[guest39538]

There is no such thing as zero, so I don't think there's an "after zero" either.

The evidence suggests absolute n-dimensional space with a value of k=0 or k=n   , 0 being equal to n in that nothing can be a 0 point or a visual whole finite point interior inside  an n-dimensional exterior.

My hypothesis is that the universe is cyclical. Black holes to me are not an example of entropy. What a black hole is is a huge amount of mass and energy in a small space. That's "order," not "disorder." If a black hole blew up and released those contents, dissipating them throughout space, THAT would be disorder. That's what logic suggests to me, anyway. A bottle of gas is order, pop the lid off and let the gas spread throughout the room, that's disorder. I think that's what the Big Bang was: a black hole that reached a critical mass, at which point it released its contents. This version of the Big Bang has no need for an actual "zero time" measurement, just something more like a "reset button" for a stopwatch that never actually stops. Mass and energy are conserved forever, while the Big Bang is just a large scale mass/energy conversion. The universe has always existed, always will, and there will be other Big Bangs eventually.

I would have to pull you up on the first line , where on Earth do you perceive cyclical from?    The motion of bodies is just the motion of bodies relatively travelling through absolute space.

Space does not have to be moving for the bodies to move or does the shape of cyclical, in comparison with the star saucepan formation, have relativity to absolute - space. The formation is relative to the bodies.

Shapes are of the imagination of space, only objects have shape, XYZ space is really n .




The Big bang theory can not be correct, all the matter in the visual universe would not fit into a 0 point  if we rewound  the big bang.

[guest39538]

Like I said run away, logged out and scampered off, when you call somebody else and say they are full of BS, you better be ready to be have your mouth closed when they are well clued up but pretend to know nothing, I don't know everything but I have a far better idea of relativity than you do.

Still here, just visiting Google news. You called me arrogant, but you expect me to drop whatever I'm doing to have a debate with you?

Tell me what you know about Relativity. This ought to be good. Open your mouth wide and clue me right up, LOL

Relativity is simply what two or more observers agree upon,


''noun
14.
something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to relative ).''


Relative matter occupies absolute-space

[guest39538]

Let me give you an easy question, what is the wave-length of  the represented by the green  line?

I get 0

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[guest39538]

How about another truthful model

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[guest39538]

You asked what is relative, expect new, my perspective is relative.

Black holes do emit light and reflect light, but you can not see this because they are relatively too small for the inverse square  law to work.  Imagine a small dense mass that was 1000 yrds away from you, you would not observe it to be there but it would be affected its surroundings.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Let me give you an easy question, what is the wave-length of  the represented by the green  line?

I get 0

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

There is no such thing as zero. It is a mathematical abstraction. From the Calculus book I'm tutoring myself with:

"A mathematical model is never a completely accurate representation of a physical situation--it is an idealization. A good model simplifies reality enough to permit mathematical calculations but is accurate enough to provide valuable conclusions. It is important to realize the limitations of the model. In the end, Mother Nature has the final say." [Calculus Early Transcendentals, Stewart]

Looks like Mr. Thomson absorbed that green photon:

http://www.houzz.com/photos/798010/Everybody-Wanna-Hit-of-Your-Pipe-Dream-modern-artwork-other-metro

[guest39538]

There is no such thing as zero. It is a mathematical abstraction. From the Calculus book I'm tutoring myself with:

I thought you said you was smart? 


There is no such thing as zero are you mad?   there is no such thing as numbers they are abstract, you clearly are confused and are naive in believing what you are reading.   

Every single 0 point of ''empty'' space is zero, nothing, then one is any xyzt.

You are not smart at all.

[guest39538]

Look its really simple, take two equal length sticks ,


0.........................0

1.........................1




Do you in some way think that labelling the length 1 something , it changes  the length any or affects the length any?   That is because numbers are abstract, even the numbers of time are abstract, 1 second is a length of history from 0-1, number one is a variate and not absolute like 0 and space.


A frequency that changes in  rate measured over an absolute length does not change the length of measurement.




