Reply With Quote
My eyes nearly rolled out of their sockets.
Why isn't that the same difference?
My eyes nearly rolled out of their sockets.
From a relative perspective, they are one in the same. Without being a God, or the God, how would we know if mass was shrinking, or if space was expanding?
What can we use as an absolute reference to know which is the truth?
Wow.
Just wow.
I suggest you start reading modern scientific theory rather than positing rehashed, tired questions on SpursTalk to the annoyance of everyone.
WC continues proves to be the most ignorant poster on this site.
And we could be brains in a vat, all hooked up to a shared simulation. But since there's no way to verify that, there's really no point in bringing it up, since it's completely unfalsifiable.
However, the universe expanding CAN be falsifiable, if the correct dataset doesn't conform with current theory.
100+ hours of classes in astrophysics, for starters.
I think I will wait for the 12 year old to figure it out, and see what *he* says, no offense, but he is far more adept at this than you will ever be.
There is some speculation that there are some aspects of the universe that seem to imitate what we know of advanced computer simulations.
Namely the quantum effects of probability where we can know either the position of small particles, or their vectors, but not both. (hope I said that right) When we aren't looking or observing, things seem to exist in "in-between" states, and only resolve when we take the time to observe them, ala Schoedinger's cat.
We use our observations of the universe. Gather data, and develop out understanding.
This does not require omniscience. Yet another bad starting assumption on your part.
Well, we've made one discovery here on our little ST forum. WC has harnessed the incalculable power of a black hole of logic.
Oh yeah, I know about that. Quantum physics is a topic I like reading about. And yes, I've heard the thought argument about the likelihood of an of us being simulations.
My point was just that it's unverifiable, therefore, it's not really science.
reading some of the on "heat death" is really ing depressing . . .
Well, since nobody was able to explain it in meaningful words, you guys don't understand it any better than I do. I simply would like to see a better explanation, but no one here is capable of that.
Please notice, I'm not saying the hypothisis/theory is wrong, I'm pointing out other possible holes that you guys cannot plug.
Get with it. In science, you have to eliminate other possibilities.
You say that as if the scientists studying that with advanced degrees and who are at least as intelligent than you are, have not eliminated or explored those other possibilities.
If you can, from a layman's perspective, think of these things, it is more than reasonable that the people who study this for decades, i.e. their entire adult professional lives, have certainly thought of those very things.
Your underlying assumption, i.e. that the scientists haven't accounted for the things you think are "holes" has no supporting evidence, and, worse yet, seems to me to be highly implausible to put it charitably.
As I said, I will wait for the 12 year old to have a couple of decades to crack this problem.
I, for one, will not pretend to understand it well enough to criticize it. I leave that kind of "thinking" to twoofers and the like.
That will happen long long long after we are all dead, and our species has vanished like a fart in a hurricaine.reading some of the on "heat death" is really ing depressing . . .
Whatever life comes after us will have to deal with that eventuality.
That's even more depressing . . .
Random, you clearly missed my point.
I am not disagreeing with the theory that was previously unknown to me.
However, no one here is able to understand it well enough to debate it past "the experts said..."
It would really be refreshing if someone could answer those "holes" I ask about.
so if someone claimed to be an expert here, what do you believe would give their expertise more validation than any expert answer that you could google on your own?
sounds like that media is too liberal for you.
hey-o
The biggest problem is WC doesn't even understand the questions he's asking which are usually full of false premises. And that, of course, usually isn't isolated to questions about cosmology.
Once again the notion of the void eludes the ignorant. there is no point in trying to discuss this topic with him.
The interpretation of field theory by Einstein was by parametrization of real observable values. Real observable values related to one another that correlate with unmistakable precision trump any notion of incredulity of WC.
Frequency is an inverse function of time. The universe has a time dimension as well that is not static or absolute. Think about it but do not hurt yourself.
Delivers pizzas, changes parts AND punches holes in astrophysics and theoretical cosmology.
He does it all, folks!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
