0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Why don't you start with something less ambitious, like a theory of something ...
Quote from: David CooperWhy don't you start with something less ambitious, like a theory of something ...I suggest that we don't lead him down the garden path. We should do our best to convince him that he should obtain a strong education in both physics and the philosophy of physics. As Fritz Rohrlich wrote ignoring philosophy in physics means not understanding physics. If he wants to be really good then he should, and could if he worked hard enough, sit down with a math text and a physics text and go at it. Stick your nose in those books and come up only for air or food until you've finished. We'll be here to help, I promise him that. But he has to stop thinking that he's able to create a solid theory that will become anything or something that could be published. That won't happen. Of course he can prove me wrong and do try to it with one of his so-called "Theories".TB - Do you want to become good at physics or do you want to post your new theories here and that's all?
If space itself is also expanding, and beyond this space, ”the black background”, nothing exists, what is the expanding space, expanding into?
One could make an argument that space is not expanding and it is simply a distance increase of an object, from the observers relative point of observation, an object travelling through space and into more space.
Maybe I have become good at Physics, not the best, but also I am happy to just share my ideas here.
A common misconception. As space expands its more or less getting larger (sort of "stretching") and in the process creating more space as it goes.Quote from: box A misconception by science, the galaxies moving away from us are no different than you walking away from me. Think of the space of the universe as residing on the surface of a balloon. The universe is then analogous to the balloon blowing up and its surface stretching. Mind you that nothing exists off the surface. The center of the balloon which is inside the sphere at its center is not on the surface so its not part of the universe. So keep in mind that everything in the universe resides only on the surface of the balloon.Quote from: box the balloon needs space to expand intoYou do realize, don't you, that cosmologists are well aware of such a trivial explanation. However when we look through our telescopes we see all other galaxies moving away from our own galaxy. If its actually the distance between us and the moving object that is increasing then you have to explain why all objects are moving away from our galaxy. I.e. what is so special about our galaxy so that all galaxies are moving away from it? This is in contradiction to something called The Cosmological Principle which states the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle. In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the distribution of matter in the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the Universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.Your proposal is in contradiction to the cosmological principle. Then there's Hubble's law which states that the recession velocity of all galaxies is proportional to the distance to the galaxy. This means, i.e. for this to be true that, all galaxies are moving away from all other galaxies.
A misconception by science, the galaxies moving away from us are no different than you walking away from me.
the balloon needs space to expand into
Quote from: TheboxMaybe I have become good at Physics, not the best, but also I am happy to just share my ideas here.I'm sorry TB but I need to tell you like it is. I don't want to lie to you. But I don't want to hide the truth from you either. I see no evidence of you having become good in physics. I actually can't even tell if you understand physics at all. And you're not working according to the scientific method either.
A positive entropy galaxy moving away from a positive entropy galaxy is not a surprise.
''I.e. what is so special about our galaxy so that all galaxies are moving away from it?''What is so special about our galaxy why we did not expand with the rest?
Yes my theory so far obvious shows I do not know what I am talking about. Of cause I understand. What is your aim here?to try to prevent me writing it?
Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories. The success and credibility of science is anchored in the willingness of scientists to:1) expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by other scientists; this requires the complete and open exchange of data, procedures and materials;2) abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental evidence.Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that is the foundation of the credibility of science.
Quote from: TheboxA positive entropy galaxy moving away from a positive entropy galaxy is not a surprise.It's comments exactly like this that don't make sense to the rest of us. What does the entropy of a galaxy have to do with anything related to this thread or the subject matter??Quote from: Thebox ''I.e. what is so special about our galaxy so that all galaxies are moving away from it?''What is so special about our galaxy why we did not expand with the rest?You didn't answer my question. Why do you think other galaxies are expanding? It's the universe that is expanding, not the galaxies. The gravitational force overcomes the force of expansion because the force of expansion is so small as to be immeasurable and therefore cannot have any effect of any galaxy.
Quote from: TheboxYes my theory so far obvious shows I do not know what I am talking about. Of cause I understand. What is your aim here?to try to prevent me writing it?Why on Earth would you say that I'm trying to "prevent" you from writing it? What kind of way is that to respond to someone who is honestly trying to help you? I'm not a Nazi who goes around trying to stop people from doing things that I don't like. Let me ask you something. What do you think we should do when we read these theories of yours? In my case with the understanding that I'm a professional physicist. For example: If I see you make a mistake of I can't understand what you're saying, what do you think I should do about it? Do you think I should ignore it and leave you alone and enjoy nobody making any corrections to your work (assuming I could convince others to do that for whatever reason)?
The galaxies are not expanding, the Universe is not expanding, the galaxies are moving away from us, giving us an expanded view of space by there been an imaginary balloon surface by using points of observation, the balloon surface does not exist.I personally think they are moving away from us because of galaxy entropy and or they are beyond the event horizon and are been repelled by a centrifugal energy vortex ,
My apologies 4 years of harsh forum times have had its toll on my thoughts, I was always on the receiving end and this has made me defensive in nature, I applaud you for calling it work, Yes I understand it is to be criticized. Point taken I will try harder not to be so defensive,
abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental evidence.
Quote from: TheboxMy apologies 4 years of harsh forum times have had its toll on my thoughts, I was always on the receiving end and this has made me defensive in nature, I applaud you for calling it work, Yes I understand it is to be criticized. Point taken I will try harder not to be so defensive,Thank you for the apology. Apology accepted. I can very well understand how something like that can make you defensive. You have a problem here that you're ignoring. From:http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/what_is_science.pdfQuoteabandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental evidence.It doesn't appear to me that you're meeting this requirement.
~2! abandon or modify accepted conclusionswhen confronted with more complete or reliableexperimental evidence.
No evidence has been provided in any science that suggests we can observe space doing anything.
I am happy to abandon all conclusions if the evidence is logically good, has yet I see no evidence to justify abandoning my ideas.
I have not said there was not a big bang, I am simply stating that all the explanation is not possibly true. My theory so far shows this.
I have time to do and lots more , probably need about 50 parts before i explain a conclusion.
Quote from: Thebox~2! abandon or modify accepted conclusionswhen confronted with more complete or reliableexperimental evidence.The experimental evidence is not what you claimed that it was, i.e. you asserted the notion that all galaxies are moving away from ours. However observations tell us that this is not true. The cosmological redshift and Hubble's law tells us that.You're also ignoring the General Theory of Relativity (GR) because that's what we're using here. Physicists don't merely develop theories and then toss them away when they're finish. No sir! We use then use them! And that's what cosmology is doing, i.e. using GR to explain what is going on in the universe. Quote from: TheboxNo evidence has been provided in any science that suggests we can observe space doing anything.That's not quite true. We have observational evidence that GR is a correct theory about the universe, the nature of matter and the structure of spacetime. It's been tested repeatedly over and over again with remarkable success. So it's for that reason that we rely on it as a correct theory, at least to the limits of observational evidence that we have today. So we use that theory to explain what we observe and the observations tell us, through GR, that it's space itself that is expanding. That's what is known as indirect evidence.So please keep in mind that physicists don't just think up theories and that's all we do. We also use them too. And that's what we're doing with GR and cosmology.Quote from: TheboxI am happy to abandon all conclusions if the evidence is logically good, has yet I see no evidence to justify abandoning my ideas.I hope so.Quote from: Thebox I have not said there was not a big bang, I am simply stating that all the explanation is not possibly true. My theory so far shows this.Not really.Quote from: TheboxI have time to do and lots more , probably need about 50 parts before i explain a conclusion.I have to eat now. More later.