma" isn't really painting the right picture, in my opinion, because there's an awful lot of "empty" space out there. Am I wrong to see it that way?
I don't understand enough of how you see things to say whether it's right or wrong, but if you're saying that the fact that so much of the universe is plasma is unintuitive because so little of what we contact in daily life is plasma, then I certainly agree. The density of gas in the empty space between galaxies is better than the best vacuum we can produce on Earth, but there is such a huge volumn of this empty space that that's where most of the matter of the universe apparently resides. And most of this rarefied gas is apparently in plasma form, its high energy causing collisions that keep the hydrogen nuclei separated from their electons (Wikipedia article on intergalactic space).
I think that's part of the point of saying it that way. Its supposed to be a "wowzer". The physics cranks seem to like to say things that appear false at face value, but tend to be technically correct. That way, they can build some doubt as if everything you think you know could be wrong, and therefore, all of physics could be wrong too. I don't find it to be a very honest approach.
Oh, okay, I think I see what you're saying. Yes, if the average person's visual image for a plasma is anything like mine (blazingly hot and dense flow of gas capable of destroying everything in it's path), then simply saying that 99% of the universe is a plasma paints the wrong image. All the incredibly hot plasma of a cubic mile of interstellar space probably wouldn't contain enough energy to reheat your coffee, or even noticeably change its temperature.
Your astrophysicists are saying all matter was confined in a 0 point volume singularity.
The problem of the singularity is analogous to physical laws that have distance in the denominator. The intensity of sound doesn't really become infinite when you reach the source, and gravity doesn't really become infinite when the distance of separation is 0, but that is the result you get if you just blindly apply the formulas.
So cosmologists know better than to blindly apply the laws of general relativity all the way back to T=0. They understand that there wasn't really any singularity. A number of theories have been proposed to explain what really happens, but none has yet garnered enough evidence to win out over the others.
I'm afraid you just pulled an Emily Litella. You seem to have forgotten that I was responding to your comment about the Big Bang, not black holes. In Message 364 you said:
It's not my theory of the Big Bang, it's theirs. Your astrophysicists are saying all matter was confined in a 0 point volume singularity.
And that's what I responded to, pointing out that scientists don't really believe there was a singularity at T=0. A number of theories have been proposed to explain what really happens, but none has yet garnered enough evidence to win out over the others.
I didn't say anything about black holes, but you seem to be wrong about them, too. Blindly applying the equations of general relativity does yield a singularity at the center of black holes, but scientists understand that general relativity isn't the full story at very small scales. They don't really believe there's a singularity at the center of black holes. As the Wikipedia article on black holes states:
The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory [general relativity]. This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum effects should describe these actions, due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date, it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory, although there exist attempts to formulate such a theory of quantum gravity. It is generally expected that such a theory will not feature any singularities.
In this view of singularities they are seen as artifacts of applying only general relativity instead of general relativity and quantum theory together. Scientists don't believe singularities exist in the real universe.
Can I leave the taunt out this time, or do I need to supply a taunt before you'll respond? If a taunt is required then just let me know and I'll add one. And I was wondering, if I edit in taunts to my other posts that you ignored, will you then respond to those, too?
I agree with NoNukes that you appear to posting gibberish. Nothing you say makes any sense, it certainly doesn't appear to be anything true about the real world, nor does it appear to have anything to do with the posts you're replying to or to the websites you quote. I guess I can only echo NoNukes question: What is wrong with you?
I corrected the damaged link in your post, that portion of your message now reads:
quote:Whatever theory the above quote is supposed to describe, it is not the Big Bang theory of reality, which does not involve a zero volume singularity. And what the heck is a "zero-point volume mass" anyway? Just more gibberish.
Free gibberish debunk. An electron has no size. An electron and a proton at the same point in space does not form a singularity. So what would such a combination be?
The first link is a Google search for "big bang theory astronomy", and the link you posted does not appear on the first two pages of Google results. Given that your link doesn't contain the phrase "big bang", I doubt it appears on any page. Can you not get anything right?
But thanks for the link to the crank on-line magazine. Here's a tip. The next time someone claims to be sharing suppressed scientific knowledge with you, they're a crank. You conspiracy suckers are all alike. Anytime someone taps you on the shoulder and whispers, "Hey, buddy, want to hear about the secret conspiracy," you guys just lap it up.
Today's accepted scientific theories attained that position through painstaking study of and comparison against the real world. Proving any of them wrong will require more painstaking study of and comparison against the real world, not whatever it is you're doing.
The only way I can make any sense at all out of your post is if I assume you're operating under the misapprehension that a black hole and a singularity are synonymous. This would be incorrect. Black holes and singularities are two different things. It is singularities that scientists don't believe are real, believing they're just an artifact of general relativity applied inappropriately at tiny scales.
Scientists do believe that black holes exist, and we have lots of evidence for them, including even some fairly direct observational evidence.
So once again, just to be sure you have it straight about what scientists believe are real: Black holes, yes. Singularities, no.
So getting back to your original erroneous point, scientists don't believe there was a singularity at T=0 just before the Big Bang. They believe that the cosmological models we have don't apply that early in the universe. There are a number of theories that have been proposed, but none have yet garnered enough evidence to become widely accepted.
And about your subsequent erroneous point, scientists don't believe there's a singularity at the center of black holes. They believe that correctly modelling what occurs at the center of black holes requires the application of both general relativity and quantum theory simultaneously, something we're not currently capable of doing.
Have you considered a name change, possibly to IncapableOfSeeingTruth?