Summations Only

Serge, come on - you're not supposed to admit it ! Schoolboy error !

Well, they can be - but only to the simple minded

Just for giggles, I thought I'd post an extract from one of our friend's threads on MySpace from just under 2 years ago: (The topic of the thread is "Time - Relatively relative or absolutely absolute").It's terribly sad when someone's proper humility dies.Of course, there are two other possibilities - in between that thread and now, our friend had a series of incredible (albeit unevidenced) revelations about the true nature of physics, and no longer feels the need for humility; or alternatively, he just trailed the thread on MySpace to entice a few posters to troll with.Either way, I prefer the earlier language

Ok, there seems to have been some genuine passion and anger in that last post (168), so I will suspend my judgment that you have been trolling.Here's the thing, AM, when it comes to the question of humility:Several times in this thread (and others) you have stated that the world of physics (with specific reference to Hawking et al) are making basic errors of arithmetic, when it comes to BBT and cutting edge theoretical thinking. (This seems to be with regard to conjecture that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing", (a sentence, I believe, from Hawking's book The Grand Design) and as far as you are concerned, this is a violation of basic arithmetic).Whether or not I'm right about the precise issue you're referring to, the fact remains that you are saying that cutting edge theoretical physicists - each and every one of them (there are thousands of them) - all of whom are highly intelligent and extremely well educated in levels of mathematics which make my own (highly educated) brain dribble out of my ears, are making mathematical errors at a level which we teach to 5 year olds.Seriously ?AM, do you seriously believe that that is likely ?Or is it more likely that at the level of complexity that these guys are dealing, basic arithmetic (as an overriding and governing principle) doesn't apply in the way that it does in our day to day experience ?To put it another way, is it more likely that (a) thousands of highly intelligent, competitive and astonishingly well trained physicists are collectively wrong about something which every 5 year old is taught; or (b) you and I, who are not as well trained, don't properly understand it.(There really is only one sane (and humble) answer to that question).Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

Got to give this one a try. Now according to the Oxford dictionary, this is density: So let's take one litre of cold water from the tap, and put it in a closed one litre container. That closed one litre container is nice and strong, and won't expand on the oven.Now put the container, with one litre of water in it on the oven and turn on the heat. Five minutes later, take the container off the heat.Now then, AM - you started off with one litre of water in a one litre container. It was cold, but its molecules were still in chaotic motion, as you state.You ended up with one litre of water in a one litre container. The same amount of water in the same volume. So the density (remember, it is "the quantity of mass per unit volume of a substance") has stayed the same. The mass is the same ("Mass" is the amount of water - if you want you can weigh it - it will be the same). The volume is the same. So the density is the same.You say, AM, that "Temperature is the density of objects in confined chaotic motion", so since the density is the same, according to your definition of temperature, the temperature of the water must be the same after you had it on the oven for 5 minutes.So how come it started off cold, and now I can make a nice cup of tea with it ?

You said "the density of objects in confined chaotic motion", rather than "the density of objects in motion". The molecules of one litre of water in a one litre container are in confined chaotic motion (Brownian motion).Nevertheless, the issue remains that you have stated that temperature is density. It is not. The two can often have an impact upon each other, but they are not the same thing.

Whoah, whoah, whoah Serge - you were the one who said that temperature is density. You gave us that definition. You said it, it's on record, we all saw it.You don't now get to say "temperature is one of those vague concepts nobody got much of a clue what they are talking about" - you sodding defined it ! As density !I called you on that, and having twigged your mistake, you run away from it, claiming that temperature is a vague concept. How the hell can you believe that, having just defined it ?If you are going to pretend to maintain a position, have the integrity to fight your corner, and not run away from your own definition.

This seems to be a recurring issue. Time and relative motion are certainly related, but you can't go from realising that two distinct concepts are related, to saying that they are the same thing, or that one is an abstraction of the other. It's like temperature and motion again, (or your earlier temperature and density faux pas).I get that you would like the universe to be simple and easy to comprehend - and maybe your desire to reduce the whole marvellous complexity of it to simple Euclidian motion is part of that desire - but it ain't that simple.

AM - wow ! The irony ! Seriously my friend, you could flatten the Himalayas and use them as a bowling green with that one !You've been using a trial metaphor recently. Ok, I'll adopt that. The guys here have been presenting their evidence and case to date, and we'll say that you've been cross-examining.Let's say now that the time has come for your case to be presented. What is your case AM - what theories and (really, really crucially) what evidence are you presenting for an alternative theory to BB ? Give us a model - give us a theory - give us the evidence - give us your case. What's your alternative theory ? (It would help if you have some math to back it up, but I know that you don't believe that math is the language of physics, so we'll go for a cogently presented and argued competing theory to BB instead).AM - present your case !

Let's give this a whirl. Let's assume, for the purposes of argument, that you have succeeded in cleansing and disinfecting the flat, AM - let's assume that you've done it - you've succeeded in debunking BB through the sheer force of your simple denials. BB is dead AM - you killed it. So the flat is clean - you're free to move in your furniture.So what have you got for us, AM ? What's your theory ?