1
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
New Theories / Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?
« on: 09/11/2020 08:06:28 »...
He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
So, he is not there by himself. There must be many other NASA scientists that work with him or for him
That article is published at the main site of NASA.
So, NASA fully backup this new understanding for infinite universe. ...
Are you going to pick and choose what science supported by NASA you agree with? They clearly support the BBT as mainstream theory.
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang
(Your apparent misunderstanding of the use of "nobody" by Bored chemist is quite odd. Was that actually some kind of sarcasm by you?)
3
New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
« on: 30/10/2020 06:48:46 »...
I'll let Bored chemist say whether they think I'm contradicting them, or the BB. (I wouldn't trust you to tell me water is wet.)
Meanwhile, why don't you educate yourself on what the current science is? Do the homework that Bored chemist suggests?
This way, you can argue against science, instead of straw men.
4
New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
« on: 30/10/2020 06:29:09 »...
First you have stated that the Universe is "either infinite, or finite but unbounded":current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded.Now you claim that the Universe has no edge:There is no edge to the Universe...
There is no "now". These statements are consistent.
You made a weird claim, that depends on the Universe having an edge.
I was pointing out that current science says there is no edge to the Universe (it is "either infinite, or finite but unbounded", both of those possibilities have no edge). Thus your claim that relies on there being an edge is just another one of your personal ideas; it's not a development from current science.
A house of cards.
5
New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
« on: 29/10/2020 20:20:27 »Yep. Dave Lev proved my point - he doesn't even know the science he claims is wrong!You have just proved that you can't even backup your own message.
Why do you suddenly contradicts yourself?
What was your intention when you have stated that the Universe is either infinite or finite but unbounded?current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded.Could it be that based on your personal approach - the real meaning of what you say is the opposite of what you say?
So, what was your intention when you have stated that the Universe is "either infinite or finite but unbounded"?
I'm not interested in discussing the size or shape of the Universe with you. I've seen that's pointless.
I was mostly interested in pointing out that you don't know the science you are arguing against. (You pick and choose what science you accept, and build long chains of reasoning based on your own ideas, but portrayed as though they are obvious and accepted.)
(Edit: That was also my intent with the question here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg607830#msg607830 )
There is no edge to the Universe. Your personal view is that there is, but that's not current science.
6
New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
« on: 29/10/2020 18:57:11 »How a Universe can be finite but unbounded or unlimited?If you had done your homework, you would know this.
But you didn't even bother to find out what the current model of the universe is before claiming to have proved that it is wrong.
Yep. Dave Lev proved my point - he doesn't even know the science he claims is wrong!
Don't know how you find the energy Bored chemist, but I appreciate your posts in this thread.
7
New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
« on: 28/10/2020 22:52:30 »Let's assume that we are located near the edge of the Universe. What should we see?
Don't you agree that we would clearly see that in one side the sky is full with galaxies while in the other it is almost empty?
No!
That's a perfect example of where you seem to have no idea at all what current scientific thinking is.
Wherever I am in the Universe, even at the edge of what we currently can observe, I'd be at the centre of my own observable part of the Universe.
You presumably think of "space" as something like an endless simple three dimensional void in which the BB occurred and which has resulted in a sphere of "stuff" that has an edge in that void.
Whatever the topology and size of the Universe, current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded. I expect you won't like that but that's a different issue.
(
On the question:
See: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg607830#msg607830
This was when the thread topic was mostly your idea that black holes are somehow an endless energy source.
)
8
New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
« on: 27/10/2020 18:58:33 »
How is "edge of the observable Universe" supposed to make any sense in the first place?
Dave Lev is as usual arguing against his own misconceptions, not current science.
(Dave Lev, you never answered my question about whether you thought gravity assist ("slingshot") was literally "free".)
Dave Lev is as usual arguing against his own misconceptions, not current science.
(Dave Lev, you never answered my question about whether you thought gravity assist ("slingshot") was literally "free".)
9
New Theories / Re: “Can the Universal Constants be Derived Through a Single Continuous Equation?”
« on: 15/10/2020 04:40:14 »
So to be realistic, does "Journal" here mean much more than "some guys with a website"?
And are the reviewers for those journals any better placed to review than participants of this web forum?
(I'm just digging into your claim: "... had to pass peer review to be published", with the implication that those reviewers are more qualified than Bored Chemist.)
And are the reviewers for those journals any better placed to review than participants of this web forum?
(I'm just digging into your claim: "... had to pass peer review to be published", with the implication that those reviewers are more qualified than Bored Chemist.)
10
New Theories / Re: “Can the Universal Constants be Derived Through a Single Continuous Equation?”
« on: 15/10/2020 00:50:36 »...
I would also just note that the paper had to pass peer review to be published. I would think qualified reviewers would have caught any numerology aspects.
Are you truly independent when claiming that?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72342.msg613649#msg613649
https://journalofmoderncosmology.com/contactJoMC.htm
What is the standing of that journal? (Edit: and the reviewers?)
11
New Theories / Re: “Can the Universal Constants be Derived Through a Single Continuous Equation?”
« on: 11/10/2020 00:53:33 »
(
This is an aside, but no, that term is not misused. Your definition of it is correct; but ignores the very common tendency of groups to develop specialised nuances of language. One such group is members of web forums. In these forums, especially in sections such as this, "numerology" has become a very common term - I've seen it in many forums, over decades. It's a nice shorthand for "fiddling with numbers and math (often without rhyme or reason) and getting excited about coincidences". That meaning was clear.)
