0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
There is precious little evidence for gamma gamma interaction - we have seen a few instances of it, but they are in the most extreme and un-natural circumstances. What mechanism are you proposing for gamma/gamma reactions? A photon traveling across the void sees very little cross traffic - it's not called the void for nothing.A molecule of hydrogen in the interstellar void will most probably be the same in a million years - as would most molecules in the void.
This forum post is a good one and a subject that has a lot of different opinions,
what do you believe?
The Big Bang is not correct. Most of the maths is backwards. Each Galaxy is a mini Big Bang, and even atoms have their own mini Big Bang. Inflation is just out flow from all points, but the In Flow is the force of the out flow. So modified the flow is towards all points, with an out flow. Which make a Galaxy a Universe, and the Universe a Multi-verse. And it make the entire thing a fractal.
Quote from: Pincho on 03/03/2013 14:21:13The Big Bang is not correct. Most of the maths is backwards. Each Galaxy is a mini Big Bang, and even atoms have their own mini Big Bang. Inflation is just out flow from all points, but the In Flow is the force of the out flow. So modified the flow is towards all points, with an out flow. Which make a Galaxy a Universe, and the Universe a Multi-verse. And it make the entire thing a fractal.Do you have any maths to go with that?
This fails to address the following aspects of your claim:1. The character of an atom's big bang.2. Why, if atoms are experiencing a BB we can detect no difference in their behaviour over time.3. The absence of any evidence that galaxies are expanding.4. Clear evidence that they are not.5. etc.The politest thing one can say about your proposal is to say nothing.
In a science forum one is obligated to reply to reasonable points made, or questions raised. The absence of a substantive response can be taken as an implicit admission that your assertion was unfounded and wrong. I do, however, praise you for recognising that any attempt to defend the indefensible would be a reply that would not be worth making.
For example if normal gravity is the bending of space time, then bending space time the other way just throws you off the Earth. That's all you did. You didn't work out the alternative physics for a push Gravity system.
That's the same mistake that Einstein made. It's an obvious mistake to make, and it doesn't give me a very good impression of your way of thinking.
Quote from: Pincho on 09/03/2013 09:32:38For example if normal gravity is the bending of space time, then bending space time the other way just throws you off the Earth. That's all you did. You didn't work out the alternative physics for a push Gravity system. It is not my job to do that. It is your hypothesis, it is your job to explain it. That is how science works, that is how this forum works.Quote from: Pincho on 09/03/2013 09:32:38That's the same mistake that Einstein made. It's an obvious mistake to make, and it doesn't give me a very good impression of your way of thinking.I am delighted to be placed in the same category as Einstein. Since this mistake is not obvious to me, was not obvious to Einstein and is apparently not obvious to the many tens of thousands of physicists who have studied the matter, don't you think you should explain, illustrate and justify this mistake with more than vague hand waving ,word salad, obfuscation and a total absence of maths?
You need to fix the maths, and change the physics to work properly.
Quote from: Pincho on 09/03/2013 12:43:10You need to fix the maths, and change the physics to work properly.No, since you think there is a problem, you need to do this. And if you wish to replace amused chuckles behind your back by credibility, you need to show the fix here.
I am changing the rules of science. I am changing the rules of the proof.So from now on, I am changing the rules of the proof. Proof of the Universe as a fractal is to recreate the fractal in a computer. The person that uses the least rules, and the least logic gates has the new leading model. Any output by the model does not count as part of the logic so long as the computer never uses the output as further input. This means that you can put numbers on the screen as results as often as you want, and if this lengthens the program it does not count as more logic gates. All scientist are allowed to judge the new model to say that it is truly smaller than the previous model. All scientists are allowed to judge that the output matches the actual Universe that we live in. I think that a scoring system is probably best...Best match for actual Universe scoreSmallest number of logic gates scoreThis is the new proof. The proof is allowed to be rewritten by the majority. But the majority must not have an alternative motive to change the proof back to mathematics. Mathematics is not proof.
I showed the fix in my second reply. I told you that you skipped over it. You change mass to a hole. Then the forces are pushed into the hole.. the electron, and come out as magnetism, scaled down gravity.
Quote from: Pincho on 10/03/2013 13:31:28I showed the fix in my second reply. I told you that you skipped over it. You change mass to a hole. Then the forces are pushed into the hole.. the electron, and come out as magnetism, scaled down gravity. Really! No maths. Arm waving. Word salad. Nonsense. I'm done.
Arm waving. Word salad. Nonsense. I'm done.