0→A

A→0   


The absolute length of space is an invariant.

[guest39538]

del

[Craig W. Thomson]

del

Yeah, that was pretty smart. LOL.

Here's one of my favorite quotes: "... and just as only the very rich understand the difference between themselves and the poor, only the truly brilliant comprehend the difference between themselves and men of moderate intelligence."

https://books.google.com/books?id=p0yWHm0Qw14C&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=lawrence+g+mcdonald+just+as+only+the+rich+only+the+brilliant&source=bl&ots=tg-1S7RaQI&sig=wnGI8jBN5QHGFfVMYB2BPnnFbfU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib4K_z4d7LAhVQymMKHU8WBlkQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=lawrence%20g%20mcdonald%20just%20as%20only%20the%20rich%20only%20the%20brilliant&f=false

Have fun with your play science, thinking outside TheBox. I'm having a real debate on anthropogenic climate change with a boring pharmacologist in another thread.

[jeffreyH]

Et

Your modesty is inspirational.

Your flaming is not. Would you like to say something about black holes? Or are you just going to keep talking about me?

I see little point since none of us mere mortals here could hope to approach the level of your superior intellect. Maybe you should teach us, oh great one.

[guest39538]

Have fun with your play science,

Says what authority?

Play science?


Yet I use axioms and present knowledge,

are you suggesting science is wrong?

Clearly you are not as clever as you thought you was and could not even comprehend my level of understanding.


Why do I even bother replying to clowns like you, why do I even bother with science, all my ideas will be stole and used by the predators, I don't normally drink, but tonight I am a bit drunk , so you know what, stuff all of science, I am not going to spill any more beans, you truly will never understand because the entire world is deluded and quite thick, including you.
I may just get insulting and push for  ban, or I may just ignore everyone all together, or maybe I should resort to stupid stuff which you find more interesting than the truth.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Says what authority?

Play science?

Yet I use axioms and present knowledge,

are you suggesting science is wrong?

Clearly you are not as clever as you thought you was and could not even comprehend my level of understanding.

Why do I even bother replying to clowns like you, why do I even bother with science, all my ideas will be stole and used by the predators, I don't normally drink, but tonight I am a bit drunk , so you know what, stuff all of science, I am not going to spill any more beans, you truly will never understand because the entire world is deluded and quite thick, including you.
I may just get insulting and push for  ban, or I may just ignore everyone all together, or maybe I should resort to stupid stuff which you find more interesting than the truth.

I'm not suggesting science is wrong, that's for sure. The science is right.

It's all the people here talking about it that are wrong, especially you.

Science actually makes sense to me ... until I log on and read what everyone is posting. That's what doesn't make sense. Between you, Bored Chemist, alancalverd, Tim the Plumber, waitedavid137, Krash661, Sea Bass, Nacho and the rest, you guys could write an antithesis or alternative explanation for not just everything I know, but everything we know as a species.

I used to like you, when you stood up to waitedavid. But that's typical, actually. He says, I'm wrong, you say I'm wrong, but neither of you agree either. That's how it goes at physics forums, in the best of my experience. It's like talking about physics in a courtroom full of lawyers that all have their own peculiar twist on the facts. Nobody cares about the facts. Everybody is more worried about their own interpretation of the facts.

I'm here seeking clarity. These jokers obfuscate, you dilly-dally with silly ideas. Sorry, but if you were more serious about this stuff, you would try to learn it, not piece it together from a couple of facts and a lot of outside the box thinking.

You shouldn't post when you are drinking. I quit drinking over a year ago, but only a couple of years ago, I got banned from a forum posting drunk.

[Craig W. Thomson]

I see little point since none of us mere mortals here could hope to approach the level of your superior intellect. Maybe you should teach us, oh great one.

I can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.

You can lead a horse to a glacier melted by anthropogenic climate change, but you cannot make him drink.

[jeffreyH]

I see little point since none of us mere mortals here could hope to approach the level of your superior intellect. Maybe you should teach us, oh great one.