... that would be "numerology", a term you are misusing. ...
This is an aside, but no, that term is not misused. Your definition of it is correct; but ignores the very common tendency of groups to develop specialised nuances of language. One such group is members of web forums. In these forums, especially in sections such as this, "numerology" has become a very common term - I've seen it in many forums, over decades. It's a nice shorthand for "fiddling with numbers and math (often without rhyme or reason) and getting excited about coincidences". That meaning was clear.)
12
New Theories / Re: Point Particles
« on: 16/09/2020 21:05:43 »Why no comment about this:Let me tell you this: if the particles are really points, then the only way to attach properties to them is in how their field behaves as the radius (r) tends to zero. Since both gravity and electric field go as 1/(r^2) this is out of the question (the QED vacuum may confuse the two for each other).
Since GR came along, gravity is seen as warping of space-time, not a field. While you think the Newton-style formula shows up a "divide by zero error", I don't see how that's an issue.
13
New Theories / Re: Point Particles
« on: 15/09/2020 20:42:48 »"Encode" sounds like a word used to denote programming.
How do you translate: "They simply have properties." into mathematical language?
What "mathematical language" do you have to say (paraphrased) "point particles can't have properties"?
(To a certain extent, I do see where your argument from incredulity is coming from. My car is red. That seems to be possible only because my car is big enough to have some red paint on it. BUT sub atomic particles are not like my car, and the properties they have are not like the properties my car has.)
14
New Theories / Re: Why the Position of a Particle is Uncertain.
« on: 03/09/2020 09:28:34 »
What are "positive points"?
What are "negative points"?
Why are there "negative points?" between "positive points"?
If "negative points" are between "positive points", why must zero (of -ve) be to the right of zero (of +ve)?
Why does "right" make sense in 3D (or rather 4D) space?
Why does measurement with "negative points" make shorter distances than with "positive points"?
What are "negative points"?
Why are there "negative points?" between "positive points"?
If "negative points" are between "positive points", why must zero (of -ve) be to the right of zero (of +ve)?
Why does "right" make sense in 3D (or rather 4D) space?
Why does measurement with "negative points" make shorter distances than with "positive points"?
15
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Frictionless Cogs
« on: 24/08/2020 23:19:14 »
All makes me think of the time I got to do ice skating on a frozen canal.
Horizontally, parallel with the low-friction ice, it was fun to skate along.
Vertically (falling!), perpendicular to the low-friction ice: this 8 year old boy shouted out in a New Zealand accented English among all these Dutch people: "b*****y hell, this stuff is as hard as concrete!".
Horizontally, parallel with the low-friction ice, it was fun to skate along.
Vertically (falling!), perpendicular to the low-friction ice: this 8 year old boy shouted out in a New Zealand accented English among all these Dutch people: "b*****y hell, this stuff is as hard as concrete!".
16
New Theories / Re: why is Absolute Zero ignored in the creation/end of the Universe
« on: 23/08/2020 23:43:29 »
Re: "AZ – Molecule Creation – Imbalance - BB – Expansion/Contraction - AZ"
Molecules appeared _after_ the BB, because even atoms did not exist for a while.
Molecules appeared _after_ the BB, because even atoms did not exist for a while.
17
New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe
« on: 06/07/2020 04:22:58 »...
Our scientists are using this force/energy to boost their space ship for free.
So they are using the energy in the gravity force to accelerate their space ship in the direction of the moon, the Sun or any other direction.
All of that comes for free.
...
The gravity force that boosts the space ship adds a severe kinetic energy to that space ship.
...
So, do you agree that by using the Erath' gravity force, the space ship gets new kinetic energy for free.
You seem to be talking about Gravity Assist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
Do you realise that gravity assist changes the motion of the source body? i.e. it isn't "free".
18
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: An expanding flat universe?
« on: 11/06/2020 23:22:16 »
Flat, here, does not mean like a pancake or CD.
It's about whether it's curved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Curvature
It's about whether it's curved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Curvature
19
New Theories / Re: Is it possible to built an inertial propulsion system for a spaceship?
« on: 04/05/2020 00:40:48 »
A bicycle and a spinning office chair would be enough to put aside this silly idea of a braked wheel experiencing a force in the direction of L.
20
New Theories / Re: Is it possible to built an inertial propulsion system for a spaceship?
« on: 02/05/2020 23:17:16 »
It seems to me you've misunderstood L (angular momentum).
The right hand rule as applied to rotation is essentially a mathematical artifact of a cross product.
That the pseudovector L appears to have a "direction" does not imply a force in that direction, in the way you're thinking.
Why would L be a force up or down, due to the disk spinning?
The pseudovector L (being a vector) is more about resistance to a change in the orientation of that vector. e.g. like a gyro wanting to keep spinning in its plane.
When the brakes are applied to your spinning disk, it won't move up (or down).
(Edit: removed section too easily misconstrued.)
The right hand rule as applied to rotation is essentially a mathematical artifact of a cross product.
That the pseudovector L appears to have a "direction" does not imply a force in that direction, in the way you're thinking.
Why would L be a force up or down, due to the disk spinning?
The pseudovector L (being a vector) is more about resistance to a change in the orientation of that vector. e.g. like a gyro wanting to keep spinning in its plane.
When the brakes are applied to your spinning disk, it won't move up (or down).
(Edit: removed section too easily misconstrued.)