0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So does that mean I can steer the thread back to its original point? It has been off topic for quite a while.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 31/08/2016 21:54:36So does that mean I can steer the thread back to its original point? It has been off topic for quite a while....and that would be a steer of the bovine variety, right?In your field of bullocks no doubt Jeff!*In light of anyone else being as curious as I am as to the mathematical viability of my alternative cyclic model, I am now elsewhere on net raising money to hire a mathematician to calculate the ideas that I have put forth above...
Quote from: timey on 14/09/2016 13:48:26Quote from: jeffreyH on 31/08/2016 21:54:36So does that mean I can steer the thread back to its original point? It has been off topic for quite a while....and that would be a steer of the bovine variety, right?In your field of bullocks no doubt Jeff!*In light of anyone else being as curious as I am as to the mathematical viability of my alternative cyclic model, I am now elsewhere on net raising money to hire a mathematician to calculate the ideas that I have put forth above...Even BS beats the nonsense you are peddling.
Does this mean I don't get the thread back? I would rather know for certain either way.
So basically I should have taken the posts I made in the thread I started and move them out of your way. No one can accuse you of modesty. I still don't have my thread back BTW. You just keep filling it up with nit picking.
Not insults. Facts!And you are still talking about anything apart from physics as per usual, a fact that has literally bored me off the forum!My only reason for responding is that you, without even understanding the physics of my model, denounce it...I'm just making sure that everyone else realises the truth of this thread, what has and has not been said, and the fact that you are well and truly out of order for speaking out of turn about an idea that you have not even bothered to read properly, let alone understand.Indeed I was actually invited more than once to elaborate on my idea right here on this thread by Alan. You can now take up the highjacking of your precious thread with him.
Quote from: timey on 14/09/2016 23:01:24Not insults. Facts!And you are still talking about anything apart from physics as per usual, a fact that has literally bored me off the forum!My only reason for responding is that you, without even understanding the physics of my model, denounce it...I'm just making sure that everyone else realises the truth of this thread, what has and has not been said, and the fact that you are well and truly out of order for speaking out of turn about an idea that you have not even bothered to read properly, let alone understand.Indeed I was actually invited more than once to elaborate on my idea right here on this thread by Alan. You can now take up the highjacking of your precious thread with him. You go for the dramatic exit then. My daughter, when she was a child, had tantrums such as yours.
My model places the black hole phenomenon as the precipitation of both the end and beginning of the universes cycles, and the inflation period is caused by the superluminal jets of the end of the universes cycle's singular black hole.Nobody has ever described a cyclic universe like this.
Quote from: timey on 29/08/2016 20:26:33My model places the black hole phenomenon as the precipitation of both the end and beginning of the universes cycles, and the inflation period is caused by the superluminal jets of the end of the universes cycle's singular black hole.Nobody has ever described a cyclic universe like this.I think Hawking's "Black holes and baby universes" came fairly close, and only 40 years after the unpublished Calverd-Kibblewhite conversations on the same subject.