61
New Theories / Re: New Theory of Dark Energy
« on: 30/03/2016 00:35:18 »
I have been working what I believe is a similar thesis derive from an entirely differing angle of approach.
While working toward clarification of inherent problems of boxing boxlike boxprospectives.
This is not my assertion, nor do I hold its conclusion true in any sense of the words, other than I was told by a person possessing questionable grasp of theories of comment exactly this as a point of argument:
You do not believe GR because you do not believe Lambda-CDM principles.
I paraphrased, but the sentiment retains the original lack of substance that has been derived from inherent flaws I've briefly commented. It defies all logic in that GR was not derived from LCDM. The converse is true: LCDM was derive from GR.
chicken/egg - conundrum cycle - not applicable.
cause/effect - sequence WRONG - logic withheld.
effect/cause - sequence identified - logic not applicable, therefore can not apply.
Lambda-CDM is a branch of science that deviates from a notion of science based on reasoning and of an attempt to extrapolate meaning of an inherently complex subject matter of simplifying nature.
I think I got that statement right.... The subject matter therein, is inherently complex... one of many concepts from which a complex theory is based on a complex theory intended to simplify another highly intertwined and relevant topic.
(excuse me, I go bang head on wall for a while)
The gist of my theory is this.
BB/Lambda-CDM starts from a singularity. The singularity is a point presently impossible to perceive because it's derived at a point where the General Relative theory is theorized to BREAK.
Now I don't know how many assertions can/should/might ever be held true by starting from a BROKEN point such as this.
Lambda-CDM starts at such a point. It has become termed "accepted" within a branch of science.
I believe I'm closing in on a simplification of evidently apparent logic that some how remains hidden due to the nature of its inherent and difficult to conceive non-SCIENTIFIC-basis.
Seems a cause-effect issue does apply. I think DE has roots. I'm working on spelling it out w/logic.
While working toward clarification of inherent problems of boxing boxlike boxprospectives.
This is not my assertion, nor do I hold its conclusion true in any sense of the words, other than I was told by a person possessing questionable grasp of theories of comment exactly this as a point of argument:
You do not believe GR because you do not believe Lambda-CDM principles.
I paraphrased, but the sentiment retains the original lack of substance that has been derived from inherent flaws I've briefly commented. It defies all logic in that GR was not derived from LCDM. The converse is true: LCDM was derive from GR.
chicken/egg - conundrum cycle - not applicable.
cause/effect - sequence WRONG - logic withheld.
effect/cause - sequence identified - logic not applicable, therefore can not apply.
Lambda-CDM is a branch of science that deviates from a notion of science based on reasoning and of an attempt to extrapolate meaning of an inherently complex subject matter of simplifying nature.
I think I got that statement right.... The subject matter therein, is inherently complex... one of many concepts from which a complex theory is based on a complex theory intended to simplify another highly intertwined and relevant topic.
(excuse me, I go bang head on wall for a while)
The gist of my theory is this.
BB/Lambda-CDM starts from a singularity. The singularity is a point presently impossible to perceive because it's derived at a point where the General Relative theory is theorized to BREAK.
Now I don't know how many assertions can/should/might ever be held true by starting from a BROKEN point such as this.
Lambda-CDM starts at such a point. It has become termed "accepted" within a branch of science.
I believe I'm closing in on a simplification of evidently apparent logic that some how remains hidden due to the nature of its inherent and difficult to conceive non-SCIENTIFIC-basis.
Seems a cause-effect issue does apply. I think DE has roots. I'm working on spelling it out w/logic.