I can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.

You can lead a horse to a glacier melted by anthropogenic climate change, but you cannot make him drink.

The reason you don't get a positive reaction is that you are rude, insulting and have an overblown opinion of yourself. That is very ego-centric and excludes most sensible debate. No one is right all the time and yet you are ready to state that every member of this forum is wrong. And you wonder why you don't get a positive response?

[Craig W. Thomson]

The reason you don't get a positive reaction is that you are rude, insulting and have an overblown opinion of yourself. That is very ego-centric and excludes most sensible debate. No one is right all the time and yet you are ready to state that every member of this forum is wrong. And you wonder why you don't get a positive response?

False. There are people who don't feel that way. They are the ones who treat me with respect, and engage in a discussion about science.

Sorry, but I can't really be wrong about anything here, for several reasons.

First of all, I qualify my statements regularly by noting that I am only a layman, and science is my hobby, not my occupation.

Secondly, I generally qualify my statements with words like, "it would seem," or "I think," or "this suggests," or "in my opinion,"
making it clear I am not making a statement of fact. If I state something like it's a fact, it probably is. So, if you're
countering what I see as facts, you had better take it up with the guy who worked at NASA for 30 years who taught
the Stellar Physics course I took in college, or the PhD who wrote a textbook on Quantum Physics I have on my shelf,
for example. Those are the sorts of people I get my information from, not internet forum crackpots who say they are wrong.

Thirdly, I post links to information supporting my comments at times, especially if they have a ".org" or ".gov" designation.

Finally, there are two types of non-trolls in public forums. There are people who ignore them, and there are people who engage them.
I am simply one of the latter type. I don't think people should have to be submissive to jerkfaces. I think you ought to get a handful
of feces thrown back at you like the ape you are.

Again, there's a reason you have such a low percentage of "thank yous" after that many comments. Just like you said,
"The reason you don't get a positive reaction is that you are rude, insulting and have an overblown opinion of yourself."

I started out with 3 thanks you's after only about 50 comments. It's only going down because I beat my head against brick walls like you.

Who cares? I didn't come here to kiss anybody's butt. I came here to talk about science. This is a physics forum. Say something
about physics, or please stop posting. You're not just wasting my time flaming. Everybody has to scroll through your unedifying rubbish.

[jeffreyH]

Yet more insults. I suppose you have read the forum acceptable usage policy. So the next time you call me an ape and I deserve to have feces thrown at me please go back and read that policy. Whilst I am only pointing out your obnoxious behavior you respond by ramping up the insults. Yet you can see nothing wrong with that behavior.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Yet more insults. I suppose you have read the forum acceptable usage policy. So the next time you call me an ape and I deserve to have feces thrown at me please go back and read that policy. Whilst I am only pointing out your obnoxious behavior you respond by ramping up the insults. Yet you can see nothing wrong with that behavior.

Last time I checked, homo sapiens was a species of primate. That includes you.

Again, this is a science forum. Acceptable behavior for a science forum is talking about science, not flaming.

So, stop flaming me and say something about science, or shut your ape mouth before I shove a banana in it.

[guest39538]

Again, this is a science forum. Acceptable behavior for a science forum is talking about science, not flaming.

Yes that is correct

So, stop flaming me and say something about science, or shut your ape mouth before I shove a banana in it.

Then contradictory to your first statement reply with flaming and an insult, so by this self evident admittance of the second quote showing evidentially a contradiction to the first post and admitting knowing forum etiquette,  I postulate a dismissal of you from this forum for clearly trolling and ignoring your admittance of knowing forum etiquette.


How do you plead?

[jeffreyH]

Your very first contribution to this thread when replying to Thebox began "I don't see it that way, but I am not missing 50% of my brain, either." So you in fact started your contribution with an unwarranted attack on a forum member. That was in reply #29. From that point on your contribution was a continuing flame war with agyejy. Since then you have continued in the same vein when being corrected by anyone that you feel is inferior to you. I didn't start the BS. You did.