[opportunity (OP)]

You know, like, what are we talking about, data of light years away or what we can prove in a lab?

[opportunity (OP)]

I'll say something, physics is not a giant.

It's not defining our lives.

So there's error there, right? Are you open to that error?

[Kryptid]

You're asking if I am right......can I ask if you're right?

About what? I don't even understand what your argument is.

You know, like, what are we talking about, data of light years away or what we can prove in a lab?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'll say something, physics is not a giant.

It's not defining our lives.

So there's error there, right? Are you open to that error?

You've lost me again. What error?

[opportunity (OP)]

Error has already been caused via science.

What happens when we can perfect science?

Where's the error?

Our use of it?

Why not...…?

[opportunity (OP)]

Have I lost you......again?

You look at reality like you can define it....any way you like.....do you ask why?

To control everyone?

To piss people off?

Or, maybe to do something we "need", right?

I don't know, I'm not even sure if science can handle that, the idea of designing in our minds the stage it can set....can we use an ultimate stage via science properly?

[opportunity (OP)]

If aliens landed next week and said they were from Mars, like that's how life in the solar system moves, and the stars are a mirror-light-show.....would you believe them, and they're not selling their space ship in the landing.....they're just saying hello.

Are you doing math in the stars or the lab?

[opportunity (OP)]

I say "next week" because I'm interested in your outlook.


The problematic thing with science today is "looking" for alien life, while thinking a light-speed message sent from Earth is going to improve our chances of survival....wow.

can I say that again..."wow".

Is this science?

[Kryptid]

Your thoughts seem pretty scattered. Can you try to summarize the point of this thread?

[opportunity (OP)]

Rightly put.

The "scattered" nature is the multiple fronts contemporary science is waging its quest on for finding a theory of everything, a meaning for life, an explanation for all things, a link between EM and gravity.


That's what I am trying to highlight.....its scattered, like the stars.


The ideological quest of science today appears to need to behave according to the premise all space and time came from a big bang, and thus any research that is considered could need to be judged accordingly. Like for instance someone has a great outside-the-square idea with time and space, all the ideas fit, all the equations marry, except for the idea of the big bang.....and because of that, the research is discounted. That's "scattered" thinking, "scattered judgement".....the premise that the idea of a big bang needs to be upheld. I have a theory that calculates the red shift effect and the CBM radiation, calculates it, but it doesn't then suggest a big bang. People then reject the notion because it doesn't support the big bang. To me, that's scattered thinking.

[opportunity (OP)]

This might be clear as day to me, yet maybe not to others: the idea of the "big bang" is the epitome of scattered thinking with the suggestion all things came from nothing, from an explosion, based on only two key pieces of evidence, the red shift effect and CMB radiation. Sure, we can develop theories "using" the red-shift effect and CMB radiation, and the big bang is one of them, but why depend on it solely as an institution, an anvil, of scientific congress?

[opportunity (OP)]

One of the key ideas and practices I have observed in the history of science, and more importantly in following science carrying the idea of a big bang since it was introduced and taken as gospel, is that everything has to be explained through the stars, that the stars are the model, that the filter of the red-shift effect and CMB radiation are almost a "given" in enforcing the idea all matter, energy, and forces exploded from nothing. Yet that almost categorically reduces the chance of linking EM and G in the lab, because the stars don't allow it, and if they do, you need a neutron star for instance. That's hard to take as a researcher who knows better with theory that can challenge the BBT with more linked equations.

[opportunity (OP)]

The "origin" of the universe is just as good as our ability to explain everything, right?


A big-bang V a conclusive EM-G theory?

It shouldn't be an EM-G theorist, yet our ability to focus on that opening...of scientific tooling to test the limits.....

...someone then puts a jigsaw together, of the stars, and the shape is not the broken menagerie of the BBT?

How will we know? Finding EM-G in the lab, to challenge the idea of BBT of RSE (red shift effect) and CBM radiation?

Why not?

[Kryptid]

exploded from nothing.

That's not what the Big Bang theory says.

Yet that almost categorically reduces the chance of linking EM and G in the lab, because the stars don't allow it,

Whether or not the Big Bang happened has nothing to do with whether electromagnetism and gravity can be unified. The evidence for the Big Bang is not limited to cosmic redshift anyway. There is also the relative abundances of the chemical elements, the microwave radiation background and the fact that the radius of the visible universe is pretty much equal to its own Schwarzschild radius.

[opportunity (OP)]

The Schwartz child radius.


I'm not sure how that carries the BBT.


Maybe you can explain how it does.

[Kryptid]

The Schwartz child radius.


I'm not sure how that carries the BBT.


Maybe you can explain how it does.

In a sense, the Big Bang could be thought of as a time-reversed black hole. For a black hole, all matter that is inside of its Schwarzschild radius collapses towards a singularity in its future. For the Big Bang, all matter inside of its Schwarzchild radius expands away from a singularity in its past.

[opportunity (OP)]

Its clearly an event.

[opportunity (OP)]

I'm looking at events....